If You are using Racism as a political tool...You are a racist(poll to be taken)

[BitterPill]

As the Primary elections get closer to coronation of Hillary and seeing who the Republicans pick despite the peoples choice. We will see the use of racism increase...like at Trump rallies. So before you start using racism as a political tool let's set some guidelines.

1. If your use of racism creates a need for racism to exist....Your the racist

2. If you cannot prove a valid example of racism(example: Medgar Evers Civil rights avtivist was shot by Democratic Byron De La Beckwith...then Governor Ross Barnett (D) came to shake hands with De La Beckwith at his trial...That's racism), if you have no real examples...Your the racist.

3. If your the Guy crashing the Trump Rally with a sign yet have no proof...your the racist
* proof wont fit on your sign

4. If you are of a political party that legaized the killing of people of color(See Medgar Evers) and you claim a leopard can change his spots...You the racist...

5. If you use racism in a post or thread which does not include an opportunity for racism to end...Your just promoting racism and you are the racist.

I am suggesting we set guidelines on the P.J. for the use of racism

So before you use racism as a political tool review these guidelines ask yourself will my post suggest that racism should end...or am I just trying to put racism on people or a political party with out valid cause, rethink, replace what you say and put an end to racism. My guess is the answer to this would be down party lines... I hope my guess would be wrong and that we could set guidelines for all.

The irony.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Hell, what is racism?

There is not even an accepted definition.

Puritanically Making Up Sins

Nor is there an acceptable one, because all illogically add to the definition that racism is in all cases morally evil.

 

[EatTheRich]

You take evidence and cherry pick in order to prove a position that is inconsistent with the over-all truth. Then you accuse those who have a different view of doing it. Now, you're out to somehow put me in the same camp with racists.

Capt's conclusions are based upon the evidence. Your sources base their conclusions on evidence they choose to stress. It's basically the same thing. The conclusions are the opinions. Your opinions are no more valid than anyone else. You know that because you cannot stay on point. This has to become a personality contest with you.

You are saddled with a problem: I'm not Donald Trump. I'm not running for public office. So, what some guy with a burr up his ass thinks because he hates his own kind can't hurt my feelings by calling me names and making idiotic accusations.

The facts I see look like this:

In Chicago (the place Obama calls home) there were 2900 shootings last year resulting in 468 murders. This year, the most current figure I could find was 677 shootings by the first part of April of this year.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/04/01/murders-shootings-soar-chicago-through-first-three-months-2016/82507210/

The racial makeup of Chicago in 2010 was "The racial makeup of the city in 2010 was 32% black, 45.3% white (31.7% non-Hispanic white), 5% Asian , and 3% from two or more races."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Chicago

When we go to Atlanta, we find some of the same thing. According to one article:

"Atlanta is, as of 2010, the nation's 4th largest black-majority city and has long been known as a "black mecca" for its role as a center of black wealth, political and social power, education, and culture including film and music."

According to the same source, Atlanta is just over a third white... much like Chicago.

"The city violent crime rate for Atlanta in 2012 was higher than the national violent crime rate average by 256.46% and the city property crime rate in Atlanta was higher than the national property crime rate average by 129.33%."

http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/georgia/atlanta.html

The facts as I see them is that even factoring in that these two cities have many wealthy non-whites, they are predominantly non-white and they are extremely violent. Over half of all the violent crime in Georgia happens in five precincts and four of those are in Atlanta. ALL of those are in predominantly black areas.

Instead of manning up, most blacks like to seek out folk like you. It's about geography, white privilege, racism, etc. It's never about the fact that the liberals have this attitude that you blame the whites, create a society that thinks they are all victims and then deny the truth. I did hear one black guy say on camera in Atlanta if black lives really mattered we wouldn't be killing each other in the streets.

So, you have your reality, I'm observing something else.

If you're telling people to read Christian Identity literature, you're definitely in the same camp with the racists. And that literature is definitely based on religious bunk and ignoring mounds of real-world evidence.

I don't think I ever denied that urban areas with large Black populations in the U.S. had disproportionately high crime rates. The same is true of Palestinian areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and for the same reasons.

 

[EatTheRich]

<<<<2. Black employment rates are higher today than in the days of Jim Crow. So much for Jim Crow keeping Blacks working.>>>>

They must have put strychnine in your crack pipe. Black employment rates today are the lowest in history.

No. They're not.

<<<3. BLM is an anti-murder movement that is resisting savage predator.>>>

BLM is a terrorist hate group whose formation was based on a [Unwelcome language removed] LIE.

Where is the terrorism? Where's the hate? What's the lie?

 

[EatTheRich]

The giggling Gotcha Gang doesn't realize that the exception proves the rule. Besides, I'm sure that the corrupt ruling classes in Africa also live in nice neighborhoods and send their sons out to rape the women in the general population.

This isn't a case of an "exception" that "proves the rule" (which you fail to use in the sense in which this maxim has validity); it is a case of a counterexample which disproves a generalization.

Quite a double-bind ... if Blacks don't accumulate wealth, it means they are inferior, and if they do, it means they are oppressors ... the Nazis used to say exactly the same about the Jews.

 

[EatTheRich]

College Student Radicals Are Burped Out From an Obsolete Aristocratic Institution


You can claim that "racist" Whites are being manipulated by the aristocracy, but I can't claim that, on the contrary, race traitors are the ones serving that hereditary ruling class. You've been manipulated into thinking my theory is absurd only because none of the "pro-White" plants claim that Liberalism is a scheme run by Preppies, an entire class that has no right to exist. But whatever interpretations they let us hear should be dismissed. You should search among the missing silent ideas that are left after that, because money talks and that's all you hear.

Yes, no one argues that liberalism is the political program of the wealthy and educated elite ... except for every Marxist. Your "theory" is absurd because it requires that workers of the white race join hands with ruling-class whites against workers who are Black, and because every attempt to implement it has ended in disaster for the working class.

 

[EatTheRich]

From the Beginning, Reds Have Been on the Blueblood Side

You're well-trained in stretching the rational and realistic side's arguments until they break. Aristocracies are always tiny minorities ruling over the majority; that has nothing relevant to say about majority rule, except in colonial rule over backward and untamed races. And !!! WARNING. ORIGINAL THOUGHT!!! imperialism collapsed only because it was rule by the occupying country's pre-ordained elite. Only democratic imperialism can survive, as it was with Americans of low European birth ruling over the Indians.

"Democratic imperialism" in the sense you suggest is a contradiction in terms. The United States was never ruled by people of 'low European birth,' but by merchants, plantation owners, manufacturers, and bankers.

 

[EatTheRich]

Even if higher than in Jim Crow days, Black employment data are irrelevant because of Affirmative Action extortion on the employers.

It's relevant to the question raised earlier, whether Blacks WANT to work or whether they must be FORCED to overcome their alleged natural indolence by being subjected to police-state measures.

 

[EatTheRich]

Hell, what is racism?

There is not even an accepted definition.

Racism is the operation of a social system that gives undeserved privilege to some, and undeserved hardship to others, based on race.

 

[reason10]

No. They're not.

Yes they are.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/21/through-good-times-and-bad-black-unemployment-is-consistently-double-that-of-whites/

In 1954, the earliest year for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics has consistent unemployment data by race, the white rate averaged 5% and the black rate averaged 9.9%. Last month, the jobless rate among whites was 6.6%; among blacks, 12.6%. Over that time, the unemployment rate for blacks has averaged about 2.2 times that for whites.

Where is the terrorism?

http://godfatherpolitics.com/black-lives-matter-terrorist-organization/


The United States Code (18 U.S.C. §2331) defines both international and domestic terrorism.

Despite the obvious — one takes place internationally and the other within our borders:


Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping…


Is this not exactly what BLM is doing? Are they not promoting violence and intimidation? Have they not affected the conduct of government? Just look at Baltimore and how the Mayor reacted to BLM violence — how she said they must be given the space to do whatever they wanted. Is this not the definition of terrorism? So why don’t we just call them what they are?

Where's the hate?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/07/11/black-police-chief-black-lives-matter-is-a-radical-hate-group/

Black Lives Matter, as far as I am concerned, is a radical hate group,” Allen, who is African-American, told the Times. “And for that purpose alone, I think the leadership of this country needs to look a little bit harder at that particular group. The consequences of what we saw in Dallas is due to their efforts.”

What's the lie?

Michael Brown was not shot in the back with his hands up trying to surrender. This whole movement of racist goons is based on that LIE.

 

[EatTheRich]

Yes they are.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/21/through-good-times-and-bad-black-unemployment-is-consistently-double-that-of-whites/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/21/through-good-times-and-bad-black-unemployment-is-consistently-double-that-of-whites/
In 1954, the earliest year for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics has consistent unemployment data by race, the white rate averaged 5% and the black rate averaged 9.9%. Last month, the jobless rate among whites was 6.6%; among blacks, 12.6%. Over that time, the unemployment rate for blacks has averaged about 2.2 times that for whites.

Last time I checked, it was 2016, not 2013.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/black-lives-matter-terrorist-organization/
http://godfatherpolitics.com/black-lives-matter-terrorist-organization/

The United States Code (18 U.S.C. §2331) defines both international and domestic terrorism.

Despite the obvious — one takes place internationally and the other within our borders:


Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping…


Is this not exactly what BLM is doing? Are they not promoting violence and intimidation? Have they not affected the conduct of government? Just look at Baltimore and how the Mayor reacted to BLM violence — how she said they must be given the space to do whatever they wanted. Is this not the definition of terrorism? So why don’t we just call them what they are?

Nope. How are they "promoting violence and intimidation"? Aren't they, on the contrary, resisting political violence and intimidation?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/07/11/black-police-chief-black-lives-matter-is-a-radical-hate-group/

Black Lives Matter, as far as I am concerned, is a radical hate group,” Allen, who is African-American, told the Times. “And for that purpose alone, I think the leadership of this country needs to look a little bit harder at that particular group. The consequences of what we saw in Dallas is due to their efforts.”

Saying it doesn't make it so. More convincing would be an example of Black Lives Matter leaders promoting racial hatred.

Michael Brown was not shot in the back with his hands up trying to surrender. This whole movement of racist goons is based on that LIE.

1. Nearly every civilian eyewitness reported either that he had his hands up or that he was shot in the back.
2. Darren Wilson admits shooting at Brown as he was fleeing.
3. The forensic evidence is compatible with Brown's being shot from behind, and shows definitively that he was shot in the top of the head as he staggered (not ran) forward after being shot several times already.
4. Michael Brown is just one of hundreds of unarmed Black people shot by police. The Black Lives Matter movement was never just about Brown.

 

[reason10]

Last time I checked, it was 2016, not 2013.

And blacks TODAY are bitching about low employment rates, especially among the youngest.

Nope. How are they "promoting violence and intimidation"? Aren't they, on the contrary, resisting political violence and intimidation?

"Pigs in a blanket; fry them like bacon."

Seriously, you need to put down that crack pipe and pay attention. The phrase "Pigs in a blanket" is a ghetto reference to dead cops in a body bag.

Saying it doesn't make it so. More convincing would be an example of Black Lives Matter leaders promoting racial hatred.

Asked and answered.

1. Nearly every civilian eyewitness reported either that he had his hands up or that he was shot in the back.

THAT'S A [Unwelcome language removed] LIE.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/witnesses-told-grand-jury-that-michael-brown-charged-at-darren-wilson-prosecutor-says.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/witnesses-told-grand-jury-that-michael-brown-charged-at-darren-wilson-prosecutor-says.html?_r=0
The most credible eyewitnesses to the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., said he had charged toward Police Officer Darren Wilson just before the final, fatal shots, the St. Louis County prosecutor said Monday night as he sought to explain why a grand jury had not found probable cause to indict the officer.

2. Darren Wilson admits shooting at Brown as he was fleeing.
3. The forensic evidence is compatible with Brown's being shot from behind, and shows definitively that he was shot in the top of the head as he staggered (not ran) forward after being shot several times already.

[Unwelcome language removed] LIES.

4. Michael Brown is just one of hundreds of unarmed Black people shot by police. The Black Lives Matter movement was never just about Brown.

Blacks represent a small minority of scumbags shot by police. More whites get shot than blacks. Why aren't whites marching and chanting the pigs in a blanket line?

 

[EatTheRich]

And blacks TODAY are bitching about low employment rates, especially among the youngest.

But Black unemployment today--9.5%--is lower than the 1954 average you pointed to in your link. Facts matter.

"Pigs in a blanket; fry them like bacon."

Seriously, you need to put down that crack pipe and pay attention. The phrase "Pigs in a blanket" is a ghetto reference to dead cops in a body bag.

And how is Black Lives Matter as a nationwide mass movement of millions responsible for the spontaneous chant--shut down after 30 seconds by BLM organizers--of a handful of people (perhaps agents provocateurs) at one event in Minneapolis?

Asked and answered.

I must've missed it. If you're talking about the "pigs in a blanket" thing, you have 2 problems. First, that wasn't BLM leaders. Second, it's an anti-cop slogan, not a racial slogan of any kind.

THAT'S A [Unwelcome language removed] LIE.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/witnesses-told-grand-jury-that-michael-brown-charged-at-darren-wilson-prosecutor-says.html?_r=0
The most credible eyewitnesses to the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., said he had charged toward Police Officer Darren Wilson just before the final, fatal shots, the St. Louis County prosecutor said Monday night as he sought to explain why a grand jury had not found probable cause to indict the officer.



[Unwelcome language removed] LIES.

The New York Times and I have different standards for what is credible. They apparently think that the most credible witnesses are those who are white and middle-class. Myself, I think the most credible witnesses are those whose testimony doesn't contradict the physical evidence showing that Brown was staggering, not charging.

Blacks represent a small minority of scumbags shot by police. More whites get shot than blacks. Why aren't whites marching and chanting the pigs in a blanket line?

Most don't chant the "pigs in a blanket line" just as most Blacks don't, because it's out of step with mainstream values. But whites do march to protest police brutality, including police brutality against whites. That the anti-police brutality movement in this country is Black-led reflects the facts that, although more total whites are shot than Blacks, Blacks are proportionally much more likely to be shot, Blacks who are shot are more likely to be unarmed and unresisting, and police who murder Blacks are much less likely to be disciplined (much less prosecuted) for it.