The Anti-White Party

[IM2]

The PROBLEM (for Black folks) is that the policies that are purportedly for the benefit of Black Folks end up working to their detriment. Consider the percentage of Blacks who are admitted via "diversity" initiatives into elite universities and end up with either a worthless degree in Ethnic Studies or no degree at all.

A government handout is not necessarily a good thing, in the long run.

Whites have got handouts for 243 years.

 

[IM2]

You white boys use percentage only when it supports your arguments. How many Blacks are denied jobs by white peopel and what percentage of businesses are white owned?

"White boys"? II see the racist posters have taken off their gloves and exposing just who they really are. Good to know. Carry on with your racists remarks.

We aren't racists. We're just tired of your racism.

You see, IM2....I'm not racist....but you seem to have to broad brush everyone. Calling me a white boy, is racist...now you know.

I don't broad brush shit. I specifically point out whites who are racists. That's not every white person here. But it is you. And the term white boy does not have a history of racist connotations behind it. Again, you white boys used that term since day 0one to denote your racial superiority. Now that you have been unable to freely call somebody the n word, you want to create a false equivalence by claiming white boy is racist. I know what is and is not racist. I don't need you to tell me.

Let me show you the difference between the n word and white boy.

At no time in the history of this nation has the word ****** as used by whites ever implied anything positive. It is one of the most derogatory descriptors of a human that has ever been created.

Historically the N word has been used by whites to describe blacks as lazy, dumb, uneducated, worthless, scum, less than human and parasites. It has stood for nothing coming out of the mouth of whites but insults and to denigrate black people. For over 240 years this has been the primary use of the word by whites. The word coming from whites has carried a belief of superiority. It was them saying they are better than us just because they exist. The pre school age white child could freely call elderly black men or women who had lived a full life and had wisdom that child may never receive that word and it’s parents said nothing about respecting your elders. The term coming from whites simply means no respect. In addition the word has meant:

• ******, v. To wear out, spoil or destroy.
  
  
• Niggerish, adj. Acting in an indolent and irresponsible manner.
  
  
• Niggerlipping, v. Wetting the end of a cigarette while smoking it.
  
  
• Niggerlover, n. Derogatory term aimed at whites lacking in the necessary loathing of blacks.
  
  
• ****** luck, n. Exceptionally good luck, emphasis on undeserved.
  
  
• ******-flicker, n. A small knife or razor with one side heavily taped to preserve the user's fingers.
  
  
• ****** heaven, n. a designated place, usually the balcony, where blacks were forced to sit, for example, in an integrated movie theater or church.
  
  
• ****** knocker, n. axe handle or weapon made from an axe handle.
  
  
• ****** rich, adj, Deeply in debt but ostentatious.
  
  
• ****** shooter, n. A slingshot.
  
  
• ****** steak, n. a slice of liver or a cheap piece of meat.
  
  
• ****** stick, n. police officer's baton.
  
  
• ****** tip, n. leaving a small tip or no tip in a restaurant.
  
  
• ****** in the woodpile, n. a concealed motive or unknown factor affecting a situation in an adverse way.
  
  
• ****** work, n. Demeaning, menial tasks.(Green, 1984, p. 190)
  
  Dr. David Pilgrim and Dr. Phillip Middleton, “****** and Caricature”

Now show me the equivalent for white boy.

Honesty and YOU have never crossed paths....very sad

Honesty and me are just fine. You are the one with the problem.

 

[katsteve2012]

That's not what these guys say.

On October 24, 2013, the Kellogg Foundation sent out a press release about a report they had done entitled, “The Business Case for Racial Equity”. This was a study done by the Kellogg Foundation, using information it had studied and assessed from the Center for American Progress, National Urban League Policy Institute, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies and the U.S. Department of Justice.

“Striving for racial equity – a world where race is no longer a factor in the distribution of opportunity – is a matter of social justice. But moving toward racial equity can generate significant economic returns as well. When people face barriers to achieving their full potential, the loss of talent, creativity, energy, and productivity is a burden not only for those disadvantaged, but for communities, businesses, governments, and the economy as a whole. Initial research on the magnitude of this burden in the United States (U.S.), as highlighted in this brief, reveals impacts in the trillions of dollars in lost earnings, avoidable public expenditures, and lost economic output.”

The Kellogg Foundation and Altarum Institute

In 2011, DEMOS did a study named “The Racial Wealth Gap, Why Policy Matters”, which discussed the racial wealth gap, the problems associated with it along with solutions and outcomes if the gap did not exist. In this study DEMOS determined that the racial wealth gap was primarily driven by policy decisions.

“The U.S. racial wealth gap is substantial and is driven by public policy decisions. According to our analysis of the SIPP data, in 2011 the median white household had $111,146 in wealth holdings, compared to just $7,113 for the median Black household and $8,348 for the median Latino household. From the continuing impact of redlining on American homeownership to the retreat from desegregation in public education, public policy has shaped these disparities, leaving them impossible to overcome without racially-aware policy change.”

“Eliminating disparities in homeownership rates and returns would substantially reduce the racial wealth gap. While 73 percent of white households owned their own homes in 2011, only 47 percent of Latinos and 45 percent of Blacks were homeowners. In addition, Black and Latino homeowners saw less return in wealth on their investment in homeownership: for every $1 in wealth that accrues to median Black households as a result of homeownership, median white households accrue $1.34; meanwhile for every $1 in wealth that accrues to median Latino households as a result of homeownership, median white households accrue $1.54.”

“If public policy successfully eliminated racial disparities in homeownership rates, so that Blacks and Latinos were as likely as white households to own their homes, median Black wealth would grow $32,113 and the wealth gap between Black and white households would shrink 31 percent. Median Latino wealth would grow $29,213 and the wealth gap with white households would shrink 28 percent.”

“If public policy successfully equalized the return on homeownership, so that Blacks and Latinos saw the same financial gains as whites as a result of being homeowners, median Black wealth would grow $17,113 and the wealth gap between Black and white households would shrink 16 percent. Median Latino wealth would grow $41,652 and the wealth gap with white households would shrink 41 percent.”

“Eliminating disparities in college graduation and the return on a college degree would have a modest direct impact on the racial wealth gap. In 2011, 34 percent of whites had completed four-year college degrees compared to just 20 percent of Blacks and 13 percent of Latinos. In addition, Black and Latino college graduates saw a lower return on their degrees than white graduates: for every $1 in wealth that accrues to median Black households associated with a college degree, median white households accrue $11.49. Meanwhile for every $1 in wealth that accrues to median Latino households associated with a college degree, median white households accrue $13.33.”

“If public policy successfully eliminated racial disparities in college graduation rates, median Black wealth would grow $1,313 and the wealth gap between Black and white households would shrink 1 percent. Median Latino wealth would grow $3,528 and the wealth gap with white households would shrink 3 percent. “

“If public policy successfully equalized the return to college graduation, median Black wealth would grow $10,786 and the wealth gap between Black and white households would shrink 10 percent. Median Latino wealth would grow $5,878 and the wealth gap with white households would shrink 6 percent.”

“Eliminating disparities in income—and even more so, the wealth return on income—would substantially reduce the racial wealth gap. Yet in 2011, the median white household had an income of $50,400 a year compared to just $32,028 for Blacks and $36,840 for Latinos. Black and Latino households also see less of a return than white households on the income they earn: for every $1 in wealth that accrues to median Black households associated with a higher income, median white households accrue $4.06. Meanwhile, for every $1 in wealth that accrues to median Latino households associated with higher income, median white households accrue $5.37.”

“If public policy successfully eliminated racial disparities in income, median Black wealth would grow $11,488 and the wealth gap between Black and white households would shrink 11 percent. Median Latino wealth would grow $8,765 and the wealth gap with white households would shrink 9 percent.”

“If public policy successfully equalized the return to income, so that each additional dollar of income going to Black and Latino households was converted to wealth at the same rate as white households, median Black wealth would grow $44,963 and median Latino wealth would grow $51,552. This would shrink the wealth gap with white households by 43 and 50 percent respectively.”

I'm only going to waste time on one of the things you posted although none are policies.

Yes, there is a differential between homeownership between blacks and whites. The problem comes from the FACT that when compared, regardless of race and only by the merits of the loans, credit scores, steady employment, etc, there was a negligible difference, well within the statistical margin of error.

Look, all you have are your old tired worn hysterical rants and diatribes claiming that the reason for your failures. Curious because we have already determined that you are white, your wife black and you have a mixed-race child.

Grow up.

I've done better than you. And you have determined incorrectly. So get help for your psychosis bitch.

Weak white people join forums like this because they get to talk shit they never would say to a black persons face.

1. I've kicked about a 2 dozen guy's asses in my life. Most of them were blacks, who were too confident for their own good. Never pick a fight with an ex-Army construction worker, who grew up in a tough neighborhood in New York City.

2. Most undefeated boxers have been white. Most of the guys they beat were black.

The Only Boxing Champions in History to Retire Undefeated

#2 of your "narrative" before your "link" is inaccurate. Most of the undefeated fighters on that list are not white. There were a number of Asians and Hispanics on the list from lower weight classes

Of the ones who fought in the 1800's and early 1900's most white fighters "drew the color line" and refused to fight black fighters, so therefore, "most" of the fighters that they defeated WERE NOT black as you claim. (wishful thinking?).

Of the undefeated white fighters on the list from the modern era, the only two who fought credible opposition from all over the world, were Joe Calzaghe(who genuinely did) and Rocky Marciano, who is a entirely different story.

Marcianos most noteworthy victories were wins over Archie Moore, Joe Louis, Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles.

Every one of them were at least 10 years past their prime when they fought Marciano. Moore and Charles actually fought their prime years as light heavyweights.

Outside of those 4, the vast majority of the rest of Marcianos 49 opponents were white.

Just look at who is on his record by name.

Marciano only fought for 8 years, was matched carefully, and conveniently retired before facing young, up and coming legitimate opposition like Floyd Patterson, Sonny Liston, Cleveland Williams and Eddie Machen, all of whom were top notch black contenders that he could have faced prior to retiring at the age of 28.

Had Marciano fought in the 70's during the careers of Ali, Frazier, Foreman. and Holmes, he would have been tested way beyond his limits.

Even by contenders that never won the title during that decade.

As for you "kicking 2 dozen mens asses",whether they were black or not, sounds like more wishful . thinking.

Most of those who actually had done so would not brag about it to a group of strangers on the internet.

 

[katsteve2012]

Wrong answer junior. And Brandon Gaille is not Health and Human services.

Now while you want to talk shit, you don't want to talk about how poverty impacts race.

3 times the number of blacks live in poverty than whites. 1 out of every 3 blacks people live at or below poverty in this country. 1 out of every 9 whites. And why is that? Not because blacks don't want to work, your white asses are telling us that black unemploymemnt is the lowest in history and at 6 percent, that means 94 percent of all blacks are working. So if 9 out of 10 blacks are working why is it that 6 out of those 10 working blacks live in poverty?

You want to argue stats chump, so now you're going to get taught a lesson.

In 2011, DEMOS did a study named “The Racial Wealth Gap, Why Policy Matters”, which discussed the racial wealth gap, the problems associated with it along with solutions and outcomes if the gap did not exist. In this study DEMOS determined that the racial wealth gap was primarily driven by policy decisions.

“The U.S. racial wealth gap is substantial and is driven by public policy decisions. According to our analysis of the SIPP data, in 2011 the median white household had $111,146 in wealth holdings, compared to just $7,113 for the median Black household and $8,348 for the median Latino household. From the continuing impact of redlining on American homeownership to the retreat from desegregation in public education, public policy has shaped these disparities, leaving them impossible to overcome without racially-aware policy change.”

So here we have it. White racist public policy is why so many blacks are in poverty. That means blacks are on welfare because of racist public policy. Why are so many whites getting food stamps and assistance junior. Public policy has not hampered whites near as much. Whites live below the national poverty rate and their unemployment is below the national average. White median income is above the national average, yet more whites get food stamps. Use credible sources if you want to take me on. Using other racists isn't going to get the job done boy.

Your first chart is a decade old. It also shows that the percentage of white receiving welfare is 48.5%.

Mine, from two years ago shows:

Welfare Demographics
The following percentages are recipients of welfare based on race.

• White – 38.8%
• Black – 39.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Asian – 2.4%
• Other – 3.3%

So once again you're wrong. Quit lying, your life will be a lot easier.

Not wrong. So you are the one lying to yourself and the sooner you stop, the better off you'll be. Because as I said when you add farm and corporate welfare, which is welfare, more whites are getting government assistance.

YOU got government assistance from me, when I spent 5 years of my life in the Army, protecting your ungrateful, racist ass.

Now you need to come up with some way to pay me back for that, which was a long tough ordeal.

YOU OWE ME!

 

[IM2]

I'm only going to waste time on one of the things you posted although none are policies.

Yes, there is a differential between homeownership between blacks and whites. The problem comes from the FACT that when compared, regardless of race and only by the merits of the loans, credit scores, steady employment, etc, there was a negligible difference, well within the statistical margin of error.

Look, all you have are your old tired worn hysterical rants and diatribes claiming that the reason for your failures. Curious because we have already determined that you are white, your wife black and you have a mixed-race child.

Grow up.

I've done better than you. And you have determined incorrectly. So get help for your psychosis bitch.

Weak white people join forums like this because they get to talk shit they never would say to a black persons face.

1. I've kicked about a 2 dozen guy's asses in my life. Most of them were blacks, who were too confident for their own good. Never pick a fight with an ex-Army construction worker, who grew up in a tough neighborhood in New York City.

2. Most undefeated boxers have been white. Most of the guys they beat were black.

The Only Boxing Champions in History to Retire Undefeated

#2 of your "narrative" before your "link" is inaccurate. Most of the undefeated fighters on that list are not white. There were a number of Asians and Hispanics on the list from lower weight classes

Of the ones who fought in the 1800's and early 1900's most white fighters "drew the color line" and refused to fight black fighters, so therefore, "most" of the fighters that they defeated WERE NOT black as you claim. (wishful thinking?).

Of the undefeated white fighters on the list from the modern era, the only two who fought credible opposition from all over the world, were Joe Calzaghe(who genuinely did) and Rocky Marciano, who is a entirely different story.

Marcianos most noteworthy victories were wins over Archie Moore, Joe Louis, Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles.

Every one of them were at least 10 years past their prime when they fought Marciano. Moore and Charles actually fought their prime years as light heavyweights.

Outside of those 4, the vast majority of the rest of Marcianos 49 opponents were white.

Just look at who is on his record by name.

Marciano only fought for 8 years, was matched carefully, and conveniently retired before facing young, up and coming legitimate opposition like Floyd Patterson, Sonny Liston, Cleveland Williams and Eddie Machen, all of whom were top notch black contenders that he could have faced prior to retiring at the age of 28.

Had Marciano fought in the 70's during the careers of Ali, Frazier, Foreman. and Holmes, he would have been tested way beyond his limits.

Even by contenders that never won the title during that decade.

As for you "kicking 2 dozen mens asses",whether they were black or not, sounds like more wishful . thinking.

Most of those who actually had done so would not brag about it to a group of strangers on the internet.

Protectionist,

I wrestled competitively in High school and college. I won an AAU title. I beat plenty of whites in the process. New York City doesn't have the patent on toughness. It's the biggest city in America, that means it has the most punks in America. So like I said, forums like this allow whites to say things to us, you would never say in our faces. The universally acclaimed greatest boxer of all time is black, so just deal with that and be quiet.

 

[IM2]

Wrong answer junior. And Brandon Gaille is not Health and Human services.

Now while you want to talk shit, you don't want to talk about how poverty impacts race.

3 times the number of blacks live in poverty than whites. 1 out of every 3 blacks people live at or below poverty in this country. 1 out of every 9 whites. And why is that? Not because blacks don't want to work, your white asses are telling us that black unemploymemnt is the lowest in history and at 6 percent, that means 94 percent of all blacks are working. So if 9 out of 10 blacks are working why is it that 6 out of those 10 working blacks live in poverty?

You want to argue stats chump, so now you're going to get taught a lesson.

In 2011, DEMOS did a study named “The Racial Wealth Gap, Why Policy Matters”, which discussed the racial wealth gap, the problems associated with it along with solutions and outcomes if the gap did not exist. In this study DEMOS determined that the racial wealth gap was primarily driven by policy decisions.

“The U.S. racial wealth gap is substantial and is driven by public policy decisions. According to our analysis of the SIPP data, in 2011 the median white household had $111,146 in wealth holdings, compared to just $7,113 for the median Black household and $8,348 for the median Latino household. From the continuing impact of redlining on American homeownership to the retreat from desegregation in public education, public policy has shaped these disparities, leaving them impossible to overcome without racially-aware policy change.”

So here we have it. White racist public policy is why so many blacks are in poverty. That means blacks are on welfare because of racist public policy. Why are so many whites getting food stamps and assistance junior. Public policy has not hampered whites near as much. Whites live below the national poverty rate and their unemployment is below the national average. White median income is above the national average, yet more whites get food stamps. Use credible sources if you want to take me on. Using other racists isn't going to get the job done boy.

Your first chart is a decade old. It also shows that the percentage of white receiving welfare is 48.5%.

Mine, from two years ago shows:

Welfare Demographics
The following percentages are recipients of welfare based on race.

• White – 38.8%
• Black – 39.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Asian – 2.4%
• Other – 3.3%

So once again you're wrong. Quit lying, your life will be a lot easier.

Not wrong. So you are the one lying to yourself and the sooner you stop, the better off you'll be. Because as I said when you add farm and corporate welfare, which is welfare, more whites are getting government assistance.

YOU got government assistance from me, when I spent 5 years of my life in the Army, protecting your ungrateful, racist ass.

Now you need to come up with some way to pay me back for that, which was a long tough ordeal.

YOU OWE ME!

That fool fought to protect US corporate foreign interests. Go ask the CEO of Exxon for reparations.

 

[protectionist]

There is no anti white party. And what you racists don't get is that loving your race is not the problem. It is when you exclude other races that it becomes a problem. And that what you racists want to do.

You just KNEW THE most racist, anti-white member on this site would chime in!

I am not anti white. Anti racist is not anti white. Unless you believe that whites are inherently racist.

No one believes you.

No one gives a fuck what you think faggot.

I care what he thinks. YOU are the one nobody cares about.

 

[protectionist]

I'm only going to waste time on one of the things you posted although none are policies.

Yes, there is a differential between homeownership between blacks and whites. The problem comes from the FACT that when compared, regardless of race and only by the merits of the loans, credit scores, steady employment, etc, there was a negligible difference, well within the statistical margin of error.

Look, all you have are your old tired worn hysterical rants and diatribes claiming that the reason for your failures. Curious because we have already determined that you are white, your wife black and you have a mixed-race child.

Grow up.

I've done better than you. And you have determined incorrectly. So get help for your psychosis bitch.

Weak white people join forums like this because they get to talk shit they never would say to a black persons face.

1. I've kicked about a 2 dozen guy's asses in my life. Most of them were blacks, who were too confident for their own good. Never pick a fight with an ex-Army construction worker, who grew up in a tough neighborhood in New York City.

2. Most undefeated boxers have been white. Most of the guys they beat were black.

The Only Boxing Champions in History to Retire Undefeated

#2 of your "narrative" before your "link" is inaccurate. Most of the undefeated fighters on that list are not white. There were a number of Asians and Hispanics on the list from lower weight classes

Of the ones who fought in the 1800's and early 1900's most white fighters "drew the color line" and refused to fight black fighters, so therefore, "most" of the fighters that they defeated WERE NOT black as you claim. (wishful thinking?).

Of the undefeated white fighters on the list from the modern era, the only two who fought credible opposition from all over the world, were Joe Calzaghe(who genuinely did) and Rocky Marciano, who is a entirely different story.

Marcianos most noteworthy victories were wins over Archie Moore, Joe Louis, Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles.

Every one of them were at least 10 years past their prime when they fought Marciano. Moore and Charles actually fought their prime years as light heavyweights.

Outside of those 4, the vast majority of the rest of Marcianos 49 opponents were white.

Just look at who is on his record by name.

Marciano only fought for 8 years, was matched carefully, and conveniently retired before facing young, up and coming legitimate opposition like Floyd Patterson, Sonny Liston, Cleveland Williams and Eddie Machen, all of whom were top notch black contenders that he could have faced prior to retiring at the age of 28.

Had Marciano fought in the 70's during the careers of Ali, Frazier, Foreman. and Holmes, he would have been tested way beyond his limits.

Even by contenders that never won the title during that decade.

As for you "kicking 2 dozen mens asses",whether they were black or not, sounds like more wishful . thinking.

Most of those who actually had done so would not brag about it to a group of strangers on the internet.

What a pathetic waste of time and internet space, in a psychotic struggle to preserve a myth of black superiority in boxing. Even more of a waste being that you failed. Anyone going through this list of undefeated boxers can clearly see that the majority of them are white(mostly Europeans).

As for Ali, Frazier, and Foreman, all of them were not undefeated, and some of their defeats even came against low ranked fighters (Ali & Leon Spinks). Ali was a great showman, but, as a boxer, was not as good as Marciano, or any on the undefeated list.

As for the fighters what fought in the 19th century, they fought anybody, and they routinely fought fights exceeding 20 rounds, one as long as 64 rounds. The fighters you mentioned never underwent that kind of hardship, and it's questionable if they could have done it even for one single match.

As for what I've done. Nothing could be less relevant to me than what it "sounds like" to you.

 

[katsteve2012]

I've done better than you. And you have determined incorrectly. So get help for your psychosis bitch.

Weak white people join forums like this because they get to talk shit they never would say to a black persons face.

1. I've kicked about a 2 dozen guy's asses in my life. Most of them were blacks, who were too confident for their own good. Never pick a fight with an ex-Army construction worker, who grew up in a tough neighborhood in New York City.

2. Most undefeated boxers have been white. Most of the guys they beat were black.

The Only Boxing Champions in History to Retire Undefeated

#2 of your "narrative" before your "link" is inaccurate. Most of the undefeated fighters on that list are not white. There were a number of Asians and Hispanics on the list from lower weight classes

Of the ones who fought in the 1800's and early 1900's most white fighters "drew the color line" and refused to fight black fighters, so therefore, "most" of the fighters that they defeated WERE NOT black as you claim. (wishful thinking?).

Of the undefeated white fighters on the list from the modern era, the only two who fought credible opposition from all over the world, were Joe Calzaghe(who genuinely did) and Rocky Marciano, who is a entirely different story.

Marcianos most noteworthy victories were wins over Archie Moore, Joe Louis, Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles.

Every one of them were at least 10 years past their prime when they fought Marciano. Moore and Charles actually fought their prime years as light heavyweights.

Outside of those 4, the vast majority of the rest of Marcianos 49 opponents were white.

Just look at who is on his record by name.

Marciano only fought for 8 years, was matched carefully, and conveniently retired before facing young, up and coming legitimate opposition like Floyd Patterson, Sonny Liston, Cleveland Williams and Eddie Machen, all of whom were top notch black contenders that he could have faced prior to retiring at the age of 28.

Had Marciano fought in the 70's during the careers of Ali, Frazier, Foreman. and Holmes, he would have been tested way beyond his limits.

Even by contenders that never won the title during that decade.

As for you "kicking 2 dozen mens asses",whether they were black or not, sounds like more wishful . thinking.

Most of those who actually had done so would not brag about it to a group of strangers on the internet.

What a pathetic waste of time and internet space, in a psychotic struggle to preserve a myth of black superiority in boxing. Even more of a waste being that you failed. Anyone going through this list of undefeated boxers can clearly see that the majority of them are white(mostly Europeans).

As for Ali, Frazier, and Foreman, all of them were not undefeated, and some of their defeats even came against low ranked fighters (Ali & Leon Spinks). Ali was a great showman, but, as a boxer, was not as good as Marciano, or any on the undefeated list.

As for the fighters what fought in the 19th century, they fought anybody, and they routinely fought fights exceeding 20 rounds, one as long as 64 rounds. The fighters you mentioned never underwent that
kind of hardship, and it's questionable if they could have done it even for one single match.

As for what I've done. Nothing could be less relevant to me than what it "sounds like" to you.

You've proven several things here, which to me were as follows.

1. You know absolutely nothing about the sport of boxing, and likely never laced on a pair of gloves.

2. Championship calibre fighters are rated based on their longevity, quality of opposition and their ability to adjust to any type of style, and win.

3. The white fighters of the 19th and early 30th century reigned supreme, only because of one reason.

THEY DIDN'T FIGHT ALL COMERS, YOU DUMBASS!!

They drew the color line and refused to fight black fighters, STUPID.

Back in 1908, Jack Johnson(the first black heavyweight champion) had to literally chase and humiliate chickenshit Tommy Burns all over the world to get a chance for a title shot.


And when Burns found his balls and signed to fight Johnson, he was beaten like a dirty rug.....and afterward there were race riots all over America over a white fighter getting his ass kicked in public by a better fighter who happened to be black.


Then, to add further embarrassment, they dug up Jim Jeffries to attempt to "reclaim the honor of the white race", by challenging Johnson.

And then he was beaten to a pulp....yet again more race riots ensued by demoralized, white supremacist trash like you.

If you are retarded enough to actually believe that Marciano was really better than Ali, Holmes or Frazier, you are a mentally impaired nut who belongs in an asylum.

And this has nothing to do with race, but has everything to do with skill.


I could go on, but would be wasting board space by dignifying an idiot like you.

 

[IM2]

Ernie Shavers would have knocked Marciano the fuck out. And that's no disrespect for Shavers, that's just how hard the heavyweight division was in the late 60's-early to mid 70's.

 

[protectionist]

Weak white people join forums like this because they get to talk shit they never would say to a black persons face.

1. I've kicked about a 2 dozen guy's asses in my life. Most of them were blacks, who were too confident for their own good. Never pick a fight with an ex-Army construction worker, who grew up in a tough neighborhood in New York City.

2. Most undefeated boxers have been white. Most of the guys they beat were black.

The Only Boxing Champions in History to Retire Undefeated

#2 of your "narrative" before your "link" is inaccurate. Most of the undefeated fighters on that list are not white. There were a number of Asians and Hispanics on the list from lower weight classes

Of the ones who fought in the 1800's and early 1900's most white fighters "drew the color line" and refused to fight black fighters, so therefore, "most" of the fighters that they defeated WERE NOT black as you claim. (wishful thinking?).

Of the undefeated white fighters on the list from the modern era, the only two who fought credible opposition from all over the world, were Joe Calzaghe(who genuinely did) and Rocky Marciano, who is a entirely different story.

Marcianos most noteworthy victories were wins over Archie Moore, Joe Louis, Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles.

Every one of them were at least 10 years past their prime when they fought Marciano. Moore and Charles actually fought their prime years as light heavyweights.

Outside of those 4, the vast majority of the rest of Marcianos 49 opponents were white.

Just look at who is on his record by name.

Marciano only fought for 8 years, was matched carefully, and conveniently retired before facing young, up and coming legitimate opposition like Floyd Patterson, Sonny Liston, Cleveland Williams and Eddie Machen, all of whom were top notch black contenders that he could have faced prior to retiring at the age of 28.

Had Marciano fought in the 70's during the careers of Ali, Frazier, Foreman. and Holmes, he would have been tested way beyond his limits.

Even by contenders that never won the title during that decade.

As for you "kicking 2 dozen mens asses",whether they were black or not, sounds like more wishful . thinking.

Most of those who actually had done so would not brag about it to a group of strangers on the internet.

What a pathetic waste of time and internet space, in a psychotic struggle to preserve a myth of black superiority in boxing. Even more of a waste being that you failed. Anyone going through this list of undefeated boxers can clearly see that the majority of them are white(mostly Europeans).

As for Ali, Frazier, and Foreman, all of them were not undefeated, and some of their defeats even came against low ranked fighters (Ali & Leon Spinks). Ali was a great showman, but, as a boxer, was not as good as Marciano, or any on the undefeated list.

As for the fighters what fought in the 19th century, they fought anybody, and they routinely fought fights exceeding 20 rounds, one as long as 64 rounds. The fighters you mentioned never underwent that
kind of hardship, and it's questionable if they could have done it even for one single match.

As for what I've done. Nothing could be less relevant to me than what it "sounds like" to you.

You've proven several things here, which to me were as follows.

1. You know absolutely nothing about the sport of boxing, and likely never laced on a pair of gloves.

2. Championship calibre fighters are rated based on their longevity, quality of opposition and their ability to adjust to any type of style, and win.

3. The white fighters of the 19th and early 30th century reigned supreme, only because of one reason.

THEY DIDN'T FIGHT ALL COMERS, YOU DUMBASS!!

They drew the color line and refused to fight black fighters, STUPID.

Back in 1908, Jack Johnson(the first black heavyweight champion) had to literally chase and humiliate chickenshit Tommy Burns all over the world to get a chance for a title shot.


And when Burns found his balls and signed to fight Johnson, he was beaten like a dirty rug.....and afterward there were race riots all over America over a white fighter getting his ass kicked in public by a better fighter who happened to be black.


Then, to add further embarrassment, they dug up Jim Jeffries to attempt to "reclaim the honor of the white race", by challenging Johnson.

And then he was beaten to a pulp....yet again more race riots ensued by demoralized, white supremacist trash like you.

If you are retarded enough to actually believe that Marciano was really better than Ali, Holmes or Frazier, you are a mentally impaired nut who belongs in an asylum.

And this has nothing to do with race, but has everything to do with skill.


I could go on, but would be wasting board space by dignifying an idiot like you.

That's what I would be doing talking to an idiot like you. I was only responding to a short little post by IM2, and you come bursting in here, with your long diatribes that you think change everything. They change nothing.

I posted the FACT that most (8) of the 13 undefeated boxers were white, and you act like the world is ending, throwing everything but the kitchen sink in here trying to refute what you cannot do. LOL.More time wasted on you.

Holmes ? Ha. I've got one word for him - DODGE!

 

[protectionist]

Ernie Shavers would have knocked Marciano the fuck out. And that's no disrespect for Shavers, that's just how hard the heavyweight division was in the late 60's-early to mid 70's.

It wasn't tough at all. Show me one of those 60 s boxers who ever busted his guts through 64 rounds of a single fight, or even 20 rounds, as 19th century boxers did.
Ally you're doing here is posting what you'd like to believe, and making a fool out of yourself.
.

 

[protectionist]

Wrong answer junior. And Brandon Gaille is not Health and Human services.

Now while you want to talk shit, you don't want to talk about how poverty impacts race.

3 times the number of blacks live in poverty than whites. 1 out of every 3 blacks people live at or below poverty in this country. 1 out of every 9 whites. And why is that? Not because blacks don't want to work, your white asses are telling us that black unemploymemnt is the lowest in history and at 6 percent, that means 94 percent of all blacks are working. So if 9 out of 10 blacks are working why is it that 6 out of those 10 working blacks live in poverty?

You want to argue stats chump, so now you're going to get taught a lesson.

In 2011, DEMOS did a study named “The Racial Wealth Gap, Why Policy Matters”, which discussed the racial wealth gap, the problems associated with it along with solutions and outcomes if the gap did not exist. In this study DEMOS determined that the racial wealth gap was primarily driven by policy decisions.

“The U.S. racial wealth gap is substantial and is driven by public policy decisions. According to our analysis of the SIPP data, in 2011 the median white household had $111,146 in wealth holdings, compared to just $7,113 for the median Black household and $8,348 for the median Latino household. From the continuing impact of redlining on American homeownership to the retreat from desegregation in public education, public policy has shaped these disparities, leaving them impossible to overcome without racially-aware policy change.”

So here we have it. White racist public policy is why so many blacks are in poverty. That means blacks are on welfare because of racist public policy. Why are so many whites getting food stamps and assistance junior. Public policy has not hampered whites near as much. Whites live below the national poverty rate and their unemployment is below the national average. White median income is above the national average, yet more whites get food stamps. Use credible sources if you want to take me on. Using other racists isn't going to get the job done boy.

Your first chart is a decade old. It also shows that the percentage of white receiving welfare is 48.5%.

Mine, from two years ago shows:

Welfare Demographics
The following percentages are recipients of welfare based on race.

• White – 38.8%
• Black – 39.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Asian – 2.4%
• Other – 3.3%

So once again you're wrong. Quit lying, your life will be a lot easier.

Not wrong. So you are the one lying to yourself and the sooner you stop, the better off you'll be. Because as I said when you add farm and corporate welfare, which is welfare, more whites are getting government assistance.

YOU got government assistance from me, when I spent 5 years of my life in the Army, protecting your ungrateful, racist ass.

Now you need to come up with some way to pay me back for that, which was a long tough ordeal.

YOU OWE ME!

That fool fought to protect US corporate foreign interests. Go ask the CEO of Exxon for reparations.

EVERYBODY who served in the US military, does that to protect EVERYBODY in America, you ass. If they didn't, foreign countries would be here walking all over you.

 

[protectionist]

The PROBLEM (for Black folks) is that the policies that are purportedly for the benefit of Black Folks end up working to their detriment. Consider the percentage of Blacks who are admitted via "diversity" initiatives into elite universities and end up with either a worthless degree in Ethnic Studies or no degree at all.

A government handout is not necessarily a good thing, in the long run.

Whites have got handouts for 243 years.

Not including 1964 - 2020.

 

[protectionist]

I've done better than you. And you have determined incorrectly. So get help for your psychosis bitch.

Weak white people join forums like this because they get to talk shit they never would say to a black persons face.

1. I've kicked about a 2 dozen guy's asses in my life. Most of them were blacks, who were too confident for their own good. Never pick a fight with an ex-Army construction worker, who grew up in a tough neighborhood in New York City.

2. Most undefeated boxers have been white. Most of the guys they beat were black.

The Only Boxing Champions in History to Retire Undefeated

#2 of your "narrative" before your "link" is inaccurate. Most of the undefeated fighters on that list are not white. There were a number of Asians and Hispanics on the list from lower weight classes

Of the ones who fought in the 1800's and early 1900's most white fighters "drew the color line" and refused to fight black fighters, so therefore, "most" of the fighters that they defeated WERE NOT black as you claim. (wishful thinking?).

Of the undefeated white fighters on the list from the modern era, the only two who fought credible opposition from all over the world, were Joe Calzaghe(who genuinely did) and Rocky Marciano, who is a entirely different story.

Marcianos most noteworthy victories were wins over Archie Moore, Joe Louis, Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles.

Every one of them were at least 10 years past their prime when they fought Marciano. Moore and Charles actually fought their prime years as light heavyweights.

Outside of those 4, the vast majority of the rest of Marcianos 49 opponents were white.

Just look at who is on his record by name.

Marciano only fought for 8 years, was matched carefully, and conveniently retired before facing young, up and coming legitimate opposition like Floyd Patterson, Sonny Liston, Cleveland Williams and Eddie Machen, all of whom were top notch black contenders that he could have faced prior to retiring at the age of 28.

Had Marciano fought in the 70's during the careers of Ali, Frazier, Foreman. and Holmes, he would have been tested way beyond his limits.

Even by contenders that never won the title during that decade.

As for you "kicking 2 dozen mens asses",whether they were black or not, sounds like more wishful . thinking.

Most of those who actually had done so would not brag about it to a group of strangers on the internet.

Protectionist,

I wrestled competitively in High school and college. I won an AAU title. I beat plenty of whites in the process. New York City doesn't have the patent on toughness. It's the biggest city in America, that means it has the most punks in America. So like I said, forums like this allow whites to say things to us, you would never say in our faces. The universally acclaimed greatest boxer of all time is black, so just deal with that and be quiet.

Ha ha ha. Oh this has got to be a good one
I can't wait to hear it. So who exactly is this so-called "universally acclaimed greatest boxer of all time." ?

PS - it better be one of the 13 guys on my undefeated boxers list. You look like like a big enough stupid fool already.

PPS - any ordinary 18 year old kid in New York City would make mincemeat out of you, in 10 seconds, Mr AAU.
First, while you're blocking your face, he'd punch you hard below your belt. In the street, you don't get time to recover from a low blow.
Then, while you're doubled over, he'd kick you in the face with his steel toe shoes.
Then, he'd bust open your face by head butting you, grab you around your hips, lift you up high, and smash you to the ground.
Then he'd smash your face to the hard concrete.
Note,:. If you ever got a chance to throw any punches at him, he'd knock your hands down with a 2 arm roll, leaving what's left of your face, to be battered with short, stiff punches.
If he's been in the US military, he'd flip you like a pancake, with the standard hip to hip flip.

Reason why New Yorkers are so tough and brash, is because NYC has the highest population density of any American city. 6 story buildings strung together for miles. The streets are always filled with people. Fights are all the time. Get it ?

 

[protectionist]

Wrong answer junior. And Brandon Gaille is not Health and Human services.

Now while you want to talk shit, you don't want to talk about how poverty impacts race.

3 times the number of blacks live in poverty than whites. 1 out of every 3 blacks people live at or below poverty in this country. 1 out of every 9 whites. And why is that? Not because blacks don't want to work, your white asses are telling us that black unemploymemnt is the lowest in history and at 6 percent, that means 94 percent of all blacks are working. So if 9 out of 10 blacks are working why is it that 6 out of those 10 working blacks live in poverty?

You want to argue stats chump, so now you're going to get taught a lesson.

In 2011, DEMOS did a study named “The Racial Wealth Gap, Why Policy Matters”, which discussed the racial wealth gap, the problems associated with it along with solutions and outcomes if the gap did not exist. In this study DEMOS determined that the racial wealth gap was primarily driven by policy decisions.

“The U.S. racial wealth gap is substantial and is driven by public policy decisions. According to our analysis of the SIPP data, in 2011 the median white household had $111,146 in wealth holdings, compared to just $7,113 for the median Black household and $8,348 for the median Latino household. From the continuing impact of redlining on American homeownership to the retreat from desegregation in public education, public policy has shaped these disparities, leaving them impossible to overcome without racially-aware policy change.”

So here we have it. White racist public policy is why so many blacks are in poverty. That means blacks are on welfare because of racist public policy. Why are so many whites getting food stamps and assistance junior. Public policy has not hampered whites near as much. Whites live below the national poverty rate and their unemployment is below the national average. White median income is above the national average, yet more whites get food stamps. Use credible sources if you want to take me on. Using other racists isn't going to get the job done boy.

Your first chart is a decade old. It also shows that the percentage of white receiving welfare is 48.5%.

Mine, from two years ago shows:

Welfare Demographics
The following percentages are recipients of welfare based on race.

• White – 38.8%
• Black – 39.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Asian – 2.4%
• Other – 3.3%

So once again you're wrong. Quit lying, your life will be a lot easier.

Not wrong. So you are the one lying to yourself and the sooner you stop, the better off you'll be. Because as I said when you add farm and corporate welfare, which is welfare, more whites are getting government assistance.

YOU got government assistance from me, when I spent 5 years of my life in the Army, protecting your ungrateful, racist ass.

Now you need to come up with some way to pay me back for that, which was a long tough ordeal.

YOU OWE ME!

YOU OWE ME, too.

 

[protectionist]

Wrong answer junior. And Brandon Gaille is not Health and Human services.

Now while you want to talk shit, you don't want to talk about how poverty impacts race.

3 times the number of blacks live in poverty than whites. 1 out of every 3 blacks people live at or below poverty in this country. 1 out of every 9 whites. And why is that? Not because blacks don't want to work, your white asses are telling us that black unemploymemnt is the lowest in history and at 6 percent, that means 94 percent of all blacks are working. So if 9 out of 10 blacks are working why is it that 6 out of those 10 working blacks live in poverty?

You want to argue stats chump, so now you're going to get taught a lesson.

In 2011, DEMOS did a study named “The Racial Wealth Gap, Why Policy Matters”, which discussed the racial wealth gap, the problems associated with it along with solutions and outcomes if the gap did not exist. In this study DEMOS determined that the racial wealth gap was primarily driven by policy decisions.

“The U.S. racial wealth gap is substantial and is driven by public policy decisions. According to our analysis of the SIPP data, in 2011 the median white household had $111,146 in wealth holdings, compared to just $7,113 for the median Black household and $8,348 for the median Latino household. From the continuing impact of redlining on American homeownership to the retreat from desegregation in public education, public policy has shaped these disparities, leaving them impossible to overcome without racially-aware policy change.”

So here we have it. White racist public policy is why so many blacks are in poverty. That means blacks are on welfare because of racist public policy. Why are so many whites getting food stamps and assistance junior. Public policy has not hampered whites near as much. Whites live below the national poverty rate and their unemployment is below the national average. White median income is above the national average, yet more whites get food stamps. Use credible sources if you want to take me on. Using other racists isn't going to get the job done boy.

Your first chart is a decade old. It also shows that the percentage of white receiving welfare is 48.5%.

Mine, from two years ago shows:

Welfare Demographics
The following percentages are recipients of welfare based on race.

• White – 38.8%
• Black – 39.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Asian – 2.4%
• Other – 3.3%

So once again you're wrong. Quit lying, your life will be a lot easier.

Not wrong. So you are the one lying to yourself and the sooner you stop, the better off you'll be. Because as I said when you add farm and corporate welfare, which is welfare, more whites are getting government assistance.

You can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong, you could only say that I'm "not wrong". That's true, I am right, so how am I lying to myself?

Specifically, what is corporate welfare? Again with your ignorant statement, "more whites are getting government assistance". Well, boohoo. There are more than five times as many whites as there are blacks.

You think it is a contest as to who gets the MOST taxpayer money, whites or blacks. Why do you not push for blacks receiving LESS of other peoples money rather than the more?

Because I am not wrong. We have paid for everything you have white boy. Our taxes have gone to improving white communities, whites schools and white businesses. We pay for white farm subsidies and white corporate welfare. So then time for you to get out of your little white delusion of grandeur and face that face that whites continue to get more handed to them by the government than anyone else and don't give me that excuse about how thee is five times more of you. You support trump because he promises to give whites more. So you need to be quiet dumb ass, because you only prove how deep the psychosis runs especially in white males.

Trump has given blacks more. The lowest unemployment rate for them in US history + the highest median wage, in US history. You're Welcome.

 

[bodecea]

I'd LIKE to say I'm surprised, but unfortunately I'm NOT. I'm white, I'm proud of it because that's the way I was BORN. I'm a triple threat to the loony libs - I'm a white male, heterosexual AND conservative.

and a solid victim?

 

[protectionist]

I'd LIKE to say I'm surprised, but unfortunately I'm NOT. I'm white, I'm proud of it because that's the way I was BORN. I'm a triple threat to the loony libs - I'm a white male, heterosexual AND conservative.

and a solid victim?

Yes, of Affirmative Action, as are all white males in America (and their white female family members).

 

[bodecea]

The contention that the Democratic Party is hostile to whites is absurd. Neither in my own personal experience nor in my observation of life in the U.S. have I ever seen "hostility" toward white people, much less on the part of one of the two national political parties, and I've been white all of my life. Also, look at all of those white faces on Capitol Hill alone. Take a look at state legislatures, as well.

The white people who whine about somebody being "anti-white" generally are those who refuse to assimilate into the U.S. population and interact with people of other backgrounds unless the people of other backgrounds are in some service role.

You must be a Prog Socialist blue blood living in the main line of some city. Mansion with a wall and security with gun. You can rough it tonight by drinking domestic champagne instead of expensive French champagne. Show them who the power is!

Shrill and frightened?