You Don't Have to Be a Bigot to Be Called a Racist Anymore

[AKIP]

...legally, I am an American.

That's what these cats don't understand. Jurisdiction.

Any time anyone, or any jurisdiction wants to classify me as something other than American, it is because they want something. Something of which I have neither a need for, nor obligation to fulfill (outside of the threat of punishment for something I am not guilty of).

What is an "American"? Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci is who the "Americas", a continental land mass, was named for. Ergo, "Americans", technically, includes, but not limited to, Argentinians, Brazilians, Mexicans, Canadians...etc, just like "Africans" include countries from south, central and northern parts of the continent. Its "The United States" of [the] Americas.

 

[Hiryuu]

What is an "American"? Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci is who the "Americas", a continental land mass, was named for. Ergo, "Americans", technically, includes, but not limited to, Argentinians, Brazilians, Mexicans, Canadians...etc, just like "Africans" include countries from south, central and northern parts of the continent. Its "The United States" of [the] Americas.

I am an American. The convening authorities that govern the collectives of many nations seem to agree. I am not required to be considered anything else, unless you want something I am not required to give you.

That's the beauty of it, I can call myself an American, legally I am an American, people all over the world can consider me an American. Any attempt by anyone to classify me as anything other than American in the sense of my origin, serves them and not me in any way. I'm sorry if it offends your sensibilities, but that's not my problem.

 

[Natural Citizen]

What is an "American"? Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci is who the "Americas", a continental land mass, was named for. Ergo, "Americans", technically, includes, but not limited to, Argentinians, Brazilians, Mexicans, Canadians...etc, just like "Africans" include countries from south, central and northern parts of the continent. Its "The United States" of [the] Americas.

The United States is actually incorporated now. With the Act of 1871, the organic Constitution we all love and know was defaced when the title was capitalized and the word 'for' was changed to 'of' in the title.

The original begins with "We The People." The text clearly indicates that the constitution is 'for,' not 'of' the United States of America. This distinction becomes more important as the tail tries, more and more, to wag the dog.

Off topic, perhaps, but I'm reminded of it here, and jurisdiction was correctly reference applicably earlier in the thread.

 

[Hiryuu]

What is an "American"? Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci is who the "Americas", a continental land mass, was named for. Ergo, "Americans", technically, includes, but not limited to, Argentinians, Brazilians, Mexicans, Canadians...etc, just like "Africans" include countries from south, central and northern parts of the continent. Its "The United States" of [the] Americas.

The United States is actually incorporated now. With the Act of 1871, the organic Constitution we all love and know was defaced when the title was capitalized and the word 'for' was changed to 'of' in the title.

The original begins with "We The People." The text clearly indicates that the constitution is 'for,' not 'of' the United States of America. This distinction becomes more important as the tail tries, more and more, to wag the dog.

Off topic, perhaps, but I'm reminded of it here, and jurisdiction was correctly reference applicably earlier in the thread.

His observation is funny anyway, because even with his desire to include more people as Americans, for whatever purpose he may have, it doesn't change the fact I am an American by his definition. It doesn't require me to be anything different than what I am.

 

[AKIP]

What is an "American"? Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci is who the "Americas", a continental land mass, was named for. Ergo, "Americans", technically, includes, but not limited to, Argentinians, Brazilians, Mexicans, Canadians...etc, just like "Africans" include countries from south, central and northern parts of the continent. Its "The United States" of [the] Americas.

The United States is actually incorporated now. With the Act of 1871, the organic Constitution we all love and know was defaced when the title was capitalized and the word 'for' was changed to 'of' in the title.

The original begins with "We The People." The text clearly indicates that the constitution is 'for,' not 'of' the United States of America. This distinction becomes more important as the tail tries, more and more, to wag the dog.

Off topic, perhaps, but I'm reminded of it here, and jurisdiction was correctly reference applicably earlier in the thread.

Yeah....you lost me there. It's probably above my pay grade. My point is that calling oneself an "American" is really a misnomer because it assumes a distinction or assumption that people who live in the States are the ONLY true "Americans". Ergo, you don't consider Canadians....."Americans", when they are. You don't consider Mexicans....."Americans" when they are. Yet, people like you try give African Americans a hard time because you say the term "African American" is a misnomer.

 

[AKIP]

What is an "American"? Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci is who the "Americas", a continental land mass, was named for. Ergo, "Americans", technically, includes, but not limited to, Argentinians, Brazilians, Mexicans, Canadians...etc, just like "Africans" include countries from south, central and northern parts of the continent. Its "The United States" of [the] Americas.

The United States is actually incorporated now. With the Act of 1871, the organic Constitution we all love and know was defaced when the title was capitalized and the word 'for' was changed to 'of' in the title.

The original begins with "We The People." The text clearly indicates that the constitution is 'for,' not 'of' the United States of America. This distinction becomes more important as the tail tries, more and more, to wag the dog.

Off topic, perhaps, but I'm reminded of it here, and jurisdiction was correctly reference applicably earlier in the thread.

His observation is funny anyway, because even with his desire to include more people as Americans, it doesn't change the fact I am an American by his definition. It doesn't require me to be anything different than what I am.

True, but so is a Canadian or Mexican.

 

[Hiryuu]

True, but so is a Canadian or Mexican.

You could have just hit the agree button and moved on. Why did you choose to add anything else?

 

[AKIP]

True, but so is a Canadian or Mexican.

You could have just hit the agree button and moved on. Why did you choose to add anything else?

Because I figured that you likely do not agree that Canadians and Mexicans are Americans, even though you agree that you are, when technically they have just as much claim to the label as you.

 

[Hiryuu]

Because I figured that you likely do not agree that Canadians and Mexicans are Americans, even though you agree that you are.

In a Jurisdiction sense, I am not legally bound nor obligated to call anyone an American, although I can be looked down upon by others if I call people "blacks" and not "African Americans".

So technically speaking, I could get in more trouble, not identifying African Americans, as "Americans".

 

[MizMolly]

When people vote for someone based on nothing more than race, (who could that be?) When I hear blacks admit how much they LOATH whites, and blame "racism" for that, The sheer hypocrisy of all that, it never ceases to amaze me. The high black on black crime rate goes unabated. And the black lives matters folks, like Don Quixote tilting at their delusions to slay the dragons of the past.

How many blacks voted for Obama because of his race?

Your making a false equivalence.In order to make it the same thing, whites would need to be in a situation that they NEVER achieved a position or title as a historically oppressed minority that had been and continues to be viewed as racially inferior to the majority demographic and race. In that case, a white person voting for a candidate because they were white and a white person had never achieved such before, would be akin to blacks voting for Obama because he is black. The reality, however, is quite different.

Its only logical to focus on race in a positive way to offset the force of focusing on race in a negative way. Ergo, if you create a force to push blacks back the logical corrective force would be an equal and opposite force targeted at pushing blacks forward. This is why blacks can vote for someone because they are black or favor someone because they are black and it mean something totally different that whites favoring whites, for when whites do it in the aggregate, it only adds up to the preservation of white supremacy. However, when blacks do it moves the races closer to equality.

Not false equivalence since white voters didnt vote for candidates based on their race

 

[AKIP]

When people vote for someone based on nothing more than race, (who could that be?) When I hear blacks admit how much they LOATH whites, and blame "racism" for that, The sheer hypocrisy of all that, it never ceases to amaze me. The high black on black crime rate goes unabated. And the black lives matters folks, like Don Quixote tilting at their delusions to slay the dragons of the past.

How many blacks voted for Obama because of his race?

Your making a false equivalence.In order to make it the same thing, whites would need to be in a situation that they NEVER achieved a position or title as a historically oppressed minority that had been and continues to be viewed as racially inferior to the majority demographic and race. In that case, a white person voting for a candidate because they were white and a white person had never achieved such before, would be akin to blacks voting for Obama because he is black. The reality, however, is quite different.

Its only logical to focus on race in a positive way to offset the force of focusing on race in a negative way. Ergo, if you create a force to push blacks back the logical corrective force would be an equal and opposite force targeted at pushing blacks forward. This is why blacks can vote for someone because they are black or favor someone because they are black and it mean something totally different that whites favoring whites, for when whites do it in the aggregate, it only adds up to the preservation of white supremacy. However, when blacks do it moves the races closer to equality.

Not false equivalence since white voters didnt vote for candidates based on their race

They did not have to....since white has been the only traditional choice. What since would it make to vote based upon race....if the only option is white.

 

[MizMolly]

When people vote for someone based on nothing more than race, (who could that be?) When I hear blacks admit how much they LOATH whites, and blame "racism" for that, The sheer hypocrisy of all that, it never ceases to amaze me. The high black on black crime rate goes unabated. And the black lives matters folks, like Don Quixote tilting at their delusions to slay the dragons of the past.

How many blacks voted for Obama because of his race?

Your making a false equivalence.In order to make it the same thing, whites would need to be in a situation that they NEVER achieved a position or title as a historically oppressed minority that had been and continues to be viewed as racially inferior to the majority demographic and race. In that case, a white person voting for a candidate because they were white and a white person had never achieved such before, would be akin to blacks voting for Obama because he is black. The reality, however, is quite different.

Its only logical to focus on race in a positive way to offset the force of focusing on race in a negative way. Ergo, if you create a force to push blacks back the logical corrective force would be an equal and opposite force targeted at pushing blacks forward. This is why blacks can vote for someone because they are black or favor someone because they are black and it mean something totally different that whites favoring whites, for when whites do it in the aggregate, it only adds up to the preservation of white supremacy. However, when blacks do it moves the races closer to equality.

Not false equivalence since white voters didnt vote for candidates based on their race

They did not have to....since white has been the only traditional choice. What since would it make to vote based upon race....if the only option is white.

That is my whole point, whites dont vote based on race. Whites also voted for Obama.

 

[AKIP]

When people vote for someone based on nothing more than race, (who could that be?) When I hear blacks admit how much they LOATH whites, and blame "racism" for that, The sheer hypocrisy of all that, it never ceases to amaze me. The high black on black crime rate goes unabated. And the black lives matters folks, like Don Quixote tilting at their delusions to slay the dragons of the past.

How many blacks voted for Obama because of his race?

Your making a false equivalence.In order to make it the same thing, whites would need to be in a situation that they NEVER achieved a position or title as a historically oppressed minority that had been and continues to be viewed as racially inferior to the majority demographic and race. In that case, a white person voting for a candidate because they were white and a white person had never achieved such before, would be akin to blacks voting for Obama because he is black. The reality, however, is quite different.

Its only logical to focus on race in a positive way to offset the force of focusing on race in a negative way. Ergo, if you create a force to push blacks back the logical corrective force would be an equal and opposite force targeted at pushing blacks forward. This is why blacks can vote for someone because they are black or favor someone because they are black and it mean something totally different that whites favoring whites, for when whites do it in the aggregate, it only adds up to the preservation of white supremacy. However, when blacks do it moves the races closer to equality.

Not false equivalence since white voters didnt vote for candidates based on their race

They did not have to....since white has been the only traditional choice. What since would it make to vote based upon race....if the only option is white.

That is my whole point, whites dont vote based on race. Whites also voted for Obama.

If that is your point then its moot. Just voting republican for President or Senate means you are going to be voting for a white person, nearly every time. Hence, you don't have to vote by race, just by party...and its just the same as voting based upon race....and let me remind you....that the majority of white voters vote Republican. Ergo, if your political party is basically "white"....then you don't have to focus on race, just your party.

 

[MizMolly]

How many blacks voted for Obama because of his race?

Your making a false equivalence.In order to make it the same thing, whites would need to be in a situation that they NEVER achieved a position or title as a historically oppressed minority that had been and continues to be viewed as racially inferior to the majority demographic and race. In that case, a white person voting for a candidate because they were white and a white person had never achieved such before, would be akin to blacks voting for Obama because he is black. The reality, however, is quite different.

Its only logical to focus on race in a positive way to offset the force of focusing on race in a negative way. Ergo, if you create a force to push blacks back the logical corrective force would be an equal and opposite force targeted at pushing blacks forward. This is why blacks can vote for someone because they are black or favor someone because they are black and it mean something totally different that whites favoring whites, for when whites do it in the aggregate, it only adds up to the preservation of white supremacy. However, when blacks do it moves the races closer to equality.

Not false equivalence since white voters didnt vote for candidates based on their race

They did not have to....since white has been the only traditional choice. What since would it make to vote based upon race....if the only option is white.

That is my whole point, whites dont vote based on race. Whites also voted for Obama.

If that is your point then its moot. Just voting republican for President or Senate means you are going to be voting for a white person, nearly every time. Hence, you don't have to vote by race, just by party...and its just the same as voting based upon race....and let me remind you....that the majority of white voters vote Republican. Ergo, if your political party is basically "white"....then you don't have to focus on race, just your party.

Spin it but it doesnt change anything.

 

[AKIP]

Your making a false equivalence.In order to make it the same thing, whites would need to be in a situation that they NEVER achieved a position or title as a historically oppressed minority that had been and continues to be viewed as racially inferior to the majority demographic and race. In that case, a white person voting for a candidate because they were white and a white person had never achieved such before, would be akin to blacks voting for Obama because he is black. The reality, however, is quite different.

Its only logical to focus on race in a positive way to offset the force of focusing on race in a negative way. Ergo, if you create a force to push blacks back the logical corrective force would be an equal and opposite force targeted at pushing blacks forward. This is why blacks can vote for someone because they are black or favor someone because they are black and it mean something totally different that whites favoring whites, for when whites do it in the aggregate, it only adds up to the preservation of white supremacy. However, when blacks do it moves the races closer to equality.

Not false equivalence since white voters didnt vote for candidates based on their race

They did not have to....since white has been the only traditional choice. What since would it make to vote based upon race....if the only option is white.

That is my whole point, whites dont vote based on race. Whites also voted for Obama.

If that is your point then its moot. Just voting republican for President or Senate means you are going to be voting for a white person, nearly every time. Hence, you don't have to vote by race, just by party...and its just the same as voting based upon race....and let me remind you....that the majority of white voters vote Republican. Ergo, if your political party is basically "white"....then you don't have to focus on race, just your party.

Spin it but it doesnt change anything.

You can call it a spin but its not a lie. Furthermore, test your claim against blacks by pretending that Barak Obama was running as a Republican. Would 90% of the black vote have gone to him? Now lets see you sit on that FACT and spin miss molly.

 

[Hiryuu]

Spin it but it doesnt change anything.

AKIP doesn't understand that because [he] votes according to [his] race, doesn't mean that you are voting according to anyone's race.

It goes back to the whole, "You are not listening to us", argument. There is a reason why some people aren't listening. The people that think we need to listen to someone because they are one color or another, will never understand anyone who wants to treat everyone as equal (in law). You cannot explain it to AKIP, because [he] doesn't know how to understand it, and probably never will.

It's not even [his] fault, it's what [he] has been taught, and [he] will argue with you regarding what [he] doesn't, and probably never will, understand about you.

 

[Taz]

How many blacks voted for Obama because of his race?

Your making a false equivalence.In order to make it the same thing, whites would need to be in a situation that they NEVER achieved a position or title as a historically oppressed minority that had been and continues to be viewed as racially inferior to the majority demographic and race. In that case, a white person voting for a candidate because they were white and a white person had never achieved such before, would be akin to blacks voting for Obama because he is black. The reality, however, is quite different.

Its only logical to focus on race in a positive way to offset the force of focusing on race in a negative way. Ergo, if you create a force to push blacks back the logical corrective force would be an equal and opposite force targeted at pushing blacks forward. This is why blacks can vote for someone because they are black or favor someone because they are black and it mean something totally different that whites favoring whites, for when whites do it in the aggregate, it only adds up to the preservation of white supremacy. However, when blacks do it moves the races closer to equality.

Not false equivalence since white voters didnt vote for candidates based on their race

They did not have to....since white has been the only traditional choice. What since would it make to vote based upon race....if the only option is white.

That is my whole point, whites dont vote based on race. Whites also voted for Obama.

If that is your point then its moot. Just voting republican for President or Senate means you are going to be voting for a white person, nearly every time. Hence, you don't have to vote by race, just by party...and its just the same as voting based upon race....and let me remind you....that the majority of white voters vote Republican. Ergo, if your political party is basically "white"....then you don't have to focus on race, just your party.

More blacks should join the GOP if you want some blacks to vote for there. If you guys don't participate in something then call it racist because it has no bumberclydes, well...

 

[MizMolly]

Not false equivalence since white voters didnt vote for candidates based on their race

They did not have to....since white has been the only traditional choice. What since would it make to vote based upon race....if the only option is white.

That is my whole point, whites dont vote based on race. Whites also voted for Obama.

If that is your point then its moot. Just voting republican for President or Senate means you are going to be voting for a white person, nearly every time. Hence, you don't have to vote by race, just by party...and its just the same as voting based upon race....and let me remind you....that the majority of white voters vote Republican. Ergo, if your political party is basically "white"....then you don't have to focus on race, just your party.

Spin it but it doesnt change anything.

You can call it a spin but its not a lie. Furthermore, test your claim against blacks by pretending that Barak Obama was running as a Republican. Would 90% of the black vote have gone to him? Now lets see you sit on that FACT and spin miss molly.

It had little to do with party affiliation, but to each their own

 

[AKIP]

Spin it but it doesnt change anything.

AKIP doesn't understand that because [he] votes according to [his] race, doesn't mean that you are voting according to anyone's race.

It goes back to the whole, "You are not listening to us", argument. There is a reason why some people aren't listening. The people that think we need to listen to someone because they are one color or another, will never understand anyone who wants to treat everyone as equal (in law). You cannot explain it to AKIP, because [he] doesn't know how to understand it, and probably never will.

It's not even [his] fault, it's what [he] has been taught, and [he] will argue with you regarding what [he] doesn't, and probably never will, understand about you.

I NEVER voted for Obama. I thought it was a bad idea from the beginning. Here is why. If the "system" promotes you.....then you will in turn promote the "system" (quid pro quo). There is no way a black person is going to be promoted in a system of white supremacy/white majority and not essentially promote white supremacy/white majority. Sophisticated racism/white supremacy uses proxies of different races/colors to further its agenda. I mean, if I wanted to carry out white policies and interest, without seeming like I am carrying out white policies and interest, I would get a non-white person as my front.

True story. I know to black business owners who hired white people to be the "face" of their business in order to increase their customers/clients. Guess what? It worked both times. The white customers just assumed that the white person owned the business and the actual owner worked for the front person. That is how I viewed a black president in a majority white racist nation. All that they could ever be is front people for the white majority or the white majority would get rid of them. That is why I voted for Hilary and when she did not win the primary i did not vote in the general election.

All that having been said, many white people are akin to anorexics. No matter how skinny an anorexic gets, they see themselves as too fat, yet, everyone who is not equally distorted can see that they are emaciated. Many white people think they do not see color and are not racist, despite seeing color and being racist. However, people who are not distorted clearly see you for what you are. However, anorexics surrounded by anorexics give comfort to each other that its everyone else with the problem.

 

[AKIP]

They did not have to....since white has been the only traditional choice. What since would it make to vote based upon race....if the only option is white.

That is my whole point, whites dont vote based on race. Whites also voted for Obama.

If that is your point then its moot. Just voting republican for President or Senate means you are going to be voting for a white person, nearly every time. Hence, you don't have to vote by race, just by party...and its just the same as voting based upon race....and let me remind you....that the majority of white voters vote Republican. Ergo, if your political party is basically "white"....then you don't have to focus on race, just your party.

Spin it but it doesnt change anything.

You can call it a spin but its not a lie. Furthermore, test your claim against blacks by pretending that Barak Obama was running as a Republican. Would 90% of the black vote have gone to him? Now lets see you sit on that FACT and spin miss molly.

It had little to do with party affiliation, but to each their own

Well....I can tell you right now that black would not have voted for Herman Cain.....who is "blacker" than Obama.