jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Like I said, you don't get it; and you never will. Stay safe and warm wrapped tightly in your ignorance.
By the way, what's your score on the Balkanization chart?
Hey! What happened to my sig line? Doncha lumme any more?
"Dumbledore is gay," says Rowling.
- Thread starter jimpeel
- Start date
Like I said, you don't get it; and you never will. Stay safe and warm wrapped tightly in your ignorance.
By the way, what's your score on the Balkanization chart?
Hey! What happened to my sig line? Doncha lumme any more?
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Re: Gato_Solo
You truly believe that white males are being 'picked on'. Disproportionate justice is why all of those legislative acts came about in the first place. Not that the lot of the minority has improved, but you can feel free to act as though your applecart has been upset. Just to give you a good heads-up...Nobody in my life ever gave me anything for my race except derision. I have what I have because I worked hard to get it, and I earned it on my own merits. Not because some Congressmen felt guilty about the sins of their ancestory. None of those laws changed anything except perception.
You truly believe that white males are being 'picked on'. Disproportionate justice is why all of those legislative acts came about in the first place. Not that the lot of the minority has improved, but you can feel free to act as though your applecart has been upset. Just to give you a good heads-up...Nobody in my life ever gave me anything for my race except derision. I have what I have because I worked hard to get it, and I earned it on my own merits. Not because some Congressmen felt guilty about the sins of their ancestory. None of those laws changed anything except perception.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Re: Gato_Solo
No. As I said, you don't get it. What we have is segments of the society being set above the rest of that society due to real or perceived wrongs. The majority clamors to lick their boots because the guilt campaign has been so successful. This divides, or Balkanizes, the nation into the separate factions -- those who are annointed and those who are not.
There are already protections for crimes against the person. There is no need to enhance a crime's punishment due to some prosecutor's perception of what the perpetrator was thinking at the time the crime was committed. Aren't all violent crimes against the person a relative hate crime? The poor rob the rich because they hate their ability to have whatever they want, etc.
The "protected" class starts screaming every time the laws they emplaced for themselves against the "unprotected" class begin to be used against them.
Examples of this would be spousal abuse laws originally enacted against men; sexual harrasment laws originally enacted against men; child custody laws originally enacted against -- you guessed it -- men. Are you starting to see a pattern here?
These same types of laws are being enacted against Whites and are aimed primarily at Whites. There was no outcry of "hate crime" when Colin Ferguson went on his shooting rampage on the Long Island train -- wherein he bypassed Blacks to shoot Whites and Asians. Ferguson was never charged with a hate crime even though he admitted targeting non-Blacks.
How about the guy who went berzerk in Pennsylvania, I believe it was, who actually stated he was "going out to hunt Whites"? Not a hate crime, I'm sure.
How about the guy that barricaded himself in a Harlem clothing store -- Freddie's Fashion Mart -- and shepherded all of the Blacks out of the store while holding all of the Whites at gunpoint? He then set the place on fire killing seven White people. Not a hate crime, I'm sure.
I am stating the deliberate ignorance of these crimes when they were committed by those whom they were not enacted against. Those who are of the "protected" class are deemed incapable of hate. Only those in the "unprotected" class are so deemed.
The unwillingness of those who are firmly ensconced in the "Just us" department, to acknowledge that all laws eventually come to affect those who thought they were immune, is legion.
Remember the Brown Shirts? They thought they were the bee's knees until the Night of the Long Knives. Their usefulness had come to an end. The laws from which they thought they were immune came for them, too.
There will always be disproportionate justice and it will not be remedied by vaunting one group over another.
HEAR! HEAR! And good on ya! But you do realize that that is how it is supposed to be, right?
It wouldn't matter if everyone was the same color. There would always be prejudice by the talls against the shorts; the light hair against the dark; the curly hair against the straight; the fat against the skinny. That will never change.
As for me, I have done my part for racial integration.
My wife is Mexican/Yakima Indian and my son had a son by a White/Black woman. So I have a Black/White/Mexican/Indian grandson who we sincerely pray will marry an Oriental Jewish woman so our clan can piss off every bigot out there.
I unflinchingly tell people that I have done far more for racial integration with my penis than the likes of Jesse Jackson, and his ilk, could do with an inexhaustible supply of school buses. In fact, I get the animus of all sides of the racial equation because I am a race mixer. The one thing that Tom Metzger, David Duke, Louis Farrakahn, and the late, and unlamented, Kahlid Abdul Mohammed agreed on is that they all equally hate my guts because I am a race mixer.
I once told the president of the Rhode Island NAACP that while I was truly integrating the races, he and his ilk were shuttling people around on school buses and marrying their own kind. Thus he had actually done NOTHING for racial integration.
For this, he called me a "friendly racist".
I also told him that there would never be racial harmony in America as long as there is a single dollar to be made from racism. His response? He stated that if I truly wanted racial harmony that I should join the NAACP and send my $100 membership fee.
Anyway, good night. We'll talk some more tomorrow.
No. As I said, you don't get it. What we have is segments of the society being set above the rest of that society due to real or perceived wrongs. The majority clamors to lick their boots because the guilt campaign has been so successful. This divides, or Balkanizes, the nation into the separate factions -- those who are annointed and those who are not.
There are already protections for crimes against the person. There is no need to enhance a crime's punishment due to some prosecutor's perception of what the perpetrator was thinking at the time the crime was committed. Aren't all violent crimes against the person a relative hate crime? The poor rob the rich because they hate their ability to have whatever they want, etc.
The "protected" class starts screaming every time the laws they emplaced for themselves against the "unprotected" class begin to be used against them.
Examples of this would be spousal abuse laws originally enacted against men; sexual harrasment laws originally enacted against men; child custody laws originally enacted against -- you guessed it -- men. Are you starting to see a pattern here?
These same types of laws are being enacted against Whites and are aimed primarily at Whites. There was no outcry of "hate crime" when Colin Ferguson went on his shooting rampage on the Long Island train -- wherein he bypassed Blacks to shoot Whites and Asians. Ferguson was never charged with a hate crime even though he admitted targeting non-Blacks.
How about the guy who went berzerk in Pennsylvania, I believe it was, who actually stated he was "going out to hunt Whites"? Not a hate crime, I'm sure.
How about the guy that barricaded himself in a Harlem clothing store -- Freddie's Fashion Mart -- and shepherded all of the Blacks out of the store while holding all of the Whites at gunpoint? He then set the place on fire killing seven White people. Not a hate crime, I'm sure.
I am stating the deliberate ignorance of these crimes when they were committed by those whom they were not enacted against. Those who are of the "protected" class are deemed incapable of hate. Only those in the "unprotected" class are so deemed.
The unwillingness of those who are firmly ensconced in the "Just us" department, to acknowledge that all laws eventually come to affect those who thought they were immune, is legion.
Remember the Brown Shirts? They thought they were the bee's knees until the Night of the Long Knives. Their usefulness had come to an end. The laws from which they thought they were immune came for them, too.
There will always be disproportionate justice and it will not be remedied by vaunting one group over another.
HEAR! HEAR! And good on ya! But you do realize that that is how it is supposed to be, right?
It wouldn't matter if everyone was the same color. There would always be prejudice by the talls against the shorts; the light hair against the dark; the curly hair against the straight; the fat against the skinny. That will never change.
As for me, I have done my part for racial integration.
My wife is Mexican/Yakima Indian and my son had a son by a White/Black woman. So I have a Black/White/Mexican/Indian grandson who we sincerely pray will marry an Oriental Jewish woman so our clan can piss off every bigot out there.
I unflinchingly tell people that I have done far more for racial integration with my penis than the likes of Jesse Jackson, and his ilk, could do with an inexhaustible supply of school buses. In fact, I get the animus of all sides of the racial equation because I am a race mixer. The one thing that Tom Metzger, David Duke, Louis Farrakahn, and the late, and unlamented, Kahlid Abdul Mohammed agreed on is that they all equally hate my guts because I am a race mixer.
I once told the president of the Rhode Island NAACP that while I was truly integrating the races, he and his ilk were shuttling people around on school buses and marrying their own kind. Thus he had actually done NOTHING for racial integration.
For this, he called me a "friendly racist".
I also told him that there would never be racial harmony in America as long as there is a single dollar to be made from racism. His response? He stated that if I truly wanted racial harmony that I should join the NAACP and send my $100 membership fee.
Anyway, good night. We'll talk some more tomorrow.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Re: Gato_Solo
I will try to explain this again, since you don't see what I'm saying. Before affirmative action, there were more minorities in college than in prison. Since then, there are five times as many minorities in prison as there are in college. Since I was there, and you were not, I'll leave it to you to prove me wrong. None of that 'feel-good' legislation has done a damned thing for anybody except the people who wrote it.
Depends upon what your definition of a 'hate crime' really is. I've always been keen on having a standard for punishments. Public executions, too. As far as 'enhancing a sentence', that doesn't happen as often as you think.
Once again...you see yourself as a victim. If I subscribed to that kind of sentiment, I'd be living in my parent's basement, smoking crack and drinking 40's of malt liquor. Sorry. If you are a victim its because you want to be a victim. None of those laws apply to me because I don't let them apply to me.
That's, how many...three? Once again, the FBI will show you that black on white crime is disproportionate to white on black crime.
Source...
You can find more information here.
Funny...when it was white males that were the 'just us' crowd, this kind of backlash took forever to show up. Maybe because of all the lynchings and intimidation going on...While I'm not one for 'tit for tat', your rather inflammatory remarks give rise to such emotion in me.
Really? Considering we're all mixed, anyway, what does that really mean?
While some of what you said is benign, that part about your wife, your son, and your grandson can be taken one of two ways...
1. You're a true descendant of the slave owners. I'll leave you to figure that one out.
2. You're a crusader, who thinks that...just because he marries into a race, it gives him enough of a 'free pass' to speak for that race. My ex-wife is Panamanian. My current wife is Phillipino and Spanish. I don't speak for them...
I will try to explain this again, since you don't see what I'm saying. Before affirmative action, there were more minorities in college than in prison. Since then, there are five times as many minorities in prison as there are in college. Since I was there, and you were not, I'll leave it to you to prove me wrong. None of that 'feel-good' legislation has done a damned thing for anybody except the people who wrote it.
jimpeel said:
Depends upon what your definition of a 'hate crime' really is. I've always been keen on having a standard for punishments. Public executions, too. As far as 'enhancing a sentence', that doesn't happen as often as you think.
jimpeel said:
Once again...you see yourself as a victim. If I subscribed to that kind of sentiment, I'd be living in my parent's basement, smoking crack and drinking 40's of malt liquor. Sorry. If you are a victim its because you want to be a victim. None of those laws apply to me because I don't let them apply to me.
jimpeel said:
That's, how many...three? Once again, the FBI will show you that black on white crime is disproportionate to white on black crime.
Source...
You can find more information here.
jimpeel said:
Funny...when it was white males that were the 'just us' crowd, this kind of backlash took forever to show up. Maybe because of all the lynchings and intimidation going on...While I'm not one for 'tit for tat', your rather inflammatory remarks give rise to such emotion in me.
jimpeel said:
Really? Considering we're all mixed, anyway, what does that really mean?
jimpeel said:I once told the president of the Rhode Island NAACP that while I was truly integrating the races, he and his ilk were shuttling people around on school buses and marrying their own kind. Thus he had actually done NOTHING for racial integration.
For this, he called me a "friendly racist".
I also told him that there would never be racial harmony in America as long as there is a single dollar to be made from racism. His response? he stated that if I truly wanted racial harmony that I should join the NAACP and send my $100 membership fee.
While some of what you said is benign, that part about your wife, your son, and your grandson can be taken one of two ways...
1. You're a true descendant of the slave owners. I'll leave you to figure that one out.
2. You're a crusader, who thinks that...just because he marries into a race, it gives him enough of a 'free pass' to speak for that race. My ex-wife is Panamanian. My current wife is Phillipino and Spanish. I don't speak for them...
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Re: Gato_Solo
Affirmative action is nothing more than institutionalized payback for past wrongs real and imagined. In the world of affirmative action, two wrongs DO make a right.
College or prison?
Agreed. I have said that over and over. It is faction driven guilt that has made that legislation possible; and those factions, which I have detailed here, have used that guilt to great advantage.
It happens quite a bit but usually to Whites. I illustrated several hate crimes which were admittedly driven by hatred of other races, perpetrated by minorities, which were never charged as hate crimes. That is because hate crime legislation is a law directed at Whites. Only Whites are capable of hate. Everyone else is driven by "rage" over past wrongs, not hatred. That is the excuse.
Everyone trots out the "V" word these days. Everyone is a "victim" of something -- real or imagined. If you try to make a point about something you are somehow painted as some kind of "victim". Being a victim is the buzzword of the new mellinium.
How am I a "victim"? Am I laid up in a hospital with stab or gunshot wounds? Have I been beaten, bludgeoned, stabbed, run over by a car deliberately?
Claiming to be a "victim" is for cowards who hide behind the word. Claiming someone else is a "victim" for the mere expression of an opinion is disingenuous especially when the proof of the contention is laid bare before you every day.
You go back to crime and victimization when the debate is about the politics of legislation driven by factionalization. Hate crimes legislation is driven by special intrest groups looking for special treatment above and beyond what is due them as detailed in the supreme law of the land -- the Constitution.
Simply prove those remarks wrong. Show me where there is no factionalization. Show me where the true power lies. Show me that those five areas of power -- sex, race, religion, sexual preference, and disability -- are not the central themes of every political candidate. Show me that they are not the special interest groups that they are and that laws created for just them are actually laws created for the whole of the citizenry.
Go for it.
Try to tell that to Jackson, Sharpton, Duke, Farrakahn, et al.
Far too simplistic.
My family never owned slaves nor, to my knowledge, were we ever slaves ourselves.
I am no crusader -- although I am of English heritage (Peel) -- and I speak for no one but myself. A personal opinion based upon day to day observation and evaluation is just that -- a personal opinion. How that translates into speaking for any particular group I have no idea; but it must take quite a bit of mental gymnastics to arrive there..
I have shown you which groups lead the politicians around by the nose. I have shown you which groups hold the power, and thus the reins of power, through their control of politicians hellbent on offending no one.
Believe it or don't. I'm not here to convince you or anyone else. I am here to put forth observations for your perusal. What you do with them is up to you. In your case, you reject them out of hand in the face of the political planks of the party platforms here in America.
Look at Europe and what they are going through because of political correctness. We are soon to be visited by that same set of problems; and it will be driven by those very factions that I have detailed in this thread.
Affirmative action is nothing more than institutionalized payback for past wrongs real and imagined. In the world of affirmative action, two wrongs DO make a right.
College or prison?
Agreed. I have said that over and over. It is faction driven guilt that has made that legislation possible; and those factions, which I have detailed here, have used that guilt to great advantage.
It happens quite a bit but usually to Whites. I illustrated several hate crimes which were admittedly driven by hatred of other races, perpetrated by minorities, which were never charged as hate crimes. That is because hate crime legislation is a law directed at Whites. Only Whites are capable of hate. Everyone else is driven by "rage" over past wrongs, not hatred. That is the excuse.
Everyone trots out the "V" word these days. Everyone is a "victim" of something -- real or imagined. If you try to make a point about something you are somehow painted as some kind of "victim". Being a victim is the buzzword of the new mellinium.
How am I a "victim"? Am I laid up in a hospital with stab or gunshot wounds? Have I been beaten, bludgeoned, stabbed, run over by a car deliberately?
Claiming to be a "victim" is for cowards who hide behind the word. Claiming someone else is a "victim" for the mere expression of an opinion is disingenuous especially when the proof of the contention is laid bare before you every day.
You go back to crime and victimization when the debate is about the politics of legislation driven by factionalization. Hate crimes legislation is driven by special intrest groups looking for special treatment above and beyond what is due them as detailed in the supreme law of the land -- the Constitution.
Simply prove those remarks wrong. Show me where there is no factionalization. Show me where the true power lies. Show me that those five areas of power -- sex, race, religion, sexual preference, and disability -- are not the central themes of every political candidate. Show me that they are not the special interest groups that they are and that laws created for just them are actually laws created for the whole of the citizenry.
Go for it.
Try to tell that to Jackson, Sharpton, Duke, Farrakahn, et al.
Far too simplistic.
My family never owned slaves nor, to my knowledge, were we ever slaves ourselves.
I am no crusader -- although I am of English heritage (Peel) -- and I speak for no one but myself. A personal opinion based upon day to day observation and evaluation is just that -- a personal opinion. How that translates into speaking for any particular group I have no idea; but it must take quite a bit of mental gymnastics to arrive there..
I have shown you which groups lead the politicians around by the nose. I have shown you which groups hold the power, and thus the reins of power, through their control of politicians hellbent on offending no one.
Believe it or don't. I'm not here to convince you or anyone else. I am here to put forth observations for your perusal. What you do with them is up to you. In your case, you reject them out of hand in the face of the political planks of the party platforms here in America.
Look at Europe and what they are going through because of political correctness. We are soon to be visited by that same set of problems; and it will be driven by those very factions that I have detailed in this thread.
chcr
Too cute for words
Re: Gato_Solo
I especially liked the part about the Rhode Island director of the NAACP.
you've really lived everywhere and done everything, haven't ya? why, with all the experience and wisdom you have, you must be 300 years old.
I especially liked the part about the Rhode Island director of the NAACP.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Re: Gato_Solo
I went back to all six pages of this thread and searched on the term "all of it" and the only time those words have been used in this entire thread was in YOUR POST #227 which attributes those words to me.
That, sir, would make you a liar and a prevaricator. Do you wish to invent any more quotes attributable to me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimpeel
* all of it *
you've really lived everywhere and done everything, haven't ya? why, with all the experience and wisdom you have, you must be 300 years old.
I went back to all six pages of this thread and searched on the term "all of it" and the only time those words have been used in this entire thread was in YOUR POST #227 which attributes those words to me.
That, sir, would make you a liar and a prevaricator. Do you wish to invent any more quotes attributable to me?
SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
Man, looks like I picked a good weekend to be bedridden with pain...
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Since no one here is espousing white power, it must still be the gay thread; unless, of course, you would like to make it into a white power thread.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Professur
Well-Known Member
Exactly how many different gods did you piss off anyhow?
2minkey
bootlicker
Re: Gato_Solo
by *all of it* i meant "pretty much everything you done said." i wasn't really feeling like pulling dozens of various quotes of yours where you spount on about knowing all kinds of shit (and dismissing others as not getting it).
get it now?
by *all of it* i meant "pretty much everything you done said." i wasn't really feeling like pulling dozens of various quotes of yours where you spount on about knowing all kinds of shit (and dismissing others as not getting it).
get it now?
SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
I seem to have appeased all of them except the ArchGod of Arthritis, sub-demon Lower Back/Hip erosion. He's still pretty pissed at me.
freako104
Well-Known Member
Not higher population...higher number of said group. In a town with one minority family of 4 out of 10,000 people, you could say that any crime against them was a hate crime...from an auto accident to a major felony.
For instance. Lets say that I'm the only black person living in your town. One day, I'm out driving my Audi, and a car runs a stop sign while the driver is yakking it up on a cell phone. Most people would agree that it was driver inattention that caused the accident, but I could make a case that said driver didn't like the fact that I was driving an Audi, and rammed me.
That would be a skew since by logical reasoning it was his inattention to the sign though you were able to personalise the accident into an attack. I see where you are coming from now. Apologies for my misinterpertation