Whites Should Not Be Forced To Live With Non-Whites

[MikeK]

That sounds to me like you only accept certain sources for information. Is this correct?

I trust credible sources of information, such as responsible journalistic mediums which have been shown to be unbiased in their editorial views (e.g., Fox "News.") In the existing example the U.K.'s Guardian is an eminently unbiased source, mainly because it is a responsible foreign news medium and has absolutely no reason to lean one way or the other.

What to you would be credible?

Responsible news mediums, academics, and responsible authorities who are known for unbiased objectivity.

Whites did Africans the same way they did Native Americans.

No they didn't.

What Whites did to Native Americans was decimate them and forcibly drive them into obscurity. They did not enslave them.

What Whites did to Blacks is enslave them. They took nothing of material value from them. So, except for the essential element of cruelty, there is no substantive comparison.

They gained their trust by trading and developing snitches that told white slave traders when it was safe to attack unprotected villages. You have to remember that the Europeans had guns. You also have to remember that it was financially smarter and less time consuming to take the Africans forcibly than continue to trade. Dont fall for the hype.

You speak with such confidence on this subject yet you fail to present any authoritative support for what you are telling us. So we are left to assume you've been misled by imaginative propaganda which you've accepted without question and which are repeating here. This is not good to do because it spoils your credibility in future discussions.

 

[rdean]

WHITES SHOULDN'T BE FORCED TO LIVE AMONG NON-WHITES - by H. Millard (c) 2013

More Republicans hating minorities?

Turns out.

Yep.

 

[Tank]

When are the white democrats going to move back to Detroit?

 

[ScienceRocks]

WHITES SHOULDN'T BE FORCED TO LIVE AMONG NON-WHITES - by H. Millard (c) 2013

More Republicans hating minorities?

Turns out.

Yep.

You should try personal freedom sometime. The same reason we should support legalizing pot is the same reason why we should allow someone to live with who they wish.

Why not?

 

[Unkotare]

I should b able to choose who I want to rent, sell or hire.

Just as people can choose who is going to be the black only miss America or who is in the black congress

You are too weak to try and move goal posts, coward.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

That was a funny but useless post. It really doesn't matter how the slaves became slaves. They were brought here by Europeans. Therefore the Europeans must have wanted to live among them. If they have changed their minds they should go back to Europe.

Pay no attention to it, it's just evidence that shows you to be the liar that you are.

I guess you don't remember your claim that whites kidnapped blacks and brought them over here as slaves. But then again, liars rarely remember the lies they've told.

Whites did kidnap Africans and bring them over. Your website doesn't change that. I can produce websites that dispute yours but its not really a question in my mind. You must be stupid to think I would even believe that crap. Your post is useless and not even on point. Get on point son.

Sure it does.

You have provided no evidence to the contrary. Just you're saying so doesn't make it true.

Why do hate being black?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

That doesn't make sense. Trade would obviously be "financially smarter and less time consuming."

Thats because you are stupid. Why waste time and resources trading when you can give a snitch a bottle of rum and capture a whole village?

It would take far more time and resources to hire, equip, feed, and move an armed force into the interior of a country (or a continent) and find, engage, restrain, and then transport large numbers of prisoners than to make a deal with one guy right there in port who then provides the 'commodity' (however evil it is to refer to human beings as such) in the number you need, already restrained and most likely pacified to a degree (be it through physical violence or the withholding of food and water). This would also involve less risk and uncertainty. Thus, it would be "financially smarter and less time consuming."

You are almost as illogical as Lonelystar_Illogical.

Who is the illogical one here?

You're on the same side of the argument I'm on yet you insult me.

I can't really say you're illogical, you're just doing what comes natural to you. Tossing out snide remarks and insults.

Carry on!

 

[Truthseeker420]

Why do you think Whites abandoned Detroit?

White flight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because Reaganomics have destroyed good jobs in Detroit.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Why do you think Whites abandoned Detroit?

White flight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because Reaganomics have destroyed good jobs in Detroit.

Prove it.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Why do you think Whites abandoned Detroit?

White flight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because Reaganomics have destroyed good jobs in Detroit.

Prove it.

What would you accept as proof?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Because Reaganomics have destroyed good jobs in Detroit.

Prove it.

What would you accept as proof?

Information from a credible source. Not an op-ed or personal blog.

 

[Asclepias]

That doesn't make sense. Trade would obviously be "financially smarter and less time consuming."

Thats because you are stupid. Why waste time and resources trading when you can give a snitch a bottle of rum and capture a whole village?

It would take far more time and resources to hire, equip, feed, and move an armed force into the interior of a country (or a continent) and find, engage, restrain, and then transport large numbers of prisoners than to make a deal with one guy right there in port who then provides the 'commodity' (however evil it is to refer to human beings as such) in the number you need, already restrained and most likely pacified to a degree (be it through physical violence or the withholding of food and water). This would also involve less risk and uncertainty. Thus, it would be "financially smarter and less time consuming."

You are almost as illogical as Lonelystar_Illogical.

Actually it wouldn't. You think like people in that you don't understand process and history. Portuguese built trust with locals and traded with them. Turncoats and snitches were recruited. Colonies were established by the Portuguese. Once there they used snitches and turncoats that also served as help when attacking villages. These people had guns. You are a clown if you think I'm saying they marched into central Africa. They raided villages up and down the west coast of Africa and in inland in areas they gained a foot hold. I already said I know that other Africans sold or traded their people. However if you expect someone to believe that white people just hung out on the beach for 300 years and had slaves delivered to them that wanted to go on vacation to the US you are nuts.

 

[Asclepias]

Asclepias, Africans were selling their own to each other before the Portuguese arrived.

Historical fact. The white man conspired with the black man to enslave millions of blacks for transportation to the Americas.

I know Africans were engaged in slave the slave trade with each other. What other ethnicity did not?

I agree.

 

[Asclepias]

WHITES SHOULDN'T BE FORCED TO LIVE AMONG NON-WHITES - by H. Millard (c) 2013

Exactly where are whites being forced to live among non-whites?

Everywhere, if I own a apartment building or a house I will be forced by law to rent or sell to blacks, even if my neighbors and I don't want to.

Move to Poland.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Thats because you are stupid. Why waste time and resources trading when you can give a snitch a bottle of rum and capture a whole village?

It would take far more time and resources to hire, equip, feed, and move an armed force into the interior of a country (or a continent) and find, engage, restrain, and then transport large numbers of prisoners than to make a deal with one guy right there in port who then provides the 'commodity' (however evil it is to refer to human beings as such) in the number you need, already restrained and most likely pacified to a degree (be it through physical violence or the withholding of food and water). This would also involve less risk and uncertainty. Thus, it would be "financially smarter and less time consuming."

You are almost as illogical as Lonelystar_Illogical.

Actually it wouldn't. You think like people in that you don't understand process and history. Portuguese built trust with locals and traded with them. Turncoats and snitches were recruited. Colonies were established by the Portuguese. Once there they used snitches and turncoats that also served as help when attacking villages. These people had guns. You are a clown if you think I'm saying they marched into central Africa. They raided villages up and down the west coast of Africa and in inland in areas they gained a foot hold. I already said I know that other Africans sold or traded their people. However if you expect someone to believe that white people just hung out on the beach for 300 years and had slaves delivered to them that wanted to go on vacation to the US you are nuts.

Again, nothing to support your claim.

 

[Asclepias]

That sounds to me like you only accept certain sources for information. Is this correct?

I trust credible sources of information, such as responsible journalistic mediums which have not been shown to be biased in their editorial views (e.g., Fox "News.") In the existing example the U.K.'s Guardian is an eminently unbiased source, mainly because it is a responsible foreign news medium and has absolutely no reason to lean one way or the other.

What to you would be credible?

Responsible news mediums, academics, and responsible authorities who are known for unbiased objectivity.

Whites did Africans the same way they did Native Americans.

No they didn't.

What Whites did to Native Americans was decimate then and forcibly drive them into obscurity. They did not enslave them.

What Whites did to Blacks is enslave them. They took nothing of material value from them. So, except for the essential element of cruelty, there is no substantive comparison.

They gained their trust by trading and developing snitches that told white slave traders when it was safe to attack unprotected villages. You have to remember that the Europeans had guns. You also have to remember that it was financially smarter and less time consuming to take the Africans forcibly than continue to trade. Dont fall for the hype.

You speak with such confidence on this subject yet you fail to present any authoritative support for what you are telling us. So we are left to assume you've been misled by imaginative propaganda which you've accepted without question and which are repeating here. This is not good to do because it spoils your credibility in future discussions.

Fox is in no way credible. Please don't make me laugh.

Yes Whites did decimate Naive Americans later after gaining a foothold. However prior to that they simply did not have the power and simply deceived them and built their trust. I was not talking about slavery. I was speaking to the method of gaining a foot hold and eventually exerting their power. A continent, nation, city, or villages most valuable resource is its people. So I totally disagree they took nothing of material value from Africa.

I speak with confidence because I know what I am talking about. You already said you only accept responsible sources like Fox . i typically don't waste time listing my sources on this message board because its sort of pointless when people have already told you that they will not accept those sources. I find it funny that the same people that have been shown to lie time and time again throughout history are considered "responsible" sources. I for one don't let others define my reality. I form my own opinions based on what I discover during research.

 

[Asclepias]

It would take far more time and resources to hire, equip, feed, and move an armed force into the interior of a country (or a continent) and find, engage, restrain, and then transport large numbers of prisoners than to make a deal with one guy right there in port who then provides the 'commodity' (however evil it is to refer to human beings as such) in the number you need, already restrained and most likely pacified to a degree (be it through physical violence or the withholding of food and water). This would also involve less risk and uncertainty. Thus, it would be "financially smarter and less time consuming."

You are almost as illogical as Lonelystar_Illogical.

Actually it wouldn't. You think like people in that you don't understand process and history. Portuguese built trust with locals and traded with them. Turncoats and snitches were recruited. Colonies were established by the Portuguese. Once there they used snitches and turncoats that also served as help when attacking villages. These people had guns. You are a clown if you think I'm saying they marched into central Africa. They raided villages up and down the west coast of Africa and in inland in areas they gained a foot hold. I already said I know that other Africans sold or traded their people. However if you expect someone to believe that white people just hung out on the beach for 300 years and had slaves delivered to them that wanted to go on vacation to the US you are nuts.

Again, nothing to support your claim.

What do you have to support yours?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Actually it wouldn't. You think like people in that you don't understand process and history. Portuguese built trust with locals and traded with them. Turncoats and snitches were recruited. Colonies were established by the Portuguese. Once there they used snitches and turncoats that also served as help when attacking villages. These people had guns. You are a clown if you think I'm saying they marched into central Africa. They raided villages up and down the west coast of Africa and in inland in areas they gained a foot hold. I already said I know that other Africans sold or traded their people. However if you expect someone to believe that white people just hung out on the beach for 300 years and had slaves delivered to them that wanted to go on vacation to the US you are nuts.

Again, nothing to support your claim.

What do you have to support yours?

There have been several links posted that support my claim including what I had posted.

You on the other hand have not posted one single thing to support any of the nonsense you claim.

 

[Asclepias]

Again, nothing to support your claim.

What do you have to support yours?

There have been several links posted that support my claim including what I had posted.

You on the other hand have not posted one single thing to support any of the nonsense you claim.

Your links are not credible at all.

 

[Unkotare]

Thats because you are stupid. Why waste time and resources trading when you can give a snitch a bottle of rum and capture a whole village?

It would take far more time and resources to hire, equip, feed, and move an armed force into the interior of a country (or a continent) and find, engage, restrain, and then transport large numbers of prisoners than to make a deal with one guy right there in port who then provides the 'commodity' (however evil it is to refer to human beings as such) in the number you need, already restrained and most likely pacified to a degree (be it through physical violence or the withholding of food and water). This would also involve less risk and uncertainty. Thus, it would be "financially smarter and less time consuming."

You are almost as illogical as Lonelystar_Illogical.

Who is the illogical one here?

You're on the same side of the argument I'm on yet you insult me.

You know what they say about a broken clock. I was using you as a reference based on the history of your comments here.