What is White Supremacy?

[Porter Rockwell]

When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you. Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights. Liberty, as you know, is an unalienable Right.

Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.

Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people. Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites. Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves. How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?

And it was founded as a Christian nation. Jesus said: "Go kill those red people and take their land! Boy, would that give me a boner!"

You pretend that no other race or any other people acquired their land by treaties and Right of Conquest. Don't bother me with mindless drivel. You are deflecting.

Did those other races have a religious leader who said: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

Do you have a point or are you a bullshit artist? What is it you are really arguing about? Is it your position that whites and especially white Christians should be exterminated on the basis of fucked up lie where you cannot be honest about history?

 

[IM2]

"PRIOR to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had unalienable Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, absolute, above the law, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word unalienable as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story."

This along with most of your post is incorrect. First off if people had unalienable rights as you describe, before the 14th amendment, they had them when the 14th amendment was ratified and they have them now. But the reality is that the people did not have unalienable rights because if that was the case, slavery would not have existed, the law of coverture would not have existed, the Europeans would have recognized that the native Americans had those same rights and due to the fact that unalienable Rights were inherent, God given and natural, there was no need for either the Articles of Confederation or Constitution.

 

[IM2]

Nobody needs to waste valuable time trying to master an invalid argument. You're a dumb ass buddy and not reading your drivel is not about confirmation bias. Whoever you think this country was founded for has been changed by the legal process of amending the constitution. The white man was allowed to stay here because the indigenous people here did not believe that anybody had the right to own the land. And their belief makes sense because we only live for a period of time but the land remains when we are gone. It takes 2/3'rds of the states to ratify an amendment, and since the south had decided to form it's own country, wage war and lost, the winning side had every right to impose rules on the seceding states in order to allow them to rejoin the union. So it's like this, running your mouth on the internet with this bogus garbage does nothing. Take your case to the nation. You claim to be Mr. Big time so gather up the other radicalized scrubs and organize a national movement to rescind the 14th Amendment and see what you get. They shut trump up about ending the 14th Amendment and he's the president. You will be sent back to the survivalist compound too.

The 14th amendment, as it is treated, is unconstitutional.
It would be constitutional, IF it were treated as Jacob Howard said it was to be, but 20th century liberal loons twisted it out of it's intended design, to suit their purposes of increasing their power, and Democrats, desperate for votes now continue the wreckage.

How can it be unconstitutional when it's part of the U.S. Constitution?
Which part of the 14th amendment are you taking exception to, and how is it negatively impacting your life?

Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster. Government has the power to declare things legal, but they do not always have the authority.

Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law. The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.

PRIOR to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had unalienable Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, absolute, above the law, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word unalienable as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story. In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them. Unalienable Rights predate the Constitution. But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the absolute nature of unalienable Rights. My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.

Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "rights," but they are not unalienable Rights. "Rights" are merely grants by the government. Unalienable Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for unalienable. It is inalienable. Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:

(Inalienable) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

Notice that unalienable Rights cannot be aliened. Inalienable "Rights" all of a sudden could be aliened if you consented. This changed the origin of the Right. You cannot forfeit an unalienable Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself. The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word unalienable from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word unalienable appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.) The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "rights." How did that impact my life?

The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.

The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.

When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "Social Security Number" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country. AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control. The government likes to call this the equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment language.)

I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit. I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.

This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.

While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.

When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you. Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights. Liberty, as you know, is an unalienable Right.

You can't be screwed out of God given rights. You posted a bunch of crap. The government created the 14th because our god given right to be free was being denied. Your lunacy is noted.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster. Government has the power to declare things legal, but they do not always have the authority.

Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law. The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.

PRIOR to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had unalienable Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, absolute, above the law, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word unalienable as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story. In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them. Unalienable Rights predate the Constitution. But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the absolute nature of unalienable Rights. My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.

Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "rights," but they are not unalienable Rights. "Rights" are merely grants by the government. Unalienable Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for unalienable. It is inalienable. Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:

(Inalienable) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

Notice that unalienable Rights cannot be aliened. Inalienable "Rights" all of a sudden could be aliened if you consented. This changed the origin of the Right. You cannot forfeit an unalienable Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself. The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word unalienable from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word unalienable appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.) The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "rights." How did that impact my life?

The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.

The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.

When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "Social Security Number" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country. AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control. The government likes to call this the equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment language.)

I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit. I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.

This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.

While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.

When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you. Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights. Liberty, as you know, is an unalienable Right.

Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.

Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people. Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites. Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves. How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?

I neither like or don't..it is history and it is a data point. No one is advocating punishing anyone..they are advocating addressing historical wrongs--in a variety of ways. I would point out that the British were also the first nation to outlaw slavery--and the first nation to aggressively attempt to end the slave trade by conducting vigorous and effective naval patrols and interdiction's.

Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed. Jefferson and company were groping in the dark...attempting to codify the philosophical underpinnings of our nation, but actions DO speak louder than words.....and equality may be a right....but it is one that has not yet been attained.

I'm curious..as to where in the original Constitution..do you find this, 'phasing out of slavery' that you refer to?

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight," Article I Section 9 of the United States Constitution

Translation: No future importation or migration of slaves was permitted after 1808. That allowed our country to transition out without flooding the U.S. with former slaves.

You should be asking questions if you don't know this subject. I've been at this since I was a teen - 40 + years ago. If you don't have the facts, you should start studying before challenging someone with real experience. That's sound counsel.
Start here:

https://www.amazon.com/Time-Cross-Economics-American-Slavery/dp/0393312186&tag=ff0d01-20

That book will be the best $10 you ever spent if you want to really be in this conversation.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

"PRIOR to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had unalienable Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, absolute, above the law, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word unalienable as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story."

This along with most of your post is incorrect. First off if people had unalienable rights as you describe, before the 14th amendment, they had them when the 14th amendment was ratified and they have them now. But the reality is that the people did not have unalienable rights because if that was the case, slavery would not have existed, the law of coverture would not have existed, the Europeans would have recognized that the native Americans had those same rights and due to the fact that unalienable Rights were inherent, God given and natural, there was no need for either the Articles of Confederation or Constitution.

You do NOT have unalienable Rights today. The government, through the United States Supreme Court ruled as much.

You are simply uneducated.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The 14th amendment, as it is treated, is unconstitutional.
It would be constitutional, IF it were treated as Jacob Howard said it was to be, but 20th century liberal loons twisted it out of it's intended design, to suit their purposes of increasing their power, and Democrats, desperate for votes now continue the wreckage.

How can it be unconstitutional when it's part of the U.S. Constitution?
Which part of the 14th amendment are you taking exception to, and how is it negatively impacting your life?

Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster. Government has the power to declare things legal, but they do not always have the authority.

Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law. The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.

PRIOR to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had unalienable Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, absolute, above the law, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word unalienable as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story. In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them. Unalienable Rights predate the Constitution. But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the absolute nature of unalienable Rights. My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.

Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "rights," but they are not unalienable Rights. "Rights" are merely grants by the government. Unalienable Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for unalienable. It is inalienable. Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:

(Inalienable) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

Notice that unalienable Rights cannot be aliened. Inalienable "Rights" all of a sudden could be aliened if you consented. This changed the origin of the Right. You cannot forfeit an unalienable Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself. The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word unalienable from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word unalienable appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.) The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "rights." How did that impact my life?

The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.

The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.

When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "Social Security Number" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country. AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control. The government likes to call this the equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment language.)

I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit. I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.

This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.

While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.

When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you. Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights. Liberty, as you know, is an unalienable Right.

You can't be screwed out of God given rights. You posted a bunch of crap. The government created the 14th because our god given right to be free was being denied. Your lunacy is noted.

How many times have you ever litigated the 14th Amendment in court?

I challenged one aspect of it and won the case. What is your REAL experience? Still waiting on you to call me out. Come to Georgia and I'll provide the public forum if you call me out on it. Otherwise, you don't have much credibility.

 

[Bezukhov]

Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.

Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people. Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites. Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves. How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?

And it was founded as a Christian nation. Jesus said: "Go kill those red people and take their land! Boy, would that give me a boner!"

You pretend that no other race or any other people acquired their land by treaties and Right of Conquest. Don't bother me with mindless drivel. You are deflecting.

Did those other races have a religious leader who said: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

Do you have a point or are you a bullshit artist? What is it you are really arguing about? Is it your position that whites and especially white Christians should be exterminated on the basis of fucked up lie where you cannot be honest about history?

I wasn't pretending other races and religions didn't do evil things. Just pointing out the hypocrisy when Christians do the same evil. You know, it was a very good thing for you that Christians in the past were such hypocrites, and did such evil, for if they hadn't Christianity would never had survived, thrived and prospered to the extent that it did.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people. Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites. Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves. How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?

And it was founded as a Christian nation. Jesus said: "Go kill those red people and take their land! Boy, would that give me a boner!"

You pretend that no other race or any other people acquired their land by treaties and Right of Conquest. Don't bother me with mindless drivel. You are deflecting.

Did those other races have a religious leader who said: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

Do you have a point or are you a bullshit artist? What is it you are really arguing about? Is it your position that whites and especially white Christians should be exterminated on the basis of fucked up lie where you cannot be honest about history?

I wasn't pretending other races and religions didn't do evil things. Just pointing out the hypocrisy when Christians do the same evil. You know, it was a very good thing for you that Christians in the past were such hypocrites, and did such evil, for if they hadn't Christianity would never had survived, thrived and prospered to the extent that it did.

What kind of moronic stupidity are you selling? EVERY Christian that ever walked the face of this earth - black, white, yellow, man, woman, and child is a sinner. They are all liars and hypocrites. That applies to me or any other Christian. We sin and then as we continue to grow in Christ, we atone for the sins and we move forward. We try to repeat the sin; we try to break old habits; get past addictions.

Why do other people set the bar so high for Christians?

 

[IM2]

"PRIOR to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had unalienable Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, absolute, above the law, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word unalienable as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story."

This along with most of your post is incorrect. First off if people had unalienable rights as you describe, before the 14th amendment, they had them when the 14th amendment was ratified and they have them now. But the reality is that the people did not have unalienable rights because if that was the case, slavery would not have existed, the law of coverture would not have existed, the Europeans would have recognized that the native Americans had those same rights and due to the fact that unalienable Rights were inherent, God given and natural, there was no need for either the Articles of Confederation or Constitution.

You do NOT have unalienable Rights today. The government, through the United States Supreme Court ruled as much.

You are simply uneducated.

I'm well educated. You just posted 1,000 words of bullshit. According to your description of unalienable rights, they are natural god given rights that no law can change. Ever. That means we have them now. Meanwhile, the 14th Amendment was created due to the fact that blacks were denied the very unalienable rights YOU describe.

"Unalienable Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

Dumb racist piece of shit.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

"PRIOR to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had unalienable Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, absolute, above the law, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word unalienable as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story."

This along with most of your post is incorrect. First off if people had unalienable rights as you describe, before the 14th amendment, they had them when the 14th amendment was ratified and they have them now. But the reality is that the people did not have unalienable rights because if that was the case, slavery would not have existed, the law of coverture would not have existed, the Europeans would have recognized that the native Americans had those same rights and due to the fact that unalienable Rights were inherent, God given and natural, there was no need for either the Articles of Confederation or Constitution.

You do NOT have unalienable Rights today. The government, through the United States Supreme Court ruled as much.

You are simply uneducated.

I'm well educated. You just posted 1,000 words of bullshit. According to your description of unalienable rights, they are natural god given rights that no law can change. Ever. That means we have them now. Meanwhile, the 14th Amendment was created due to the fact that blacks were denied the very unalienable rights YOU describe.

"Unalienable Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

Dumb racist piece of shit.

You are the one that looks like a turd and smells like one too. And you are wrong.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I just find your attempts to talk down to me repulsive. You said it all when you said:

"I have not read any further than your first statement above..."

You can't debate anything when you're too lazy or ignorant to read. Don't leave us much to converse about, does it?

It's very disengenious on your part to truncate my statement which makes it appear to read as something other than what I said

I have not read any further than your first statement above BECAUSE that [statement] needed to be addressed FIRST and foremost. I'm (sic) address the rest of your comment if necessary in a separate post. (which I did)
​

So which one of us was too "lazy or ignorant" to read the other's comments? Here's where I addressed the rest of your post as promised

In terms of raw numbers, the white race is the least (numerically) of the people in the United States. I've said nothing different. The nonwhites outnumber the whites and a subtle form of genocide is being employed

My pointing out the fact that the United States is not a homogenous society is not agreement that non-whites outnumber whites because this simply is not true and I have no idea why you believe it is. The numbers below are updated as of September 2018 and in terms of raw numbers as well as percentages whites far outnumber everyone else:

https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Race-and-Ethnicity

... a subtle form of genocide is being employed. There is an assault on the family unit by the masses (as you said mostly non-white.) .

I never said anything of the kind.

There is the drugging of America as the system itself gets whites hooked on drugs and destroys lives forever... again disproportionately white.

Are you seriously alleging that black doctors are responsible for the alleged disproportionate number of white drug addicts?

The media attacks whites all day long with tv shows that glorify inter-racial marriages, gay marriage, and whites in heterosexual relationships are portrayed like backward rednecks.

And black people are responsible for this how?

I stand against the 14th Amendment and you try to denigrate me. Well segregation was a reality too until Rosa Parks refused to obey a law she believed to be unconstitutional - as did others who felt the same way. Yet you would deny me that luxury. You would shit on my constitutional Rights and deny them because under that veil of reason and tolerance is just another smooth talking bigot with a hatred of anyone that dares to challenge the status quo.

Okay so now we're getting to the real issue.

The status quo is equal rights per the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I advised you all to work on whatever process there is that would allow you to get it removed if you feel that strongly about it. More importantly, I have not, nor do I have the capability to deny you any of your rights under the U.S. Constitution. You stating that you are standing against the 14th amendment is different that you stating unequivocally that it's invalid or was never ratified ergo not a valid amendment and therefore not a part of the U.S. Constitution.

Me pointing that out this fact is not me denigrating you but I have to tell you that your comparison to Rosa Parks is not on point and it has nothing to do with race per se. Rosa Parks exercised her right to protest an unjust law, a law that was used to deny people of their "equal" rights. You want to exercise your right to attempt to recind an amendment that would effectively put those laws which denied equal rights to others back into place. Rosa Parks fought to help people, you're fighting to harm people so why would you expect anything other than the pushback you're getting from the very people you're trying to harm if you are successful? And then you call us hateful for pushing back against what you're trying to do, all while denying that you're coming from a position of white supremacy.

Again that's not me denigrating you or being hateful, it's me dismantling your argument.

I quoted what you said. I will know whether or not you're reading what I said after you consider my reply about the 14th Amendment. You can tell everyone from where you get your rights (or Rights) if you're reading the posts. Then you can tell us how it feels to be an equal slave.

You did not quote what I said, you quoted the first part of a compound sentence which caused my words to be out of context with and changed the meaning of, the entire sentence.

The fact that you're being dishonest about what you did does not bode well.

As far as being a slave, if that's how you view yourself well I can't advise you on that, however using that term in connection with me puts another tick mark in the Yes column of the question "White Supramacist?"

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Did you mean a bean counter?

What the hell is wrong with you that you can't even admit that you made a mathematical error? No, your math is not fine, it's off by around 15 years. So that either makes you stupid or dishonest or both. Which is it?

None of my numbers are wrong.

Your numbers are made up bullshit. You are a disingenuous liar.

You like to throw the word "proof" around. OK. I'll follow suit. Show a shred of proof that any of my numbers are wrong. G'wan. Do it.

You've been asked for "proof" when you have posted outright lies, which is on a regular basis. And as expected, your only "proof" has been to insist that "what you say" is fact.

Your belief that ANYONE who is black that has lived between 1961 and 2020, has benefitted from AA is a perfect example of the kind of trailer trash stupidity and ignorance that still resides in the minds of the bottom rung of society.

The world will be a better place when you are no longer here.

I don't remember saying that "ANYONE" who's lived between 1961 and 2020 has benefitted from AA.

In any case, your acceptance of AA, and refusal to acknowledge it's victimization, is an example of the kind of selfish, bottom feeding that still resides in the minds of the bottom rung of society (if you can even be considered part of US society at all).

The world will be a better place when racists like you are no longer here.

The world is already a better place because men like him exist. You, we've already established, not so much.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.

While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.

When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you. Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights. Liberty, as you know, is an unalienable Right.

Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.

Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people. Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites. Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves. How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?

I neither like or don't..it is history and it is a data point. No one is advocating punishing anyone..they are advocating addressing historical wrongs--in a variety of ways. I would point out that the British were also the first nation to outlaw slavery--and the first nation to aggressively attempt to end the slave trade by conducting vigorous and effective naval patrols and interdiction's.

Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed. Jefferson and company were groping in the dark...attempting to codify the philosophical underpinnings of our nation, but actions DO speak louder than words.....and equality may be a right....but it is one that has not yet been attained.

I'm curious..as to where in the original Constitution..do you find this, 'phasing out of slavery' that you refer to?

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight," Article I Section 9 of the United States Constitution

Translation: No future importation or migration of slaves was permitted after 1808. That allowed our country to transition out without flooding the U.S. with former slaves.

You should be asking questions if you don't know this subject. I've been at this since I was a teen - 40 + years ago. If you don't have the facts, you should start studying before challenging someone with real experience. That's sound counsel.
Start here:

https://www.amazon.com/Time-Cross-Economics-American-Slavery/dp/0393312186&tag=ff0d01-20

That book will be the best $10 you ever spent if you want to really be in this conversation.

Ahhh..so that is what you call, 'phasing out". I don't see it that way... I see that clause as affirming the rights of the slave states--and legitimizing the status any slaves imported prior to 1808..Also, the slave population was self-sustaining...thus obviating the need to import.

You've been 'at this' for your entire life? What a waste.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I don't remember saying that "ANYONE" who's lived between 1961 and 2020 has benefitted from AA.

Well I remember it - you implied [all] blacks with your "dark cloud" [of suspicion]

Future generations of blacks can only be free of AA suspicion, when it is eliminated 100%. Until then, blacks live under a dark cloud

​

 

[protectionist]

In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.

Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.

That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ. You can't change history.

That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.

JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.

IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count

Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.

Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones

You are absolutely clueless. Read my posts in this thread and learn.

LMAO. If anything, he will "learn" how backward your logic is, and how "clueless" you are.

How backward, dishonest, dishonorable, and pathetic YOU are, needing and relying on AA.

 

[protectionist]

In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.

Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.

That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ. You can't change history.

That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.

JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.

IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count

Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.

Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones

You are absolutely clueless. Read my posts in this thread and learn.

I've been reading your posts for a few years now..i know what you are about...and I utterly reject it. You do entertain though..even if the bulk of your talking points are decades old--and have limited relevance in today's world..outside of forums like these.

If you think you have a point to make, state it.

 

[protectionist]

Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.

That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ. You can't change history.

That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.

JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.

IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count

Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.

Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones

Most of what you say I agree with. However white women have indeed been the major beneficiary of AA and since we have 15 times less wealth than whites due to years of racist public policy, there must be some kind of economic redress for the abuses.

Without going into the ethical case for financial reparations...I don't support a grossly financial solution..because it won't work..as an ending to the problem of racial inequality in this country. No matter the amount..and i know that the hardcore advocates of this solution want trillions; when the money goes..the racism will still be here. The perception that people who had nothing to do with slavery are still penalized rankles. I know the argument that everyone white benefits from white privilege, and thus they should pay....I reject it on the grounds that culpability requires intent.

Never-mind that though--I just don't think it will work....as I've heard it proposed. I like the idea of free post-secondary education for minorities...on the Govt. dime and extending out for generations--that would be a game changer..IMO. Also..maybe a decade or so of exemption from all Federal taxes--that might be an acceptable compromise. No matter though..the haters will hate..on both sides of the issue...some will say that anything is too much..and some will say that anything short of totally bankrupting the White race will be too little.
This is not an issue that is amenable to compromise, IMO.

AA and women. Stats show that women in general..both white and of color..have benefited far more than men. Especially Black men. Implicit in these conversations seems to be that AA was/is all about Blacks. As you know, this is not the case at all. Why is this? Perhaps you have some thoughts? My sister, who is Black, says that she believes that it boils down to the fact that many White men can accept an educated Black woman...and are threatened by an educated Black man. She says that the Black culture often equates education to 'selling out'. I dunno, not my world.
I do know that rising tuition costs are pricing a good education out of the reach of the poor..and i do know that the poor are dis-proportionality of color.
That, is my world...LOL!

It's going to take money to fix the damage caused by what has been done. But no one seemed to have problems handing Japanese, descendants of confederate soldiers, etc., checks for reparations. But in all studies shown pertaining to AA show that white women have benefitted more, not equal to, women/men of color. When white women became part of the equation, it allowed racist white males to meet the requirements of anti discrimination. Now I don't know what black culture your sister was part of, but the one I grew up in told me that education was the way out. As for your question, the answer is white backlash. As you see in here white men think they are losing out because others are given an equal chance.

AA is not equality. It is racist inequality. You don't get equality from racial discrimination, regardless of the identities of the victims and beneficiaries.

It does achieve one thing though. It shows how malicious and degraded some blacks can get, if given some power.

 

[protectionist]

No protection is in here crying about a job he didn't get in 1970. There are a lot of jobs I couldn't get while white men/women with less education and experience got them. So I helped a former friend start a business from the ground up and utilized the skills whites like no protection wouldn't hire me to use. No protection is the classic whining racist who blames blacks for taking what he thinks he's entitled to.

Why would you have any trouble getting jobs, when you're black, and can get AA ? If you had trouble, it must have been because of what a flunk you are.

I have reasons for my trouble. In graduate school, I was discriminated against for not being black. For job applications, I lost out because I honorably refused to fill out an AA questionnaire. The kind of honor you lack.

I started my own business on practically nothing and built it up, and was successful that way.

 

[protectionist]

That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.

JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.

IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count

Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.

Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones

Most of what you say I agree with. However white women have indeed been the major beneficiary of AA and since we have 15 times less wealth than whites due to years of racist public policy, there must be some kind of economic redress for the abuses.

Without going into the ethical case for financial reparations...I don't support a grossly financial solution..because it won't work..as an ending to the problem of racial inequality in this country. No matter the amount..and i know that the hardcore advocates of this solution want trillions; when the money goes..the racism will still be here. The perception that people who had nothing to do with slavery are still penalized rankles. I know the argument that everyone white benefits from white privilege, and thus they should pay....I reject it on the grounds that culpability requires intent.

Never-mind that though--I just don't think it will work....as I've heard it proposed. I like the idea of free post-secondary education for minorities...on the Govt. dime and extending out for generations--that would be a game changer..IMO. Also..maybe a decade or so of exemption from all Federal taxes--that might be an acceptable compromise. No matter though..the haters will hate..on both sides of the issue...some will say that anything is too much..and some will say that anything short of totally bankrupting the White race will be too little.
This is not an issue that is amenable to compromise, IMO.

AA and women. Stats show that women in general..both white and of color..have benefited far more than men. Especially Black men. Implicit in these conversations seems to be that AA was/is all about Blacks. As you know, this is not the case at all. Why is this? Perhaps you have some thoughts? My sister, who is Black, says that she believes that it boils down to the fact that many White men can accept an educated Black woman...and are threatened by an educated Black man. She says that the Black culture often equates education to 'selling out'. I dunno, not my world.
I do know that rising tuition costs are pricing a good education out of the reach of the poor..and i do know that the poor are dis-proportionality of color.
That, is my world...LOL!

It's going to take money to fix the damage caused by what has been done. But no one seemed to have problems handing Japanese, descendants of confederate soldiers, etc., checks for reparations. But in all studies shown pertaining to AA show that white women have benefitted more, not equal to, women/men of color. When white women became part of the equation, it allowed racist white males to meet the requirements of anti discrimination. Now I don't know what black culture your sister was part of, but the one I grew up in told me that education was the way out. As for your question, the answer is white backlash. As you see in here white men think they are losing out because others are given an equal chance.

I think my sister was commenting on an issue in her city--she is politically active and it's an issue. As we grew-up together, I can attest that the black culture she was part of--valued education, along with self-sufficiency. But my family was quite the exception..in 1950's and '60's America. We were multi-racial, multi-cultural..and had people in our lives that were ethical, committed and intelligent. So, the ignorance of racism has always taken me by surprise. I get the mechanism....but surely it's a mental defect?

I was born in 1961. Sellout has generally meant that when you went to college or got a good position, you suddenly forget you are black. An example of this would be a person like OJ.

Being born in 1961, you never lived without the existence of AA. You have no excuse for your failures.

 

[protectionist]

This might have been true for 1967. It definitely it not true for 2020. In fact, blacks are much better off than whites, because they have good jobs more so than whites.

Want an example ? Easy. Take a walk through a VA hospital in a city like Tampa, with large populations of both blacks and whites ,(and other minorities). Observe dozens of employees. Stay longer and observe hundreds of employees. Count how many whites you see. You can use your fingers to count them.

Blacks in general do not hold "better jobs" than whites in America. That is another outright, blatant fabrication on your part. You are a prolific liar.

I gave a perfect example of the absolute proof that yes, blacks are much better off than whites, with good jobs more so than whites.

Here's 2 more a proof examples: Ho hum.

Bay Pines VA hospital, St. Petersburg FL

Florida Dept of Employment - Job Center, Tampa, FL

Florida is not inclusive of the entire country.

National Department of Labor statistics prove you to be making up lies...yet again.

Labor force characteristics by race and ethnicity, 2017 : BLS Reports: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Just slapping a link down here doesnt
carry any weight. You got something to present, show it.

The proof examples I posted, do carry weight. They are living, breathing proof.

Bureau of labor statistics for the entire country are far more accurate than you making some vague reference to the VA system in Florida and the Florida department of employment, which contained no link to any related information.

Florida is but 1 state in America.

WTH are you smoking?

FALSE! Just the opposite is true. I know as a liberal, you are trained to accept statistics, as if they came from God
Problem is they come from humans, many of whom lie, and present numbers to show what they want. My examples cannot be distortion. If you walk the halls of the VA hospitals, you will see 95% dark-skinned minorities working there. Pure proof of AA discrimination racism, that can't be concealed.