Whites do have a role in stopping racism

[MarcATL]

Had it not been for MLK, would we have Civil Rights?

I say no. I say that blacks fighting and dying in the streets would have either ended Civil Rights, or retarded the movement by decades.

I ask this because I see the Mohammad approach of hate for hate seen in the streets of Israel everyday as children go blow themselves up to fight their "oppressor"

Unfortunately, they never get anywhere but killed or oppressed.

Also look at Gandhi. He took the example of Christ and used it in his fight.

Shrug, it works.

The idea is to take the moral high ground and not let yourself sink to the morality of your enemies until you become no better, or worse, than those that oppress you. Then the weight of your moral superiority will eventually crush you adversary.

Democrats have fancied themselves as taking the high ground in politics forever, and look where it's gotten them.

It works huh?

Yah, right.

BTW, they still killed MLK.

And by "they" I mean whites.

 

[Asclepias]

Not everyone who causes people injury or harm tries to rationalize it. Most just try to keep it secret.

However, slavery was institutionalized and legal. Therefore, hiding it was a big problem.

So who took the better approach? Was it Martin Luther King or Malcolm X?

One thought whitey was the devil as where the other knew that the real Devil wanted blacks to hate whitey.

I like Malcolm's approach better.

It's similar to the Tea Party's "Get your hands off my MEDICAID!" rhetoric.

You liked that, didn't you?

You folk pretend to like MLK, but you do only do so because his approach was docile in comparison, and you still gunned him down in cold blood for it.

BTW, you wouldn't be suggesting that Brother Minister Malcolm X was wrong for treating a group of people who acted like demons on earth as they should be treated, would you?

Had it not been for MLK, would we have Civil Rights?

I ask this because I see the Mohammad approach of hate for hate seen in the streets of Israel everyday as children go blow themselves up to fight their "oppressor"

Unfortunately, they never get anywhere but killed or oppressed.

Also look at Gandhi. He took the example of Christ and used it in his fight.

Shrug, it works.

The idea is to take the moral high ground and not let yourself sink to the morality of your enemies until you become no better, or worse, than those that oppress you. Then the weight of your moral superiority will eventually crush you adversary.

If it had not been for Malcolm there would be no civil rights. Both men were important in the civil rights struggle but the threat of Malcolms ideology is what forced civil rights.

How did Malcolm bring about Civil Rights?

I recall the nation celebrating MLK day, but not Malcolm day.

Why is that?

Malcolm put the fear of mob violence in whites.

The nation? White people are the ones that OK'd an MLK day. They wont OK a Malcolm X day nationwide.

 

[Votto]

Had it not been for MLK, would we have Civil Rights?

I say no. I say that blacks fighting and dying in the streets would have either ended Civil Rights, or retarded the movement by decades.

I ask this because I see the Mohammad approach of hate for hate seen in the streets of Israel everyday as children go blow themselves up to fight their "oppressor"

Unfortunately, they never get anywhere but killed or oppressed.

Also look at Gandhi. He took the example of Christ and used it in his fight.

Shrug, it works.

The idea is to take the moral high ground and not let yourself sink to the morality of your enemies until you become no better, or worse, than those that oppress you. Then the weight of your moral superiority will eventually crush you adversary.

Democrats have fancied themselves as taking the high ground in politics forever, and look where it's gotten them.

It works huh?

Yah, right.

BTW, they still killed MLK.

And by "they" I mean whites.

Do you think that democrats freed the slaves?

Forgive me, I'm trying to understand which history book you are using.

 

[Votto]

Not everyone who causes people injury or harm tries to rationalize it. Most just try to keep it secret.

However, slavery was institutionalized and legal. Therefore, hiding it was a big problem.

So who took the better approach? Was it Martin Luther King or Malcolm X?

One thought whitey was the devil as where the other knew that the real Devil wanted blacks to hate whitey.

I like Malcolm's approach better.

It's similar to the Tea Party's "Get your hands off my MEDICAID!" rhetoric.

You liked that, didn't you?

You folk pretend to like MLK, but you do only do so because his approach was docile in comparison, and you still gunned him down in cold blood for it.

BTW, you wouldn't be suggesting that Brother Minister Malcolm X was wrong for treating a group of people who acted like demons on earth as they should be treated, would you?

Had it not been for MLK, would we have Civil Rights?

I ask this because I see the Mohammad approach of hate for hate seen in the streets of Israel everyday as children go blow themselves up to fight their "oppressor"

Unfortunately, they never get anywhere but killed or oppressed.

Also look at Gandhi. He took the example of Christ and used it in his fight.

Shrug, it works.

The idea is to take the moral high ground and not let yourself sink to the morality of your enemies until you become no better, or worse, than those that oppress you. Then the weight of your moral superiority will eventually crush you adversary.

If it had not been for Malcolm there would be no civil rights. Both men were important in the civil rights struggle but the threat of Malcolms ideology is what forced civil rights.

How did Malcolm bring about Civil Rights?

I recall the nation celebrating MLK day, but not Malcolm day.

Why is that?

Malcolm put the fear of mob violence in whites.

The nation? White people are the ones that OK'd an MLK day. They wont OK a Malcolm X day.

Do Islamic terrorists do the same?

How is that working for them?

 

[IM2]

Not everyone who causes people injury or harm tries to rationalize it. Most just try to keep it secret.

However, slavery was institutionalized and legal. Therefore, hiding it was a big problem.

So who took the better approach? Was it Martin Luther King or Malcolm X?

One thought whitey was the devil as where the other knew that the real Devil wanted blacks to hate whitey.

I like Malcolm's approach better.

It's similar to the Tea Party's "Get your hands off my MEDICAID!" rhetoric.

You liked that, didn't you?

You folk pretend to like MLK, but you do only do so because his approach was docile in comparison, and you still gunned him down in cold blood for it.

BTW, you wouldn't be suggesting that Brother Minister Malcolm X was wrong for treating a group of people who acted like demons on earth as they should be treated, would you?

Had it not been for MLK, would we have Civil Rights?

I say no. I say that blacks fighting and dying in the streets would have either ended Civil Rights, or retarded the movement by decades.

I ask this because I see the Mohammad approach of hate for hate seen in the streets of Israel everyday as children go blow themselves up to fight their "oppressor"

Unfortunately, they never get anywhere but killed or oppressed.

Also look at Gandhi. He took the example of Christ and used it in his fight.

Shrug, it works.

The idea is to take the moral high ground and not let yourself sink to the morality of your enemies until you become no better, or worse, than those that oppress you. Then the weight of your moral superiority will eventually crush you adversary.

Has it won? Or is it that whites want to say it won. Because the fight for civil rights has not ended. We do not have complete civil rights, which includes economic equality and the civil rights that were passed have been haphazardly followed by whites.

 

[hunarcy]

Black are more likely to be murdered by other blacks. Maybe she should consider reality.
Just a thought.

Maybe you need to repeat a new line. Whites are more likely to be murdered by another white. That's reality also.

Still waiting for you to provide evidence for that.

Its freely available on google.

Then you should be able to easily prove your claim. And, to me, it makes sense because you're most likely to be murdered by someone you know. But, if you're going to be so disingenuous that you make claims with no evidence, you weaken your own credibility.

 

[MarcATL]

Do you think that democrats freed the slaves?

Forgive me, I'm trying to understand which history book you are using.

I'm referring to the tactic of "taking the high ground" and it working.

It didn't', and doesn't, work for the Democrats.

 

[Asclepias]

I like Malcolm's approach better.

It's similar to the Tea Party's "Get your hands off my MEDICAID!" rhetoric.

You liked that, didn't you?

You folk pretend to like MLK, but you do only do so because his approach was docile in comparison, and you still gunned him down in cold blood for it.

BTW, you wouldn't be suggesting that Brother Minister Malcolm X was wrong for treating a group of people who acted like demons on earth as they should be treated, would you?

Had it not been for MLK, would we have Civil Rights?

I ask this because I see the Mohammad approach of hate for hate seen in the streets of Israel everyday as children go blow themselves up to fight their "oppressor"

Unfortunately, they never get anywhere but killed or oppressed.

Also look at Gandhi. He took the example of Christ and used it in his fight.

Shrug, it works.

The idea is to take the moral high ground and not let yourself sink to the morality of your enemies until you become no better, or worse, than those that oppress you. Then the weight of your moral superiority will eventually crush you adversary.

If it had not been for Malcolm there would be no civil rights. Both men were important in the civil rights struggle but the threat of Malcolms ideology is what forced civil rights.

How did Malcolm bring about Civil Rights?

I recall the nation celebrating MLK day, but not Malcolm day.

Why is that?

Malcolm put the fear of mob violence in whites.

The nation? White people are the ones that OK'd an MLK day. They wont OK a Malcolm X day.

Do Islamic terrorists do the same?

How is that working for them?

By the same do you mean fight back?

Looks like it works well.

 

[Votto]

Do you think that democrats freed the slaves?

Forgive me, I'm trying to understand which history book you are using.

I'm referring to the tactic of "taking the high ground" and it working.

It didn't', and doesn't, work for the Democrats.

How do they take the higher ground?

Are we watching the same people?

In fact, they promote abortion. Tell me, do you believe Margaret Sanger was a racist?

Here is what she said.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

I heard that there have been more black abortions than births.

Is Margaret smiling in the deepest corners of hell?

 

[hunarcy]

The 3/5 compromise was forced on the Southern states because the Northern states didn't want all slaves counted for the purpose of representation. It had nothing to do with whether they are less than human. However, the Southern slave owners did delude themselves into thinking slaves were not human because slavery was such a disgusting institution that they did not want to force themselves to face the moral consequences of their actions.

That's a lie straight from the pits of hell.

There's over two centuries worth of evidence documenting how inhumane whites treated blacks, from the inception of them literally stacking them up in ships, killing up to half if not more while on the way to the continent, to how they treated them, ripping them from their children, from their mothers, fathers, husbands from wives, whipping them, breeding them, the list goes on.

All before this BOGUS claptrap you're spewing about "Northern Aggression."

C'mon man, seriously.

LOL! The history is there to be read. Three Fifths Compromise - constitution | Laws.com But apparently you ONLY want to read things that you agree with, so I'll wander on.

 

[IM2]

Had it not been for MLK, would we have Civil Rights?

I say no. I say that blacks fighting and dying in the streets would have either ended Civil Rights, or retarded the movement by decades.

I ask this because I see the Mohammad approach of hate for hate seen in the streets of Israel everyday as children go blow themselves up to fight their "oppressor"

Unfortunately, they never get anywhere but killed or oppressed.

Also look at Gandhi. He took the example of Christ and used it in his fight.

Shrug, it works.

The idea is to take the moral high ground and not let yourself sink to the morality of your enemies until you become no better, or worse, than those that oppress you. Then the weight of your moral superiority will eventually crush you adversary.

Democrats have fancied themselves as taking the high ground in politics forever, and look where it's gotten them.

It works huh?

Yah, right.

BTW, they still killed MLK.

And by "they" I mean whites.

Do you think that democrats freed the slaves?

Forgive me, I'm trying to understand which history book you are using.

Look, stop trying to play the party game. YOU are talking to black people. We say whites have been the problem. Both parties. Republicans haven't done shit and we were republicans first. Out of the150 years since we released from slavery, we were republican for almost 100 years and ended up leaving the party. So drop that political party bullshit because you republicans are not the ones.

 

[Asclepias]

Black are more likely to be murdered by other blacks. Maybe she should consider reality.
Just a thought.

Maybe you need to repeat a new line. Whites are more likely to be murdered by another white. That's reality also.

Still waiting for you to provide evidence for that.

Its freely available on google.

Then you should be able to easily prove your claim. And, to me, it makes sense because you're most likely to be murdered by someone you know. But, if you're going to be so disingenuous that you make claims with no evidence, you weaken your own credibility.

What claim are you talking about? My credibility? Your thoughts on my credibility are none of my business.

 

[Asclepias]

Do you think that democrats freed the slaves?

Forgive me, I'm trying to understand which history book you are using.

I'm referring to the tactic of "taking the high ground" and it working.

It didn't', and doesn't, work for the Democrats.

How do they take the higher ground?

Are we watching the same people?

In fact, they promote abortion. Tell me, do you believe Margaret Sanger was a racist?

Here is what she said.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

I heard that there have been more black abortions than births.

Is Margaret smiling in the deepest corners of hell?

Besides saying "negro" (which was acceptable to Blacks at the time), what was racist about what she said? If Sanger was a racist why did she think the KKK were idiots?

 

[hunarcy]

Black are more likely to be murdered by other blacks. Maybe she should consider reality.
Just a thought.

Maybe you need to repeat a new line. Whites are more likely to be murdered by another white. That's reality also.

Still waiting for you to provide evidence for that.

Its freely available on google.

Then you should be able to easily prove your claim. And, to me, it makes sense because you're most likely to be murdered by someone you know. But, if you're going to be so disingenuous that you make claims with no evidence, you weaken your own credibility.

What claim are you talking about? My credibility? Your thoughts on my credibility are none of my business.

Adieu

 

[IM2]

Black are more likely to be murdered by other blacks. Maybe she should consider reality.
Just a thought.

Maybe you need to repeat a new line. Whites are more likely to be murdered by another white. That's reality also.

Still waiting for you to provide evidence for that.

Its freely available on google.

Then you should be able to easily prove your claim. And, to me, it makes sense because you're most likely to be murdered by someone you know. But, if you're going to be so disingenuous that you make claims with no evidence, you weaken your own credibility.

Why don't you do a search using the words white on white crime and find out for yourself? You whites here should be ashamed. You live under such delusions of grandeur and actually think you are sane.

 

[Asclepias]

Maybe you need to repeat a new line. Whites are more likely to be murdered by another white. That's reality also.

Still waiting for you to provide evidence for that.

Its freely available on google.

Then you should be able to easily prove your claim. And, to me, it makes sense because you're most likely to be murdered by someone you know. But, if you're going to be so disingenuous that you make claims with no evidence, you weaken your own credibility.

What claim are you talking about? My credibility? Your thoughts on my credibility are none of my business.

Adieu

Kwaheri

 

[MarcATL]

How do they take the higher ground?

Are we watching the same people?

In fact, they promote abortion. Tell me, do you believe Margaret Sanger was a racist?

Here is what she said.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

I heard that there have been more black abortions than births.

Is Margaret smiling in the deepest corners of hell?

Out of all the candidates, that you yourself claim was the best crop of Republicans ever to run in American history, you went and picked the most deceitful, lying, corrupt, belligerent, crass and immoral candidate to represent your party...and you voted for him. Moreover, once in Office, continued with more of the same, and not only do you excuse his worsening behavior and corruption...you actually LIKE it.

Is that an accurate or inaccurate description of Mr. Trump?

 

[IM2]

Do you think that democrats freed the slaves?

Forgive me, I'm trying to understand which history book you are using.

I'm referring to the tactic of "taking the high ground" and it working.

It didn't', and doesn't, work for the Democrats.

How do they take the higher ground?

Are we watching the same people?

In fact, they promote abortion. Tell me, do you believe Margaret Sanger was a racist?

Here is what she said.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

I heard that there have been more black abortions than births.

Is Margaret smiling in the deepest corners of hell?

Stop changing the subject every time you post. This thread is not about abortion. The tread is way off topic now because you whites don't want look inward.

 

[IM2]

Now we are on page 18 of irresponsible whiteness, This shows that whites here do not want constructive dialogue nor are they interested in taking steps to end the racism along themselves.

 

[hunarcy]

Black are more likely to be murdered by other blacks. Maybe she should consider reality.
Just a thought.

Maybe you need to repeat a new line. Whites are more likely to be murdered by another white. That's reality also.

Still waiting for you to provide evidence for that.

Its freely available on google.

Then you should be able to easily prove your claim. And, to me, it makes sense because you're most likely to be murdered by someone you know. But, if you're going to be so disingenuous that you make claims with no evidence, you weaken your own credibility.

Why don't you do a search using the words white on white crime and find out for yourself? You whites here should be ashamed. You live under such delusions of grandeur and actually think you are sane.

I already did and know the truth. However, the only shame is that you are a closed minded racist who doesn't want to hear any other point of view than yours. So, since you don't want an honest discussion, I have bowed out. Adieu to you, as well.