RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Why We Hate the NAACP

it's a organization lead by well to do black men, that uses fear to take advantages of black men and women with less in life, and take their money with false promises.

This is like Bill Clinton defending Hillary, where you lie like 6 times in one sentence.

Christianity spread peacefully throughout the Roman empire, despite persecution. It wasn't until 300 years after Christianity, despite persecution, had spread throughout the entire Roman empire, that Constantine finally tapped christians as a political force to aid his ascendancy to power over Rome.

It's especially funny that you keep making the allegation that I "defended the slaughter of the indians because they were 'inferior' ", since I'm part Cherokee indian.

To correct your angry lies --once again!-- I don't endorse "slaugher of native Americans, I endorse their assimilation into a technologically superior culture, where Native Americans enjoy a higher standard of living, diet, health care, education and life span than they ever did prior to contact with Europeans.
In that pre-European period, they were engaged in bloody inter-tribal wars, subsisting at near-starvation, living short lifespans, and often engaging in cannibalism and human sacrifice.

Native Americans (of whom I am partly one) are *NOT* racially inferior(as you recurrently like to slanderously allege me to be saying), but they were culturally inferior and have made huge gains from assimilating with Europeans.


And once again, you perpetuate
(1) the slander that I endorse "genocide" of Native Americans,
and
(2) that there was a genocide of Native Americans.

Whereas (except for the Ward Churchills and slanderous weasels like yourself) the collective academic assessment is that, while scattered massacres of Native Americans (and slaughters of whites by Native Americans of roughly equal number) did occur, the overwhelming number of deaths among Native Americans after first contact with Europeans occurred from exposure to diseases that Europeans, Asians and Africans had been exposed to, but Native Americans had been never been exposed or developed immunity to.




But don't let a little thing like the facts get in the way of your bigotry toward conservative beliefs you never bothered to understand, or your wider hatred of America.

Those bastards!

Um, actually, Christianity DID originate in the middle east.

There was this guy in Israel named Jesus, you see, and....

My Uncle Larry had a very strange problem, so he went to see his doctor. "Doc, I can't stop singing 'The Green, Green Grass of Home.'"

His doctor looks at him and says,"That sounds like Tom Jones Syndrome." My Uncle says,"Is it common?" The doctor looked at him and said, "It's Not Unusual."

note that it wasn't always like that. but sadly, like most elements of the legitimate civil-rights movement it's been co-opted by other political agendas.

we're talking about the christian armies of the crusades. it's getting a little sad, g-man. you're just taking a sentence and then making a whole point around it. a point which is demolished when put in context.

"Those Christians" were in the Middle East and North Africa long before Muslims came into those areas and conquered them.

And unlike the Muslims who conquered them, pre-Muslim Christian cultures in the Middle East and North Africa and Spain were built by peacefully sharing the gospels. Unlike the Muslim conquerors who seized those lands, burned their churches, and imposed their religion on Christians.

The Crusades were largely an act of self-defense by Europe, in response to four centuries of Muslim encroachment on their territory, taking back lands seized from them by the Muslims.

You spin it falsely as self-initiated Christian aggression, when in fact, it was Christian retaliation and defense. And as much politically secular as it was religious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_crusades

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade

wondy you have proven yourself to have a certain view of history in which white people kill because they're making things better, brown people kill because they're savage. christians invade countries out of self-defense, they kill for justice, and are only mean against people who were mean first. in your world no christian is violent or bad, all other religions and races are evil and trying to destroy you and your way of life.
i don't really know what to say beyond the initial point. and i think that's the point with your type of mindset. you keep stubborning sticking with your nasty view of the world and assault anything that challenges your views, just so long as you never give in to a new idea you can wear out your opponent and claim victory. but it's not a victory, i get the sense you never win. it's sad and i won't add yet another insult and humiliation to what must be a very depressing life for you.

as for the topic of the crusades, i wasn't justifying either side. the whole point i'm making is that the evils you accuse them of doing is the same evil your side has done, that all sides do.

He's been surrounded by encroachers on all sides. Give the guy a break. They don't even allow him to keep relationships what with their white hate.

For the billionth time, that's just how you deceitfully spin what I've said, to allege something I never actually said.

What I just quoted from Wikipedia said that while there were some occasional massacres by Europeans (and a roughly equal number of massacres of Europeans by Native Americans) no respectable historian this side of Ward Churchill seriously agrees with the partisan anti-European liberal excrement you allege as "fact".

Across literally hundreds of these exchanges with you on race issues and European history, I've NEVER said that "white people kill because they're making things better, brown people kill because they're savage. christians invade countries out of self-defense, they kill for justice, and are only mean against people who were mean first". Those are entirely your own vicious words and ideas, NOT mine.

What I've ACTUALLY SAID is that while Europeans have done some terrible things, so has every other civilization, to Europeans and to every other race they could exploit.
That Europeans are scapegoated as the only abusers, even when other cultures are equally to blame.
(As in the case of the black slave trade in Africa, where blacks created the slave trade hundreds of years before Europeans ever participated in it, and black slave trade continued hundreds of years after Europeans abolished slavery, and continues to this day in Africa. But Europeans are somehow blamed for black slavery, even though Europeans did not create black slavery or continue it.)

And you also ignore my larger point that other peoples in every corner of the Third World, even though to some degree exploited by European colonialism, have a cultural and technological NET BENEFIT from their interaction with Europeans.

India, for example, has a court system, a military heirarchy, a university system, an economic business model, that mirrors that of their previous British occupiers. If British occupation were nothing but bad for India, they would have rejected all these things when they became independent in 1946. But in truth, they are a far better nation for these British intrusions.

Black Americans (according to a U.S. black scholar, no less) are statistically 50 times better off living in the U.S. than their brethren still living in Africa, by the measurements of income, political/ethnic violence, violent crime, health care, life span, education, and other factors.

This truth of a net benefit to European colonialism, in sharp contrast to the partisan propaganda of you and other liberals, who heap blame on the U.S. and European colonialism as racist, greedy, etc., etc., as always exploiting the third world for its own benefit.

There was some exploitation, yes.
But there was also a great deal of benefit as well.

How you mistake that viewpoint of mine, literally expressed here in hundreds of my posts, for what you slanderously mischaracterize it as ( "WB thinks white people are always good, WB thinks brown people are evil, etc.") is deliberate misrepresentation by you, that is just beyond the pale.

I've quoted sources to back my assertions.

You've answered with slander.




Another factless rant, and a poorly worded one at that.

You humiliate only yourself.
Dumbass.

you want me to start dragging out your quotes? you want me to pull out your exact words and links to the posts?
that never works wondy. you can look at your own quote and tell me i'm lying about what you said. I'd be more than happy to humiliate you again, but it's getting sad. like making fun of a tired old racist who sits on the corners ranting about mexicans...oh wait.

You humiliate only yourself, with your blatant lies.

Again, the thrust of my arguments is NOT (as you repeatedly misrepresent me ) that Europeans are free of wrongdoing.

My argument is that (1) European colonialism, while having its ugly moments, has been a NET GAIN for the Third-World peoples who were previously colonized by them, and that they have better incomes, better education, and European-style courts, universities, lifestyles and economies as a result.

And
(2) That all the blame for world problems is heaped on Europeans, when in truth every race and culture on earth has done its best to exploit whoever they could when they were/are ascendant in power. Black slavery, Chinese invasion of Indochina, the Mongol invasions of asia, Europe and the middle east, Islamic aggression and barbarism both past and present, the Chinese currently in Tibet, and atrocities on Europeans by Native Americans. And in many cases what Europeans are blamed for, Africans and other non-Europeans either were partially or primarily guilty, but non-Europeans are excused and Europeans are blamed.


Your abstracted quotes of me NEVER ONCE showed me saying the things you imply. You always "proved" I was an alleged racist or whatever by quoting something I said that DIDN'T prove what you said, and spinning it with a paragraph or two of your own words, paraphrasing me to say what you wanted to stereotype me as saying.

So you're a lying sack of shit, just like always.

and you've also called the europeans superior to the indians as a justification for their murder. then when confronted you say that not that many died and since they have better roads now it's ok that they live on pissy reservations and have troubles with alcohol.


no, my point has always been that all cultures have their sins. which was the point i was making above about muslims and the crusades. you're the one who painted them as evil and the christians as universal heroes. you're the one who wishes we would all just gloss over any sin of the american government.
It's sad that not only do you fail to live up to your own standards of being a loving christian, but you also have to steal the arguments of a liberal.


no, i'm just feeling lazy today. i've actually been careful to only mention quotes i remember you saying.

wondy cant quit you ray. its sad...

Again, what you say is completely false and unproven, just your spiteful angry intolerant spin.

Technologically and culturally superior, NOT racially superior, as you endlessly slander me to have said.

Native Americans --as I just said!-- have more education, better diet, better healthcare, longer lifespans, and exist in greater numbers than they did at the time Columbus discovered the Americas. A net benefit, as have benefitted the Arabs, African-Americans, India, China, and many other post-colonialism cultures.




No, that's been my point all along, Ray, while you've maliciously tried to allege that I think Europeans have done everything perfect and are blameless (which endless posts of mine prove a false allegation, and you can only allege this by paraphrasing and mischaracterizing me).




I can barely discern a coherent point out of that illiterate sentence, but in any case, what you allege about my viewpoint is false.

You're the one generalizing in absolutes of right and wrong, and then alleging that I'm the one who says Europe=Good and Non-european=Bad.

When in truth I've only said that liberals join third-world partisans in disproportionately scapegoating all or the majority of blame on Europe, while excusing and dismissing the barbarism of Islamic aggression (colonialism and brutal occupation of Europe and North Africa), the brutality of historic Native Americans (inter-tribe wars, human sacrifice, atrocities on Europeans), black Africa (their primary role in slavery, long before and long after Europe abandoned slavery), India (burning wives alive with their dead husbands, until British colonialism stopped the practice), Indonesia (cannibalism), the Phillipines (cannibalism), Papua New Guinea (cannibalism), and on and on.

Unlike you, I acknowledge the good and bad of European colonialism. But unlike you, I see the good of Europe outweighing the bad, and being a net gain for peoples outside of Europe.

And unlike you, I don't slander you to have said things you never actually said, as you have me.



You constantly redefine Christianity to mean anything but what it actually means. Basically, anyone who believes in actual biblical Christianity has to be demonized by you as "intolerant".
Anyone who defends and advocates Biblical Christianity (their political right, in a Christianity-spawned democratic society) is convolutedly described by you as "not loving", and anyone who simply voices their right to protest these liberal slanderings is portrayed as a "hater" by you and similar assholes.

A "hater", for defending the Biblical concepts on which our Constitution and freedoms were formed. "intolerant" for attempting to preserve reference to the Biblical source on which the founding fathers said American Democracy was doomed to failure, unless Biblical teachings were a part of our society.

How far we've fallen in just 40 years.

How sad that you have no standards, Ray, and live to corrupt, harass and slander those who do.



You're actually just making it up as you go along.

•  Originally Posted By: WB

  Sometimes I wish had enough meanness in me to give you a full taste of the mocking antagonism you live your miserable life to dish out every day. But I stood at the edge of the abyss, and I stepped back. Better to let you roast in your own bile, than to leap off there with you.
  
  ___________________________________________
  
  Battle not with whomods, lest ye become a whomod.
  And if you gaze into the whomod, the whomod gazes also into you.
  --Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzche (abridged)

wow, wondy. you're crazy. you just rewrite your own views from thread to thread to just create a constant spewing of anger. you're just nuts.

"rewrite [my] own views from thread to thread" ?
I've been consistently saying the same things I just voiced for years.

And you're the one who constantly spews anger, stereotypes, slanders and insults myself and anyone else who simply has a different opinion than the convoluted anti-American views that you do.

Jean Kirkpatrick came up yesterday and reading this made me think of her dumb slogan which was then co-opted by the people who use slogans as a shortcut to thinking. "Blame America".

It's just a shame that rather than focus on things like the concept of "blowback", it's sooo much easier and jingoistic to think that bad stuff happens to us because everyone "hates America" or "hates our freedom". It's just a guarantee that more bad stuff will continue to happen to us and we for the life of us will think that it's because we own homes and shop at the mall.

wondy you fold everything you don't like into one grand liberal conspiracy. notice how no one is defending you.
that's why i'm not going to waste my time dredging up your old quotes. because when i did it before i got a lot of people who agreed that you were full of shit, and no one took your side, and you just denied that you posted what was quoted and linked.

You could make the same dumbassed argument about "blowback" regarding the Japanese bombing us at Pearl Harbor.

You call us a "racist" country for dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and killing 200,000 people, to end the war, ignoring the millions the Imperial Japanese tortured and slaughtered. In your mirror darkly, we are the evil racists ones.

Or similarly rationalize the Germans declaring war on us. Or Soviet expansionism. Or the current islamic violence. Or abolishing slavery.

But the truth is you are reflexively taking the stance and talking points of our enemy, and reflexively slandering and badmouthing your own country. You are blaming America, and you can't even see it, so throroughly anti-American is your thought process.

The problem with liberal schmucks like you, is you don't even realize you're acting and behaving in an un-american way. So of course you'd look at it that way.

You make this stuff up as you go along, Ray.

You've got nothing but innuendo.

You went through a lengthy list of my quotes before, and the only way you could make them even appear to be what you alleged was to paraphrase them in a paragraph of your own spin after-the-fact. You've got nothin'.

And I don't see anyone agreeing with you, except for Whomod chiming in just to troll on me. He couldn't be objective to save his life.

You are both so filled with hate for those you disagree with politically, that you need to stereotype and slander anyone who disagrees with you. And that extends to me and G-man, and even to the remarkably moderate Captain Sammitch.

In trying to stereotype and slander me at every turn, you expose yourselves to be everything you profess to hate. You guys are liars, and truly two of the most bigoted and angry assholes I've ever had the displeasure to interact with.

But what you advocate is jingoism. 'My country right or wrong', which just so happens to be another slogan. Like I said, it's a shortcut to thinking.

And when did I ever call the United States a "racist" country for dropping the Atom bomb on Hiroshima??

I disagree with killing tens of thousands of innocent people just because their government happens to be at war with ours. Regardless of who does it.

I certainly don't think racism played as much a role as did a desire to show off our bomb to the soviets and maybe some revenge for Pearl Harbor, which so happened to be a military target.

I have to ask, since you seem enamored of Pat Buchanan and his stance on immigration, is he repeating the talking points of our enemies when he and other conservatives, like Ron paul and once upon a time, John McCain criticizes the war? Because guys like him are saying the same things as the people you call unAmerican?

Or when people make controversial (to right wingers that is) statements like the surge has failed or the Iraq war has strengthened al queda and weakened, if not outright broken our military? After all, these "talking points" in fact come not from MoveOn.Org but from our intelligence community.

This is what I mean. You'd rather attack liberals as aiding the enemy rather than admit they've been pretty much right from the beginning of the war. And the people you'd call patriotic have been downright deceptive and dishonest thru it all, to the point where now no one trusts this Administration even when they do happen to state a fact or two.

You said "my country, right or wrong", Whomod.
Not me.



You put words in my mouth. Again.
Liar. Cocksucker.

I recognize that we live in the real world, and in war, or cold war, you often have to take the options and the allies that are available to you.

We supplied Stalin in World War II. We already knew Stalin for what he was, that he would be a threat later, but we needed him to win. There were as many warning signs that Stalin would be a threat as there were Al Qaeda would be.
Yet in the modern era, liberal assholes like you always blame the United States, instead of recognizing that resources are limited, and you make alliances, and break them, as you are able to.

To say Reagan and Saddam were allies, or Bush and Bin Ladin were allies, is like saying Stalin and Hitler were allies.
Obviously, Hitler and Stalin made a tenuous peace. The alliances we made were similarly in our interest, until they were not, and limited to the realities of our available options.



In a prior topic, you even posted lengthy links that said it was unnecessary to bomb Nagasaki, that the Japanese would have surrendered anyway.

• Was it the right decision to drop The Bomb?
  war bias appropriate, says viewers
  
  (plus a third I can't find, where you sourced a WW II general's recollections of Hiroshima, saying that he didn't think it was necessary. As I recall, in a topic about a Washington Smithsonian exhibit for the anniversary of dropping the bomb, where the liberals who set up the exhibit said it was unneccessary, rasist, etc.etc., and as I recall, the exhibit was taken down due to public outrage over the incredible distortion. You, of course, agreed with the anti-american stance, and posted partisan links to support it. )

Which is in contradiction to what most historians have to say on the subject. Japan was ready to fight on, until it was seen as just to devastating to continue.



You'll have to demonstrate to me where we've killed "tens of thousands". That's a partisan liberal cocksucker's argument, anti-American propaganda swallowed whole and undigested.

Al Qaida in Iraq have killed thousands.
Shi'a and Sunni death squads have killed thousands.
But our soldiers have not.
Quite the contrary, great care has been taken by our forces in Iraq to avoid unneccessary casualties.

But you --again speaking the slanderous talking points of our enemies-- allege things not in evidence.



Again, that might be true of your opinion now, but that's not what you said previously.



No.
Because unlike you, these individuals advocate what is best for the United States, and press for a more effective policy, consistent with preserving our nation as it was created, in our Constitution.
McCain is overly compassionate toward illegals, and advocates amnesty, which I think endangers the laws, enforcement of our borders, and cultural integrity of the United States. But when McCain criticized our current President, he did so by advocating change to a more effective military policy.

Whereas you just blindly blame our nation for not just Iraq, but everything islamic radicals, Saddam Hussein and the Iranian government did prior to our invading Iraq.

And you don't advocate a winning strategy in Iraq, not at any time in the last 5 years. It's always withdraw withdraw withdraw, with no regard for the consequences a collapsed Iraqi state would cause, in spreading chaos throughout the region, and the world, and eventually to the United States.



That's dishonest spin on your part.
Again, analysts within the Pentagon are advocating for a more effective strategy for winning, not retreat, and for the best use of resources.
Not screeching "blood for oil", and that American soldiers are baby-killers, as MoveOn, CodePink and similar liberal nutjob activists and websites do.



They haven't been right.
They've blown a few minor incidents like Abu Ghraib way out of proportion, and ignored the greater good done in Iraq. Iraq has annual economic growth of 9%. Since the Surge began there's been a 50% drop in military and civilian deaths. Al Qaida is exhausted, lacking supplies and recruits, packing up and leaving Iraq.

Were there command mistakes? Yes.
As there have been in every war.

Even during Rumsfeld's failed strategy, there were things that were vastly different about this war that made it difficult to come up with an effective Surge strategy.
But it finally did work, and you were cheering against America every step of the way, and gloating about how dead Americans proved you were right about Bush. Every step of the way you were repeating every half-baked allegation, every talking point of our enemies.

But in spite of you, our military is winning in Iraq.

And at the precise moment it has stabilized, treasonous liberal cocksuckers like you want to pull out, prematurely. Even when the generals have met privately with Obama and Hillary, they still advocate "withdrawal in 60 days". But if we stay just another year, we will leave a nation far more likely to remain strong and stable.

We can't stay forever, but we can stay long enough to stabilize Iraq.

And again, you lie and the Pentagon analysts do not.

Any islamic threat is sneered at by you and Ray as "Republicans using FEAR to control people." No actual threat is acknowledged as real. But after they attack, then liberals say republicans didn't prepare and protect us.

Liberals whip up allegations of "racism" in every situation, and use fear to get minorities to support them, and rift this country along racial lines in the process. You destroy our country, while others constructively address probems, to bring us together.

You're too busy slandering, dividing and antagonizing, to be "right about" anything.

you cant seriously think we read all that...

I already explained to him why i don't bother half the time.

'Black is Beautiful' pet adoption program canceled

• A promotion by the Williamson County Regional Animal Shelter to boost the adoption of black-coated dogs and cats that coincided with the week of Juneteenth has drawn criticism for being racially insensitive.
  
  The shelter has halted its "Black is Beautiful" Week planned for Saturday through June 20 after the president of the Austin chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People raised concerns in the media.
  
  The shelter, which is in Georgetown, had planned to reduce adoption fees for black-coated animals to $25 during the week. The normal fee for adoption is $85, county spokeswoman Connie Watson said.
  
  Nelson Linder, president of the Austin NAACP, said it was a "violation" to use "Black is Beautiful" as a promotion for an animal shelter and that the shelter was right to halt the promotion. The phrase became popular during the 1960s civil rights movement as a way to promote equality and African American self-esteem.
  
  Black-coated animals do not get adopted as quickly as other animals, Schneider said.
  
  "Either out of superstition or fear that they might be a more aggressive dog, they tend to be underadopted," Watson said.
  
  Schneider said the shelter has 12 black adult cats available for adoption out of about 25 and that about half of the shelter's dogs are black. She said two of those dogs have been at the shelter for two months. The average stay for animals is about 11 days, she said. The shelter does euthanize animals based on factors such as space and adoptability, Watson said.
  
  Leslie Coons with the Austin Humane Society said that black-coated animals spend the longest amount of time at the Austin shelter. She said the shelter held a "Black Friday" promotion last year on the day after Thanksgiving.

So a bunch of innocent animals face euthanization because the local NAACP was offended at the shelter's attempts to get the animals adopted.

Those animals getting euthanised are America's birds coming home to roost for our support of Israel!

I'm surprised the NAACP didn't protest this woman's name.

thedoctor argumentative Moderator Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts Tue Aug 05 2008 11:35 PM Viewing list of forums

what's wrong with these pets facing youth in asia ? are you so racist?

they eat dogs in asia ray.

NAACP Considers Condemning Tea Party for 'Racism': The resolution reportedly will call on "all people of good will to repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties" and stand against the movement's attempt to "push our country back to the pre-civil rights era."

The NAACP just proves they are a joke time and time again. Now opposition to taxes is "racist."

They'll defend Michael Vick, Michael Jackson, O.J. Simpson and Al Sharpton....but not a Supreme Court Justice.