Confronting Racism

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-13-2016, 11:06 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't think you know what that means. You posted responses to multiple arguments I did not make and I told you that I did not say that. How was I strawmanning? 

You realize all of these posts are here forever, right? I can go back and quote them. 

Yeah.  I had already made a post breaking everything down.  Instead of refuting you just said.... Stawman!  Here is a rhetorical question for you, I am not to be cowed by being called a racist, why do you think you screaming Strawman! over and over is going to work?

Feel free to quote them.  I hope you do if you ever uncuck yourself and actually stand up for your people for once.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-12-2016, 08:10 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: They want reparations from their own country that allowed their ancestors to be treated like property for generations. How are they going to get reparations from nations form well after the end of the Atlantic Slave Trade?

That also implies an equal partnership between African tribes/kingdoms and Europeans and downplays Europe's role in establishing this industry. Equating the existence of slavery in Africa to the industry it became with Europeans is like comparing subsistence farming to corporate farming and suggesting that these smaller farmers who were forced into selling out or working for the corporate farms are equal partners in trade.

(02-12-2016, 08:36 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: You are reaching here.

Blacks don't want reparations from the US, they want it from the White US.  If blacks were the majority leaders in the US, they wouldn't want reparations.

So are you denying that the slaves were not bought and paid for?  You really think that white men were hanging around with nets, ready to grab unsuspecting blacks?  Europeans had slaves, the slaves they had were white, I don't think anyone denies that slavery has been a part of European history.  

However, slavery wasn't invented by whites.  The pyramids in Egypt weren't created by volunteers, nor where they paid workers either.  Slavery is a part of every races history.  Your analogy doesn't fit, since it implies that the African tribes and kingdoms were forced into providing slaves, and that they weren't just looking for a way to sell their own people to make a quick fortune.

(02-12-2016, 11:53 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You may want to reread my post. You seem to have gotten lost early on in it.

(02-12-2016, 08:07 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: So then let us go back and take a look.

Nope:  You claimed that blacks only want reparations from there own country that treated their ancestors poorly. 

I refuted that and pointed out that blacks don't want reparations from black US, only white US.  If blacks were the majority influence in the US then they wouldn't say anything about reparations.  Dino even suggested that they wouldn't need to because, and I am assuming here, he would feel that "Justice would be served".

You then suggested that the slave trade was not an equal partnership and that the black tribes were somehow forced by the Europeans to partake in it.  You say that it downplays Europe's role in establishing the slave trade (this is strawman here, since I didn't downplay it, I was only highlighting that it wasn't just European's involved).

Based off of that suggestion, I asked if you thought white men hung out with nets?  (this is that hyperbole that Dino likes so much)

I then conceded your statement that Europeans had been involved with slavery before the African slave trade, by mentioning how they had white slaves. (see I am conceding your point, as in stating that you are right about this)

I finish up though with a point that while white Europeans did in fact have slaves, slavery itself was around for a long time by mentioning a culture in Africa that utilized slaves long before Europe was in the history books.

I then pointed out how your analogy doesn't fit due to the implication that the tribes were forced to be a part of the trade, as opposed to be force out, like the farmers in your analogy.

So unless you are using different definitions for your words, that I am unaware of, then I am pretty sure I understood your post.

(02-14-2016, 12:34 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I didn't ask him to answer anything he isn't answering. I asked him to stop making up arguments I didn't come close to making.

I suggested that you can't ask for reparations from countries that didn't exist for hundreds of years after the event you want reparation for and then said that Africans and Europeans were not equal partners in the slave trade.

He then said

"So are you denying that the slaves were not bought and paid for?  You really think that white men were hanging around with nets, ready to grab unsuspecting blacks?  Europeans had slaves, the slaves they had were white, I don't think anyone denies that slavery has been a part of European history.  

However, slavery wasn't invented by whites.  The pyramids in Egypt weren't created by volunteers, nor where they paid workers either.  Slavery is a part of every races history. "

lol, I know.

LOL indeed.  You see I knew you were a *****.

Vlad, here is the original and the response.  Notice how intentionally he is misdirecting the comments.

I bolded my response, his analogy uses the word force, he is comparing the slave trade to when small farms were forced to enter into an agreement.  He suggest that there was no equal partnerships between the European nations and the African nations that sold the slave to the Europeans.

I don't know about you, but apparently the word force doesn't mean coercion or compunction backed by a threat to Patty, it means something else.  

So when I asked if he was denying that it was trade, as in an agreement, it was due to that particular statement. 

His comment about reparations isn't even close to what I was responding to when I asked if he was denying the slave trade as an agreement.  I responded to that separately, just look a the Italics.

I even broke it down for him and requoted him in the post, when he kept claiming that I was strawmanning.

Then it has been a constant, strawman, strawman, strawman.  To get to this point where someone like yourself, who doesn't want to go through the mess ask, What is he not answering?

Only for him to gloatingly proclaim:

I asked about this.... and he responded with THAT!  See- Strawman!

What he has done, is take one question of his and then switch the answer.  Dishonesty is a common tactic for *****.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-14-2016, 01:49 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Yeah.  I had already made a post breaking everything down.  Instead of refuting you just said.... Stawman!  Here is a rhetorical question for you, I am not to be cowed by being called a racist, why do you think you screaming Strawman! over and over is going to work?

Feel free to quote them.  I hope you do if you ever uncuck yourself and actually stand up for your people for once.

We are all people.  Who do you mean by "your people"?

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-14-2016, 03:09 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: We are all people.  Who do you mean by "your people"?

If you don't know what I mean then wake up.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-13-2016, 09:24 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote:    This is the Kobayashi Maru.

I agree a police officer admitting he broke the law is a no win situation.  But, you came up with the scenario, not me.  You don't realize it, but you're laughing at yourself for asking for something which doesn't exist to disprove something which does exist.

Quote:So the only side we get is the very biased side of people who might an agenda to press.


"He only stopped me because I'm black"

That person couldn't possibly be looking for a lower sentence or a law suit.

I recognize either person in the scenario you described could lie to avoid self incrimination.  You recognize only one is lying.  I also understand a person might claim racial profiling to force a plea bargain or for a law suit when they commited a crime and were not racially profiled.

Quote:Actually the term is segregation.  It would have it's merit though.  Can a black police officer be guilty of racially profiling a black person?  When Dylan Taylor was shot by the non white officer in Utah, no calls to make sure it wasn't racially motivated.  That officer is still on the force and received 0 scrutiny.

Actually, the term I used is the correct term.  If the police force segregated itself it would mean they endorsed a policy which seperated the the police officers by race and didn't allow intermingling of the races.  A seperate, but equal policy so to speak.  Institutional discrimination is different.  Institutional discrimination would mean assignments were based upon race.  White officers patrol white neighborhoods.  Black police officers patrol black neighborhoods.  Just like you proposed.  This type of assignment policy would prevent police officers from filling specific assignments based upon race alone.  That is institutional discrimination.  C'mon, you were a paper pusher in the Army.  I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-14-2016, 03:10 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: If you don't know what I mean then wake up.

Do you know what irony is?  A color blind white supremacist who is too much of a coward to admit what he means.

[Vlad]

(02-14-2016, 03:27 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:  Institutional discrimination is different.  Institutional discrimination would mean assignments were based upon race.  White officers patrol white neighborhoods.  Black police officers patrol black neighborhoods.  Just like you proposed.  This type of assignment policy would prevent police officers from filling specific assignments based upon race alone.  That is institutional discrimination.  

No.
That is not institutional discrimination. Not even close.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-13-2016, 09:29 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Naw.  Homeschooled ones are too smart to do that.

The question he ask has no merit,

I think asking which police officer would admit he broke the law does have merit.  Because that is the standard of proof you are asking for.  

Quote:the point is, the whole concept of racial profiling is only coming from a biased side.  

Partly, yes.  George W. Bush issued the ban on racial profiling by federal law enforcement officials.  Did the President ban something which you claim doesn't exist because he was biased?

Quote:Black people making the claim of racial profiling doesn't mean it is actually happening.

No, it doesn't.  Many times the accusations are false.  But, claims by a closet white supremacist who is too afraid to come out of the closet doesn't mean that it isn't happening, either.

Quote:Blacks crying "racial profiling" are just looking for a reduced sentence, the charges being dropped or a payday in the form of lawsuits.

False accusations of racial profiling are a fact of life.  But, to claim that all "blacks" are lying about racial profiling is a stereotype based upon the color of a group's skin rather than judging the facts of each individual case.  Hell, even Vlad admits that it happens in rare instances.

Quote:If you were homeshcooled with a good teacher, you would be smart enough to see the flaws in the narrative of racial profiling.

I will never understand people like you.  Maybe it is because I believe "All men are created equal" and "Liberty and Justice for all" are more than just words.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-14-2016, 03:27 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I agree a police officer admitting he broke the law is a no win situation.  But, you came up with the scenario, not me.  You don't realize it, but you're laughing at yourself for asking for something which doesn't exist to disprove something which does exist.




I recognize either person in the scenario you described could lie to avoid self incrimination.  You recognize only one is lying.  I also understand a person might claim racial profiling to force a plea bargain or for a law suit when they commited a crime and were not racially profiled.



Actually, the term I used is the correct term.  If the police force segregated itself it would mean they endorsed a policy which seperated the the police officers by race and didn't allow intermingling of the races.  A seperate, but equal policy so to speak.  Institutional discrimination is different.  Institutional discrimination would mean assignments were based upon race.  White officers patrol white neighborhoods.  Black police officers patrol black neighborhoods.  Just like you proposed.  This type of assignment policy would prevent police officers from filling specific assignments based upon race alone.  That is institutional discrimination.  C'mon, you were a paper pusher in the Army.  I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

Wrong, I never said the one side is lying.  I have said the that perception is one sided and that perception isn't factual and shouldn't be used as an example of oppression.

You can't prove that it the reason the officer stopped the suspect was ONLY because the suspect was black.  The perception that the officer racially profiled comes from only one side. 

Here is an example of one sided narrative:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zulnhRKB090

She was just an innocent little girl, brutally and violently attack and arrested by a white police officer (the video doesn't actually give the race of the officer but there are plenty of MSM articles giving the race).  This video caused an uproar the officer was fired, and some comments from people were "if she was white it would be a bigger issue."

However, this was nation wide coverage.

Here is another video, that you may or may not have seen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUeqfjrp4mU


Both videos are very one sided, they only show the victims side of things.  However, the 1st assumes that the only reason the girl was treated the way she was, is because of racism.  The 2nd has no mention of race and it is due to "just a noise complaint".  The officers have a different viewpoint.  For the 1st one, the girl was uncooperative with the teacher and the officer, the 2nd one the people were also uncooperative with the officers.

To note the SC case, the officer was fired.  The 2nd one?  They are on paid leave.


As far as the term, we are both right.  However you think it is wrong to segregate.  I don't.  You can't expect white officers to be under higher scrutiny every time they do their job.  The officer shouldn't have to defend himself against baseless claims that he is a racist and that he was racially profiling.  You can't keep doing that to white officers.  Non white officers are under no such scrutiny.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-14-2016, 03:46 AM)Vlad Wrote: No.
That is not institutional discrimination. Not even close.

Well, tell that to the US military which is where I learned about it, Vlad.

https://www.uscg.mil/civilrights/History_files/ArmyEOHandbook.pdf

Quote:Institutional discrimination is defined as actions or practices carried out by members of dominant groups or their representative which have a differential and negative impact on members of subordinate groups. Just as with institutional racism, it is irrelevant whether the actions of the institution were intentional or not. What matters is the negative impact suffered by members of subordinate groups. Within the military, institutional discrimination could be defined as any systemic or functional practices that discriminate or manifest disparate treatment because of race, color, national origin, religion, or gender. Unlike other forms of discrimination discussed earlier, institutional discrimination is multifaceted and more complex. 

Differential treatment because of race due to an organization's policy.  Pretty damn simple.  Which explains why you don't have a clue what you're babbling about as usual.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-14-2016, 03:31 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Do you know what irony is?  A color blind white supremacist who is too much of a coward to admit what he means.

Oh, I am a white supremacist?  Where have I ever mentioned that white people are superior to any other race?

Coward?  Nope, I am not afraid to be called names, like white supremacist or racist.

As far as people... Go to Korea and tell them that you are a part of their people... let us see how that goes.  Hell you can even go to Hungary and try the same thing, they won't accept you as their people.

But hey, you knew what I meant, right?  I was meaning white people...

Which is a false assumption that you couldn't understand, which is why I told you to wake up.

When I say defend "your people", I mean, being just as outrage at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY12O-BSvFU

as you do about me being a proud white man.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-14-2016, 03:57 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I think asking which police officer would admit he broke the law does have merit.  Because that is the standard of proof you are asking for.  



Partly, yes.  George W. Bush issued the ban on racial profiling by federal law enforcement officials.  Did the President ban something which you claim doesn't exist because he was biased?




No, it doesn't.  Many times the accusations are false.  But, claims by a closet white supremacist who is too afraid to come out of the closet doesn't mean that it isn't happening, either.



False accusations of racial profiling are a fact of life.  But, to claim that all "blacks" are lying about racial profiling is a stereotype based upon the color of a group's skin rather than judging the facts of each individual case.  Hell, even Vlad admits that it happens in rare instances.



I will never understand people like you.  Maybe it is because I believe "All men are created equal" and "Liberty and Justice for all" are more than just words.

No, I am looking for concrete evidence that racial profiling exist.  Not a black guy with an agenda making the claim.

Really?  A politician signs a law to ban racial profiling and that automatically makes it so?  Really?  OK.  If you can't see the flaws in this thinking then you have a long way to go.

I never said that blacks were lying about it, I said it is something that can't be proven to have taken place.  We still live in presumption of innocence society right?  So if a white cop stops a non white person, it is because of the color of skin, at least according to the non white, it could not have anything to do with, jaywalking, speeding, running red lights, standing in traffic, a call about a vagabond or suspicious person in the area?  No.  Those possibilities and reasons don't matter, it is to do with skin color and discrimination and racism.

That same "buck up, son" attitude that you have for white police officers that are falsely accused of racial profiling, would be better suited to be directed at non whites who think that the ONLY reason a cop is stopping them is because of the color of their skin.  Racial profiling is a fact of life (according to you), so just deal with it, prove they are wrong and move on.

I will never understand ***** like you.  Who assume that I think All men aren't created equal and that Liberty and Justice is only for some.  I have NEVER claimed that nonwhites aren't equal to whites, different yes, we come from different cultures and backgrounds and have different experiences, but we are all still equal.  If you really believed in "Justice for all" then you would be just as outraged with the lack of MSM coverage of the Tuscaloosa police brutality compared to the SC police brutality.  You would be calling for the firing of the officers that attacked the Tuscaloosa kids, just like the MSM called for the firing of the school police officer.

You don't stand for "Justice for all", you stand for "Justice for Trayvon and Mike Brown and other blacks" while ignoring Dylan Taylor who was killed by a non white police officer.

You would call for the firing of Saide Grundy, who has been outspoken in her vitriol of white men, but is still employed by Boston College.  While white professors in Yale and Mizzou have been sacrificed for not moving fast enough to appease non whites.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-14-2016, 04:00 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Wrong, I never said the one side is lying.  I have said the that perception is one sided and that perception isn't factual and shouldn't be used as an example of oppression.

Because they can't lie about something that doesn't exist?  Stop being such a coward.

Quote:You can't prove that it the reason the officer stopped the suspect was ONLY because the suspect was black.  The perception that the officer racially profiled comes from only one side.  

I never claimed to be a mind reader.  I can't tell you what is inside a hypothetical police officer's imaginary head.  I never claimed I could prove what an imaginary person was thinking while stopping an imaginary suspect.  You asked for someone to show you a police officer admitting he stopped someone just because of his race.  I educated you how unlikely it would be for a police officer to admit he broke the law.  That's it.  I can't prove you're a closet white supremacist, but we both know you are.  I grew up with one and I know one when I see one.  What I don't understand is why you are too afraid to admit the obvious truth.

Quote:As far as the term, we are both right.  

No, you're incorrect.  First you stated I was wrong, now you're stating I'm right.  Vlad says I'm wrong.  You two should probably huddle up at your next clan rally to get on the same page.

Quote:However you think it is wrong to segregate.

 
Segregate how?  I don't like my maple syrup touching my bacon so I segregate them.  Segregate by race?  Enforced by the government?  Yeah, I think that is wrong.

Quote:I don't.

 
No shit, White Supremacist Sherlock.  You want to be with "your people."  Right?

Quote:You can't expect white officers to be under higher scrutiny every time they do their job.  The officer shouldn't have to defend himself against baseless claims that he is a racist and that he was racially profiling.  You can't keep doing that to white officers.  Non white officers are under no such scrutiny.

So Muslim suspects only accuse the white cops of profiling?  Or is that just your one sided perception which isn't factual?


I'm done ******' with your color blind ass for the night.  Auf Wiedersehen.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-14-2016, 04:12 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: I was meaning white people...

Exactly.  You meant Pat should defend white people against people of all other colors otherwise he is a "*****" as you so elegantly put it.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-14-2016, 04:12 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Oh, I am a white supremacist?  Where have I ever mentioned that white people are superior to any other race?

Coward?  Nope, I am not afraid to be called names, like white supremacist or racist.

As far as people... Go to Korea and tell them that you are a part of their people... let us see how that goes.  Hell you can even go to Hungary and try the same thing, they won't accept you as their people.

But hey, you knew what I meant, right?  I was meaning white people...

Which is a false assumption that you couldn't understand, which is why I told you to wake up.

When I say defend "your people", I mean, being just as outrage at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY12O-BSvFU

as you do about me being a proud white man.

(02-14-2016, 04:45 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Exactly.  You meant Pat should defend white people against people of all other colors otherwise he is a "*****" as you so elegantly put it.

Way to take only one part of the comment.

That is what ***** do though. 

What is so bad about defending white people?  Please divulge in how it is a bad thing to stand up for your own race.

You side with the Blank Panthers and also Black Lives Matter, but a single white man who is proud to be white and is standing up for whites is a problem for you?  


Wake up.  Someone already mentioned it but there is a pill you can take to cure your coma.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-14-2016, 04:40 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Because they can't lie about something that doesn't exist?  Stop being such a coward.





I never claimed to be a mind reader.  I can't tell you what is inside a hypothetical police officer's imaginary head.  I never claimed I could prove what an imaginary person was thinking while stopping an imaginary suspect.  You asked for someone to show you a police officer admitting he stopped someone just because of his race.  I educated you how unlikely it would be for a police officer to admit he broke the law.  That's it.  I can't prove you're a closet white supremacist, but we both know you are.  I grew up with one and I know one when I see one.  What I don't understand is why you are too afraid to admit the obvious truth.




No, you're incorrect.  First you stated I was wrong, now you're stating I'm right.  Vlad says I'm wrong.  You two should probably huddle up at your next clan rally to get on the same page.


 
Segregate how?  I don't like my maple syrup touching my bacon so I segregate them.  Segregate by race?  Enforced by the government?  Yeah, I think that is wrong.


 
No shit, White Supremacist Sherlock.  You want to be with "your people."  Right?




So Muslim suspects only accuse the white cops of profiling?  Or is that just your one sided perception which isn't factual?


I'm done ******' with your color blind ass for the night.  Auf Wiedersehen.

Aww, name calling and an allusion to Germany... The only difference is you calling me a coward and the dreaded white supremacist instead of racist.

OHHHH... ya got me now.  I am just going to recuck myself and go back to sleep, I wouldn't want someone to call me a name, now would I?  Me being called those names by you automatically makes you right!  

How do you make such a jump in logic that someone who doesn't think segregation is a bad thing is automatically a "white supremacist"?  I wonder if that might be some type of conditioning program that you were a part of.

If anything it would be doing all the non-whites in this country a favor.  The evil white man that is the cause of all this racial profiling and oppression, will no longer be an issue for them and they can live in harmony with each other.  Us white supremacist won't be holding them back and keeping them from being kings and queens again.  While us vile, evil whites, would be hurt by the lack of diversity and the cultural enrichment that nonwhites bring to us, and we would be apart from the rest of the just peoples of this world.  Since we wouldn't have the strengths that they bring we would surely die out in record time.  I mean we would just die of boredom or since we can't oppress them, we would just start oppressing each other and inevitably cease to exist.

So you keep calling me a white supremacist, I am not, but you don't know me so it is just easier to ad hominem than it would be to actually understand what my message is.  So to make it easier for you and that way I don't have to keep stating that "I'm NOT!", you can't shame me, you can call me whatever you will.  The question is, what are you going to do about it?

You think I am a white supremacist?  Fine, now what do you plan to do about it?  Shun me?  Then shun away!  I could care less if I am shunned by *****. 

I am proud of being white, I am not apologizing for being white, I am not ashamed to be white either.  I will even do you one better, I am proud of my rich, diverse, interesting and beautiful Lithuanian heritage.  I didn't know this when I was a child, but I have since come to know that my name has a meaning, the full meaning of my name?  "King of the Earth, that God protects" ( I am sure some immature posters here will have a field day with this one, but guess what, I am not afraid).   You see, I have people, and I have culture.  Which is something that you can't fathom and will not be able to take away.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-14-2016, 04:53 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Way to take only one part of the comment.

That is what ***** do though. 

What is so bad about defending white people?  Please divulge in how it is a bad thing to stand up for your own race.

You side with the Blank Panthers and also Black Lives Matter, but a single white man who is proud to be white and is standing up for whites is a problem for you?  


Wake up.  Someone already mentioned it but there is a pill you can take to cure your coma.

Thanks for clearing up what race you were referring to with the "your people" comment.  Because there for a minute I thought you were talking about white people.  Imagine my embarrasment for being so wrong.  Because all this time you really meant white people.  Thanks for correcting me.


I know two things about the Black Panthers: Malcolm X was a member and Forest Gump was sorry he broke up their party.  I know less about Black Lives Matter.  I stand up for Americans.  You stand up for white Americans by standing on other's backs.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-14-2016, 05:31 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Thanks for clearing up what race you were referring to with "your people" comment.  Because there for a minute I thought you were talking about white people.  Imagine my embarrasment for being so wrong.  Because all this time you really meant white people.  Thanks for correcting me.

or the "your people" comment could be anyone who stands up for white interest.

You know who is part of "my people"

Tommy Sotomayor, Alphonso Rachel, Colion Noir, Nine Pound Sledge, Stacy Dash, those are just a few of the celebrity group of "my people".

As in people that are quick to defend whites against baseless claims of racism.  That sees liberals and race baiters as the real enemy of our nation.  The ones who are proud of their own heritage and history, and have no problem embracing and celebrating mine.

They are pro white and they would stand with me to protect white identity and culture.  They frown on the constant attacks on white people and the negative portrayal that white are bombarded with from all forms of media.

However, don't let those people, those American people, stop you from making your ***** point about how "racist and white supremacist I am."

I can be proud of my heritage and still embrace the beauty and history of those people's heritage without destroying or attacking my own.

How is that so lost on you?  I really do pity you, you hate your own culture and history so much that you won't even stand up for yourself.  It is very sickening and disgusting, I hope you can overcome this one day and teach your children and grandchildren that they don't have anything to be ashamed of.  Ramybe jums.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-14-2016, 05:31 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Thanks for clearing up what race you were referring to with the "your people" comment.  Because there for a minute I thought you were talking about white people.  Imagine my embarrasment for being so wrong.  Because all this time you really meant white people.  Thanks for correcting me.


I know two things about the Black Panthers: Malcolm X was a member and Forest Gump was sorry he broke up their party.  I know less about Black Lives Matter.  I stand up for Americans.  You stand up for white Americans by standing on other's backs.

So you admit to not knowing much of anything and that you get your information from movies.  Oh look, another false claim here, I stand up for whites, so naturally that means I am all about "oppressing people" and standing on the backs of other people.  Not that I am just standing up for against white oppression, nope, you are so indoctrinated that you think anyone who defends white people are supremacist.

Yet you can't find one shred of evidence, one quote from that that even hints or suggest that I believe white people are superior.  If you can, please share it, but don't just share it, give the source page, because we all know that it is easy to change a quote line.

My people stand with me against this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6_NQBPCxEY

Instead of cucking and making excuses and telling me to be more tolerant.

[Sovereign Nation]

Anyone that wants to call me a racist or white supremacist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhOzy5xWjpE

Watch and enjoy.

Here is one of my people also breaking it down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8ME0RJaAXY