Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Fine. Your "explanations":Okay, simple denial added to your list of tools.. mea culpa.Faun is telling you true -> "not a white issue." It's not the particular intent or "interest" of any old "white person" that matters. The effect of our majority as a whole is racist. That's a given.
No, it's not.
Institution racism lives. One can't just wish it away.
You are ignoring generations of work and laws and changing of culture. You are "wishing that away" because it undermines your little fantasy of Evul Wasism.
It's what "tyranny of the majority" literally means.
No, it is not.
Sure. If you cut the explanations, I guess you can pretend that.
Fucking racist, there's no such "white interest" because there are also whites in areas where casinos exist who want the casinos.And you fucked up royally as usual because that's not a white issue.So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
A conflict in interests does not require that.
American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
The few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time by comparison to what is in Vegas.
...
Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
That is what Grumble really can't deal with. The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
lol!!!
And, he can't see how racist his position is.
In this example it is. There is a conflict between what the whites in the area, as as group want, and the indians in the area, as a group want.
You are the one twisted into a logic pretzel by your refusal to see something simple and easy.
Fine. Your "explanations":Okay, simple denial added to your list of tools.. mea culpa.Faun is telling you true -> "not a white issue." It's not the particular intent or "interest" of any old "white person" that matters. The effect of our majority as a whole is racist. That's a given.
No, it's not.
Institution racism lives. One can't just wish it away.
You are ignoring generations of work and laws and changing of culture. You are "wishing that away" because it undermines your little fantasy of Evul Wasism.
It's what "tyranny of the majority" literally means.
No, it is not.
Sure. If you cut the explanations, I guess you can pretend that.
"You are ignoring generations of work and laws and changing of culture."
Credit due for this tool as well - waving frantically at nothing in particular, mea culpa.
"because it undermines your little fantasy of Evul Wasism."
Okay, add name calling if you must. May as well add childish projection now as well. Mea culpa..
So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
A conflict in interests does not require that.
American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
The few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time by comparison to what is in Vegas.
...
Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
That is what Grumble really can't deal with. The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
lol!!!
And, he can't see how racist his position is.
He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
I certainly would.
But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
At least that's the case in my state. When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
Horrors.You support minorities organizing into groups, to pursue and advance their own interests.
Liar. Based on their majority status. You pretending to be that thick will remain laughable no matter how often you repeat this crap.You have different standards for whites, based on race.
So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
A conflict in interests does not require that.
American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
The few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time by comparison to what is in Vegas.
...
Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
That is what Grumble really can't deal with. The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
lol!!!
And, he can't see how racist his position is.
He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
I certainly would.
But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
At least that's the case in my state. When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
Horrors.You support minorities organizing into groups, to pursue and advance their own interests.
Liar. Based on their majority status. You pretending to be that thick will remain laughable no matter how often you repeat this crap.You have different standards for whites, based on race.
So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
A conflict in interests does not require that.
American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
The few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time by comparison to what is in Vegas.
...
Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
That is what Grumble really can't deal with. The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
lol!!!
And, he can't see how racist his position is.
He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
I certainly would.
But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
At least that's the case in my state. When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
The only "white interests" I'm aware of are white supremacist interests. If my not crediting them with that shared "interest" is what's been pissing you off so much here just say so.Horrors.You support minorities organizing into groups, to pursue and advance their own interests.
Liar. Based on their majority status. You pretending to be that thick will remain laughable no matter how often you repeat this crap.You have different standards for whites, based on race.
LOL!!!
A thin rationalization for your race based rules.
SO, are you ready to admit that your pretense of not knowing what "White interests" were, was to hide your hostility and opposition to them?
So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
A conflict in interests does not require that.
American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
The few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time by comparison to what is in Vegas.
...
Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
That is what Grumble really can't deal with. The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
lol!!!
And, he can't see how racist his position is.
He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
I certainly would.
But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
At least that's the case in my state. When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.
2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.
As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?
The only "white interests" I'm aware of are white supremacist interests. If my not crediting them with that shared "interest" is what's been pissing you off so much here just say so.Horrors.You support minorities organizing into groups, to pursue and advance their own interests.
Liar. Based on their majority status. You pretending to be that thick will remain laughable no matter how often you repeat this crap.You have different standards for whites, based on race.
LOL!!!
A thin rationalization for your race based rules.
SO, are you ready to admit that your pretense of not knowing what "White interests" were, was to hide your hostility and opposition to them?
As always, there is no such "white interest." You only think there is because you're a fucking racist."Whites in the area, as a group, don't want casinos."Moron, again.... some whites want them, some don't. Some blacks want them, some don't. Some Hispanics want them, some don't. Some Asians want them, some don't."I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area."So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
A conflict in interests does not require that.
American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area.
This was in regard to your position that minorities could not have interests because they have less power than whites.
YOu made a point. I addressed it, seriously and honestly.
Please do not pretend to not understand how my answer related to your point.
Until recently, I've been to the Hard Rock Casino and Guitar hotel in Hollywood -- it's mostly white people there. Seems it's just as much an interest to them as the blacks, hispanics, and others who partake.
Sure, there are many whites who it's not an interest of; but there are also many blacks who it's not an interest of and there are many hispanics and others who it's not an interest of.
Point being, it's not against whites. You only think it is because you're a fucking raging racist.
That some individual whites go there, does not change the fact that the other whites (whites as a group) in the area have the interest and instituted policy of NOT having a casino in the area, or they would have legalized gambling.
And, there is a difference conflict of interests, and "against whites". You do realize that, right?
If you have groups of people living in the same area, you will have conflicts of interests.
THat is not racism, you fucking moron. Discussing it is no racism, you fucking moron. Advocating for one or the other, is not racism, you fucking moron.
AND, could you please use the term Evul Wacism? I think it is reasonable for you to be the one to distinguish between real accusations of actual racism, and what you libs do.
It's not a white interest to not have them. Having them is not against whites. They're not a conflict of interest for whites. You only think they are because you're a fucking racist who sees everything through racist lens.
You look at the world and all you see is black & white.
When you have groups, they have group interests, and they will conflict, especially if they live in the same area.
Whites in the area, as a group, don't want casinos. That is why there is not legalized gambling. THat is their perceived interest, advocated by them, into law and policy.
The local indians have the interest of having the casino, and having that money flow into their community. That is their perceived interest, pushed by them, into law, and policy and an actual working business and cash flowing into their community.
So, you fucking race baiting asshole, what part of any of that, is Evul Wacism?
Fuck you, ya fucking racist.
Fuan, I've pointed this out to you before. Please use, "Wacist" when you talk like that, to distinguish, your accusations from REAL accusations.
You don't speak for all whites. Not all whites in the area are against the Casinos.....
The laws are passed by the local population. The whites in the area might not be formally organized into a white group, but as a group, they have passed laws against gambling. I'm not speaking for anyone, just pointing out their actions.
Which is "Wacism", not actual racism. So, please use the correct terminology.
And again, you only claim this is a white interest because whites as a group are against them because you're a fucking racist who sees the world through a racist lens.
"WACIST "lens. Dude, Seriously, wtf is wrong with you? How hard is this? ALL I'M ASKING is that when you make points like retarded child, to write it out, so it looks like a retarded child talking.
And here's something else that's above your G-d given comprehension level -- your racist attitude is far more prevalent among conservatives than it is with Liberals. It's why the racist groups like the KKK, neonazis, white supremacists and other assorted alt-rightards lean right. And blacks, in general, are smarter than you. They recognize this character flaw where you cannot. That's a big reason why some 90% of blacks vote Democrat.
Except that nothing what I said is actually "racist". BUT, you are using actually racist standards in attacking any whites that dare even speak of white interests, while defending and celebrating minorities doing the same.
And that is why, blacks are drawn to the dems. Because you are willing to serve and advance their interests, even, if not especially at the expense of whites.
That's why this thread is spot on -- you'll never live long enough to see a black get nominated for president by the GOP.
If you want more blacks to start voting Republican, you (collectively) need to stop being racist. Personally, I don't think ya can.
1. Nothing I 've said here is actually racist of course, you are just a piece of shit asshole motherfucker.
2. And any blacks that don't want that type of anti-white racism in policy is welcome in the GOP and/or to be Presidential candidate. It is only a matter of time and you can go fuck yourself, you faggot.
As always, there is no such "white interest." You only think there is because you're a fucking racist."Whites in the area, as a group, don't want casinos."Moron, again.... some whites want them, some don't. Some blacks want them, some don't. Some Hispanics want them, some don't. Some Asians want them, some don't."I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area."So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
A conflict in interests does not require that.
American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area.
This was in regard to your position that minorities could not have interests because they have less power than whites.
YOu made a point. I addressed it, seriously and honestly.
Please do not pretend to not understand how my answer related to your point.
Until recently, I've been to the Hard Rock Casino and Guitar hotel in Hollywood -- it's mostly white people there. Seems it's just as much an interest to them as the blacks, hispanics, and others who partake.
Sure, there are many whites who it's not an interest of; but there are also many blacks who it's not an interest of and there are many hispanics and others who it's not an interest of.
Point being, it's not against whites. You only think it is because you're a fucking raging racist.
That some individual whites go there, does not change the fact that the other whites (whites as a group) in the area have the interest and instituted policy of NOT having a casino in the area, or they would have legalized gambling.
And, there is a difference conflict of interests, and "against whites". You do realize that, right?
If you have groups of people living in the same area, you will have conflicts of interests.
THat is not racism, you fucking moron. Discussing it is no racism, you fucking moron. Advocating for one or the other, is not racism, you fucking moron.
AND, could you please use the term Evul Wacism? I think it is reasonable for you to be the one to distinguish between real accusations of actual racism, and what you libs do.
It's not a white interest to not have them. Having them is not against whites. They're not a conflict of interest for whites. You only think they are because you're a fucking racist who sees everything through racist lens.
You look at the world and all you see is black & white.
When you have groups, they have group interests, and they will conflict, especially if they live in the same area.
Whites in the area, as a group, don't want casinos. That is why there is not legalized gambling. THat is their perceived interest, advocated by them, into law and policy.
The local indians have the interest of having the casino, and having that money flow into their community. That is their perceived interest, pushed by them, into law, and policy and an actual working business and cash flowing into their community.
So, you fucking race baiting asshole, what part of any of that, is Evul Wacism?
Fuck you, ya fucking racist.
Fuan, I've pointed this out to you before. Please use, "Wacist" when you talk like that, to distinguish, your accusations from REAL accusations.
You don't speak for all whites. Not all whites in the area are against the Casinos.....
The laws are passed by the local population. The whites in the area might not be formally organized into a white group, but as a group, they have passed laws against gambling. I'm not speaking for anyone, just pointing out their actions.
Which is "Wacism", not actual racism. So, please use the correct terminology.
And again, you only claim this is a white interest because whites as a group are against them because you're a fucking racist who sees the world through a racist lens.
"WACIST "lens. Dude, Seriously, wtf is wrong with you? How hard is this? ALL I'M ASKING is that when you make points like retarded child, to write it out, so it looks like a retarded child talking.
And here's something else that's above your G-d given comprehension level -- your racist attitude is far more prevalent among conservatives than it is with Liberals. It's why the racist groups like the KKK, neonazis, white supremacists and other assorted alt-rightards lean right. And blacks, in general, are smarter than you. They recognize this character flaw where you cannot. That's a big reason why some 90% of blacks vote Democrat.
Except that nothing what I said is actually "racist". BUT, you are using actually racist standards in attacking any whites that dare even speak of white interests, while defending and celebrating minorities doing the same.
And that is why, blacks are drawn to the dems. Because you are willing to serve and advance their interests, even, if not especially at the expense of whites.
That's why this thread is spot on -- you'll never live long enough to see a black get nominated for president by the GOP.
If you want more blacks to start voting Republican, you (collectively) need to stop being racist. Personally, I don't think ya can.
1. Nothing I 've said here is actually racist of course, you are just a piece of shit asshole motherfucker.
2. And any blacks that don't want that type of anti-white racism in policy is welcome in the GOP and/or to be Presidential candidate. It is only a matter of time and you can go fuck yourself, you faggot.
I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
You support the idea of whites ganging up against Native Americans and somehow imagine you're not being racist?To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
A conflict in interests does not require that.
American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
The few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time by comparison to what is in Vegas.
...
Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
That is what Grumble really can't deal with. The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
lol!!!
And, he can't see how racist his position is.
He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
I certainly would.
But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
At least that's the case in my state. When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.
2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.
As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?
1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.
2. I gave an example.
3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.
4. Do you understand the example I gave?
No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
A conflict in interests does not require that.
American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
The few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time by comparison to what is in Vegas.
...
Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
That is what Grumble really can't deal with. The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
lol!!!
And, he can't see how racist his position is.
He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
I certainly would.
But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
At least that's the case in my state. When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.
2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.
As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?
1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.
2. I gave an example.
3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.
4. Do you understand the example I gave?
I already pointed out you have no argument. Making one up out of whole cloth is not an argument. Being against Indian casinos is not a white interest.As always, there is no such "white interest." You only think there is because you're a fucking racist."Whites in the area, as a group, don't want casinos."Moron, again.... some whites want them, some don't. Some blacks want them, some don't. Some Hispanics want them, some don't. Some Asians want them, some don't."I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area."So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
A conflict in interests does not require that.
American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area.
This was in regard to your position that minorities could not have interests because they have less power than whites.
YOu made a point. I addressed it, seriously and honestly.
Please do not pretend to not understand how my answer related to your point.
Until recently, I've been to the Hard Rock Casino and Guitar hotel in Hollywood -- it's mostly white people there. Seems it's just as much an interest to them as the blacks, hispanics, and others who partake.
Sure, there are many whites who it's not an interest of; but there are also many blacks who it's not an interest of and there are many hispanics and others who it's not an interest of.
Point being, it's not against whites. You only think it is because you're a fucking raging racist.
That some individual whites go there, does not change the fact that the other whites (whites as a group) in the area have the interest and instituted policy of NOT having a casino in the area, or they would have legalized gambling.
And, there is a difference conflict of interests, and "against whites". You do realize that, right?
If you have groups of people living in the same area, you will have conflicts of interests.
THat is not racism, you fucking moron. Discussing it is no racism, you fucking moron. Advocating for one or the other, is not racism, you fucking moron.
AND, could you please use the term Evul Wacism? I think it is reasonable for you to be the one to distinguish between real accusations of actual racism, and what you libs do.
It's not a white interest to not have them. Having them is not against whites. They're not a conflict of interest for whites. You only think they are because you're a fucking racist who sees everything through racist lens.
You look at the world and all you see is black & white.
When you have groups, they have group interests, and they will conflict, especially if they live in the same area.
Whites in the area, as a group, don't want casinos. That is why there is not legalized gambling. THat is their perceived interest, advocated by them, into law and policy.
The local indians have the interest of having the casino, and having that money flow into their community. That is their perceived interest, pushed by them, into law, and policy and an actual working business and cash flowing into their community.
So, you fucking race baiting asshole, what part of any of that, is Evul Wacism?
Fuck you, ya fucking racist.
Fuan, I've pointed this out to you before. Please use, "Wacist" when you talk like that, to distinguish, your accusations from REAL accusations.
You don't speak for all whites. Not all whites in the area are against the Casinos.....
The laws are passed by the local population. The whites in the area might not be formally organized into a white group, but as a group, they have passed laws against gambling. I'm not speaking for anyone, just pointing out their actions.
Which is "Wacism", not actual racism. So, please use the correct terminology.
And again, you only claim this is a white interest because whites as a group are against them because you're a fucking racist who sees the world through a racist lens.
"WACIST "lens. Dude, Seriously, wtf is wrong with you? How hard is this? ALL I'M ASKING is that when you make points like retarded child, to write it out, so it looks like a retarded child talking.
And here's something else that's above your G-d given comprehension level -- your racist attitude is far more prevalent among conservatives than it is with Liberals. It's why the racist groups like the KKK, neonazis, white supremacists and other assorted alt-rightards lean right. And blacks, in general, are smarter than you. They recognize this character flaw where you cannot. That's a big reason why some 90% of blacks vote Democrat.
Except that nothing what I said is actually "racist". BUT, you are using actually racist standards in attacking any whites that dare even speak of white interests, while defending and celebrating minorities doing the same.
And that is why, blacks are drawn to the dems. Because you are willing to serve and advance their interests, even, if not especially at the expense of whites.
That's why this thread is spot on -- you'll never live long enough to see a black get nominated for president by the GOP.
If you want more blacks to start voting Republican, you (collectively) need to stop being racist. Personally, I don't think ya can.
1. Nothing I 've said here is actually racist of course, you are just a piece of shit asshole motherfucker.
2. And any blacks that don't want that type of anti-white racism in policy is welcome in the GOP and/or to be Presidential candidate. It is only a matter of time and you can go fuck yourself, you faggot.
I challenge you to back up your accusations of Evul Wacism,
and you do so by calling me an Evul Wacist?
Literally, you just demonstrated that you think that calling someone a name, is a supporting argument.
DO you understand now, why I want you to write out your words, like you are a retarded child?
Please start doing that. It will help people understand who and what you are.
I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.You support the idea of whites ganging up against Native Americans and somehow imagine you're not being racist?To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
A conflict in interests does not require that.
American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
The few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time by comparison to what is in Vegas.
...
Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
That is what Grumble really can't deal with. The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
lol!!!
And, he can't see how racist his position is.
He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
I certainly would.
But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
At least that's the case in my state. When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.
2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.
As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?
1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.
2. I gave an example.
3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.
4. Do you understand the example I gave?
The existence of Indian gaming casinos is certainly not adverse to white interests.
I live in an area where there are quite a few. In fact, 6 within less than 50 miles, and they are all patronized by a predominantly white clientele, and also employ a predominantly white workforce.
Is there one issue that you can name that SPECIFICALLY relates to the interests of the white population?
That doesn't appear to be a "stupid question", it appears to be a legitimate question. If you answered it with just a couple of examples, your belief system might be better understood.
JMO.
No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
A conflict in interests does not require that.
American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
The few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time by comparison to what is in Vegas.
...
Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
That is what Grumble really can't deal with. The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
lol!!!
And, he can't see how racist his position is.
He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
I certainly would.
But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
At least that's the case in my state. When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.
2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.
As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?
1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.
2. I gave an example.
3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.
4. Do you understand the example I gave?
