RACIST!!!

[Skinny Tire AH]

[video=youtube;sM19YOqs7hU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM19YOqs7hU[/video]

[video=youtube;Y-H9BOIYhgc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-H9BOIYhgc[/video]

Bunch of frauds. Only a Republican can be a racist I guess

 

[regor]

Hey hypocritical bitches.......................:finger

 

[530RL]

[video=youtube;sM19YOqs7hU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM19YOqs7hU[/video]

[video=youtube;Y-H9BOIYhgc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-H9BOIYhgc[/video]

Bunch of frauds. Only a Republican can be a racist I guess

Hey hypocritical bitches.......................:finger

Excellent points.

I am glad you two have become principled and will not vote for a racist like Trump, Biden or Clinton.

Link for donations here.

https://garyjohnson2016.com

 

[500bbc]

It's not racist when they do it, ask any Tard here..\



:fingerTards

 

[530RL]

It's not racist when they do it, ask any Tard here..\



:fingerTards

It absolutely is.

You too are welcome to become principled against such racists such as Trump, Biden and Clinton also.

Link for donations here. :thumbsup

https://garyjohnson2016.com

 

[Bobby V]

Excellent points.

I am glad you two have become principled and will not vote for a racist like Trump, Biden or Clinton.

Link for donations here.

https://garyjohnson2016.com

Unlike regors links. Yours actually work.

 

[squeezer]

Google Rev. James Cleveland...


In the context of a direct quote from a gospel song HRC was not being racist. Annoying as hell but not racist.

WTF was Bidden thinking ?!?!?

 

[regor]

Excellent points.

I am glad you two have become principled and will not vote for a racist like Trump, Biden or Clinton.

Link for donations here.

https://garyjohnson2016.com

Saw ole Gary on Chuck Tard's "Meet the Depressed" Sunday. Guy is kinda a goof ball, but had some valid points.

It's rigged and they'll never let him in the debates. Both sides don't know who gets damaged the most by his presence.

 

[Skinny Tire AH]

Google Rev. James Cleveland...


In the context of a direct quote from a gospel song HRC was not being racist. Annoying as hell but not racist.

WTF was Bidden thinking ?!?!?

One more from plugs.

(He's not, that's the point) Maybe if you open your mind, you can come over to the dark side.



[video=youtube;5gII8D-lzbA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gII8D-lzbA[/video]

 

[500bbc]

It absolutely is.

You too are welcome to become principled against such racists such as Trump, Biden and Clinton also.

Link for donations here. :thumbsup

https://garyjohnson2016.com

Was that Gary in the striptease video at the Libertarian fiesta?

 

[500bbc]

Google Rev. James Cleveland...


In the context of a direct quote from a gospel song HRC was not being racist. Annoying as hell but not racist.

WTF was Bidden thinking ?!?!?

Idiot

 

[500bbc]

Yup, the left isn't Racist....

Just ask Lyndon Johnson



[video=youtube;EgIFV7jXBFQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgIFV7jXBFQ[/video]

 

[530RL]

Was that Gary in the striptease video at the Libertarian fiesta?

Not that I am aware of,

And why are you watching male striptease videos?

 

[500bbc]

It was a Libertarian Party convention video, devolved just a tad, I'm sure you understand better than I.



Good thing Democrats aren't really racist though isn't it?



George Corley Wallace, Jr. (August 25, 1919 ? September 13, 1998) was an American politician and the 45th Governor of Alabama, having served two nonconsecutive terms and two consecutive terms as a Democrat: 1963?1967, 1971?1979 and 1983?1987. Wallace has the third longest gubernatorial tenure in post-Constitutional U.S. history, at 16 years and four days.[1] He was a U.S. Presidential candidate for four consecutive elections, in which he sought the Democratic Party nomination in 1964, 1972, and 1976, and was the American Independent Party candidate in the 1968 presidential election. He remains the last third-party candidate to receive a state's electoral college votes.

Wallace is remembered for his Southern populist[2] and segregationist attitudes during the mid-20th century period of the Civil Rights Movement, declaring in his 1963 Inaugural Address that he stood for "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever", and standing in front of the entrance of the University of Alabama in an attempt to stop the enrollment of black students.

 

[500bbc]

Nope, not a single racist in the party of Social Purity...




Lyndon Baines Johnson 1963... "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference... I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years".

 

[rivrrts429]

She's running for California's senate [emoji2]

 

[Gelcoater]

Nope, not a single racist in the party of Social Purity...




Lyndon Baines Johnson 1963... "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference... I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years".

Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.

Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.

Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny how that works.

Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.

Yes, that was indeed a radical idea at the time!

Fact: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a century.

Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.

Regardless of what has happened since then, shouldn't we be grateful to the Republicans for these Amendments to the Constitution? And shouldn't we remember which party stood for freedom and which party fiercely opposed it?

Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with them.

Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated constantly on those shows.

Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.

Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.

Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy racists.

Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated by racism. While it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic Party over its new support for racial equality and integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party -- which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes no sense whatsoever.

Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most racist Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats (slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the Democrats! That's quite a feat!

It is true that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist -- at least not an overt racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step with the mainstream, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to LBJ in a landslide.

But Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to say the least.

Every political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply by virtue of being repeated so many times.

A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not, that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.

In the 1960s the Democratic Party changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks to earlier Republican initiatives on civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as dependent on government as possible. As LBJ so elegantly put it (in a famous moment of candor that was recorded for posterity), "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." At the same time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with racism.

From a purely cynical political perspective, the Democratic strategy of black dependence has been extremely effective. LBJ knew exactly what he was doing. African Americans routinely vote well over 90 percent Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government benefits and welfare programs. And what is the result? Before LBJ's Great Society welfare programs, the black illegitimacy rate was as low as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.

Most major American city governments have been run by liberal Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime, blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone? Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "racist" Republicans for their problems!

Washington DC is another city that has been dominated by liberal Democrats for decades. It spends more per capita on students than almost any other city in the world, yet it has some of the worst academic achievement anywhere and is a drug-infested hellhole. Barack Obama would not dream of sending his own precious daughters to the DC public schools, of course -- but he assures us that those schools are good enough for everyone else. In fact, Obama was instrumental in killing a popular and effective school voucher program in DC, effectively killing hopes for many poor black families trapped in those dysfunctional public schools. His allegiance to the teachers unions apparently trumps his concern for poor black families.

A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the antithesis of Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society. Not only is it "reverse racism," but it is based on the premise that African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of white supremacy, albeit "benevolent" white supremacy rather than the openly hostile white supremacy of the pre-1960s Democratic Party.

The next time someone claims that Republicans are racist and Democrats are not, don't fall for it.

 

[530RL]

Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.

Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.

Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny how that works.

Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.

Yes, that was indeed a radical idea at the time!

Fact: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a century.

Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.

Regardless of what has happened since then, shouldn't we be grateful to the Republicans for these Amendments to the Constitution? And shouldn't we remember which party stood for freedom and which party fiercely opposed it?

Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with them.

Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated constantly on those shows.

Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.

Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.

Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy racists.

Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated by racism. While it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic Party over its new support for racial equality and integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party -- which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes no sense whatsoever.

Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most racist Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats (slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the Democrats! That's quite a feat!

It is true that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist -- at least not an overt racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step with the mainstream, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to LBJ in a landslide.

But Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to say the least.

Every political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply by virtue of being repeated so many times.

A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not, that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.

In the 1960s the Democratic Party changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks to earlier Republican initiatives on civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as dependent on government as possible. As LBJ so elegantly put it (in a famous moment of candor that was recorded for posterity), "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." At the same time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with racism.

From a purely cynical political perspective, the Democratic strategy of black dependence has been extremely effective. LBJ knew exactly what he was doing. African Americans routinely vote well over 90 percent Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government benefits and welfare programs. And what is the result? Before LBJ's Great Society welfare programs, the black illegitimacy rate was as low as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.

Most major American city governments have been run by liberal Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime, blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone? Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "racist" Republicans for their problems!

Washington DC is another city that has been dominated by liberal Democrats for decades. It spends more per capita on students than almost any other city in the world, yet it has some of the worst academic achievement anywhere and is a drug-infested hellhole. Barack Obama would not dream of sending his own precious daughters to the DC public schools, of course -- but he assures us that those schools are good enough for everyone else. In fact, Obama was instrumental in killing a popular and effective school voucher program in DC, effectively killing hopes for many poor black families trapped in those dysfunctional public schools. His allegiance to the teachers unions apparently trumps his concern for poor black families.

A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the antithesis of Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society. Not only is it "reverse racism," but it is based on the premise that African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of white supremacy, albeit "benevolent" white supremacy rather than the openly hostile white supremacy of the pre-1960s Democratic Party.

The next time someone claims that Republicans are racist and Democrats are not, don't fall for it.

Excellent points.

Welcome to Johnson 2016. Please see the Donate button. :thumbsup

 

[Gelcoater]

Excellent points.

Welcome to Johnson 2016. Please see the Donate button. :thumbsup

Lol.

 

[2CHILL]

Mocking people of other races, telling distasteful jokes or stereotyping people is wrong. Many of you here seem to think that this is racism. Racism is an INSTITUTIONAL system with consequences far more real than hurting someone?s feelings. It is most easily seen in the criminal justice system. For example:

When Cory Batey was a 19-year-old standout football player at Vanderbilt, he raped an unconscious woman. The ample evidence, including security cameras showing the unconscious woman being carried into a dorm room and cellphone photos and videos of the sexual assault, was clear ? Cory Batey sexually assaulted the woman. In April, a jury found Batey guilty of three felony counts including aggravated rape and two counts of aggravated sexual battery.

He was immediately remanded into custody and must serve a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 to 25 years in prison.
What Batey did was reprehensible. The judge and jury treated his crime as such.

That's what makes the case of Brock Turner, a 19-year-old standout swimmer at Stanford who raped an unconscious woman, all the more infuriating. As was the case with Batey, ample evidence existed that Turner was guilty.

Eyewitnesses actually caught him in the act as he sexually assaulted an unconscious woman behind a dumpster. A jury agreed and Turner was found guilty of multiple felony rape charges. Turner, though, was given a six-month jail sentence and told he could be released on good behavior in as little as three months. He won't even go to an actual prison, but will remain in the local jail during that time.

One man (And many like him) will spend the entire prime of his life in prison for his crime ? the other will be out of jail before the summer heat disappears.
Such is often the case of crime in America. Black men consistently pay the harshest possible price for crimes they commit. Just off the top, black men are given prison sentences 20% longer than white men for the exact same crimes. Cory Batey's minimum possible prison sentence, though, is actually 3,000% longer than what Brock Turner was given for a comparable crime.

Teenager Kalief Browder spent over three years in Rikers Island because he was suspected of having stolen a book bag. He was never even charged with a crime and committed suicide months after his release.

Jasmine Richards, a young activist in Pasadena, California, was convicted of "felony lynching" after she stood up for a young stranger she thought was being brutalized by the police and could spend years in prison over it. It is among the most ridiculous, trumped up convictions I've seen in my entire life.

America doesn't have a hard time sending people to prison for years on end. Our country does that well. It's just that the same rules don't seem to apply if you are white and privileged.

Me pointing out this fact (and your acknowledgement of this truth) isn't racist or the problem. Institutional racism is the problem...

 

[Stainless]

Mocking people of other races, telling distasteful jokes or stereotyping people is wrong. Many of you here seem to think that this is racism. Racism is an INSTITUTIONAL system with consequences far more real than hurting someone?s feelings. It is most easily seen in the criminal justice system. For example:

When Cory Batey was a 19-year-old standout football player at Vanderbilt, he raped an unconscious woman. The ample evidence, including security cameras showing the unconscious woman being carried into a dorm room and cellphone photos and videos of the sexual assault, was clear ? Cory Batey sexually assaulted the woman. In April, a jury found Batey guilty of three felony counts including aggravated rape and two counts of aggravated sexual battery.

He was immediately remanded into custody and must serve a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 to 25 years in prison.
What Batey did was reprehensible. The judge and jury treated his crime as such.

That's what makes the case of Brock Turner, a 19-year-old standout swimmer at Stanford who raped an unconscious woman, all the more infuriating. As was the case with Batey, ample evidence existed that Turner was guilty.

Eyewitnesses actually caught him in the act as he sexually assaulted an unconscious woman behind a dumpster. A jury agreed and Turner was found guilty of multiple felony rape charges. Turner, though, was given a six-month jail sentence and told he could be released on good behavior in as little as three months. He won't even go to an actual prison, but will remain in the local jail during that time.

One man (And many like him) will spend the entire prime of his life in prison for his crime ? the other will be out of jail before the summer heat disappears.
Such is often the case of crime in America. Black men consistently pay the harshest possible price for crimes they commit. Just off the top, black men are given prison sentences 20% longer than white men for the exact same crimes. Cory Batey's minimum possible prison sentence, though, is actually 3,000% longer than what Brock Turner was given for a comparable crime.

Teenager Kalief Browder spent over three years in Rikers Island because he was suspected of having stolen a book bag. He was never even charged with a crime and committed suicide months after his release.

Jasmine Richards, a young activist in Pasadena, California, was convicted of "felony lynching" after she stood up for a young stranger she thought was being brutalized by the police and could spend years in prison over it. It is among the most ridiculous, trumped up convictions I've seen in my entire life.

America doesn't have a hard time sending people to prison for years on end. Our country does that well. It's just that the same rules don't seem to apply if you are white and privileged.

Me pointing out this fact (and your acknowledgement of this truth) isn't racist or the problem. Institutional racism is the problem...

I rarely involve myself in any thread that is the subject of racism(admittedly I read them), but I would agree with you about Brock Turner, Rape is rape. I have no knowledge of the 1st incidents background so I'm not going to have an opinion on it.

 

[Gelcoater]

 

[500bbc]

Mocking people of other races, telling distasteful jokes or stereotyping people is wrong. Many of you here seem to think that this is racism. Racism is an INSTITUTIONAL system with consequences far more real than hurting someone?s feelings. It is most easily seen in the criminal justice system. For example:

When Cory Batey was a 19-year-old standout football player at Vanderbilt, he raped an unconscious woman. The ample evidence, including security cameras showing the unconscious woman being carried into a dorm room and cellphone photos and videos of the sexual assault, was clear ? Cory Batey sexually assaulted the woman. In April, a jury found Batey guilty of three felony counts including aggravated rape and two counts of aggravated sexual battery.

He was immediately remanded into custody and must serve a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 to 25 years in prison.
What Batey did was reprehensible. The judge and jury treated his crime as such.

That's what makes the case of Brock Turner, a 19-year-old standout swimmer at Stanford who raped an unconscious woman, all the more infuriating. As was the case with Batey, ample evidence existed that Turner was guilty.

Eyewitnesses actually caught him in the act as he sexually assaulted an unconscious woman behind a dumpster. A jury agreed and Turner was found guilty of multiple felony rape charges. Turner, though, was given a six-month jail sentence and told he could be released on good behavior in as little as three months. He won't even go to an actual prison, but will remain in the local jail during that time.

One man (And many like him) will spend the entire prime of his life in prison for his crime ? the other will be out of jail before the summer heat disappears.
Such is often the case of crime in America. Black men consistently pay the harshest possible price for crimes they commit. Just off the top, black men are given prison sentences 20% longer than white men for the exact same crimes. Cory Batey's minimum possible prison sentence, though, is actually 3,000% longer than what Brock Turner was given for a comparable crime.

Teenager Kalief Browder spent over three years in Rikers Island because he was suspected of having stolen a book bag. He was never even charged with a crime and committed suicide months after his release.

Jasmine Richards, a young activist in Pasadena, California, was convicted of "felony lynching" after she stood up for a young stranger she thought was being brutalized by the police and could spend years in prison over it. It is among the most ridiculous, trumped up convictions I've seen in my entire life.

America doesn't have a hard time sending people to prison for years on end. Our country does that well. It's just that the same rules don't seem to apply if you are white and privileged.

Me pointing out this fact (and your acknowledgement of this truth) isn't racist or the problem. Institutional racism is the problem...

I see your atrocity and raise you one.

Investigation into Mississippi woman's burning death leads to arrests of 17 suspected gang members


Published December 18, 2015
? FoxNews.com



Facebook
6401
Twitter
14
Email

Print




This undated photograph show Jessica Chambers, who died after being set on fire in Courtland, Miss. on Dec. 6, 2014.

This undated photograph show Jessica Chambers, who died after being set on fire in Courtland, Miss. on Dec. 6, 2014.


The hunt for the killer of a 19-year-old Mississippi woman who was burned alive last year has resulted in the arrests of 17 suspected gang members, authorities said this week, though none have been directly linked to the woman's death.

FBI officials announced the arrests Tuesday of suspected members of the Black Gangster Disciples, Vice Lords, and Sipp Mob street gangs, according to The Clarion-Ledger newspaper.

That "institutional" enough for you?

 

[2CHILL]

No, it's not institutional. It is however, a terrible crime, for which they should all be punished to the full extent of the law. I'm not under the impression that black people don't commit crime. There are criminals in every race, that isn't the point. It doesn't matter who hates who (although it's all wrong). INSTITUTIONAL racism has an impact on whole segments of the population. Look up the word...

 

[500bbc]

No, it's not institutional. It is however, a terrible crime, for which they should all be punished to the full extent of the law. I'm not under the impression that black people don't commit crime. There are criminals in every race, that isn't the point. It doesn't matter who hates who (although it's all wrong). INSTITUTIONAL racism has an impact on whole segments of the population. Look up the word...

You're hopelessly brainwashed and abjectly racist.

You still vote for the party that has kept blacks in "institutional" chains since the Civil War.

 

[was thatguy]

Chill,
Curious as to your position concerning a sitting judge, born in the USA, who is a member of a group of lawyers representing "the race"?
To me, this is by definition catagorical racism.

 

[500bbc]

Chill,
Curious as to your position concerning a sitting judge, born in the USA, who is a member of a group of lawyers representing "the race"?
To me, this is by definition catagorical racism.

How can you ask such a stupid question?

It can't be racist because he's not white even though he's as white as a sheet with 100% European blood in his veins.

 

[was thatguy]

How can you ask such a stupid question?

It can't be racist because he's not white even though he's as white as a sheet with 100% European blood in his veins.

I can ask, it's easy when you are the target of "soft bigotry of low expectations"!!

 

[saucedaddy]

Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.

Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.

Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny how that works.

Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.

Yes, that was indeed a radical idea at the time!

Fact: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a century.

Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.

Regardless of what has happened since then, shouldn't we be grateful to the Republicans for these Amendments to the Constitution? And shouldn't we remember which party stood for freedom and which party fiercely opposed it?

Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with them.

Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated constantly on those shows.

Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.

Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.

Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy racists.

Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated by racism. While it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic Party over its new support for racial equality and integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party -- which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes no sense whatsoever.

Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most racist Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats (slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the Democrats! That's quite a feat!

It is true that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist -- at least not an overt racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step with the mainstream, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to LBJ in a landslide.

But Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to say the least.

Every political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply by virtue of being repeated so many times.

A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not, that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.

In the 1960s the Democratic Party changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks to earlier Republican initiatives on civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as dependent on government as possible. As LBJ so elegantly put it (in a famous moment of candor that was recorded for posterity), "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." At the same time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with racism.

From a purely cynical political perspective, the Democratic strategy of black dependence has been extremely effective. LBJ knew exactly what he was doing. African Americans routinely vote well over 90 percent Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government benefits and welfare programs. And what is the result? Before LBJ's Great Society welfare programs, the black illegitimacy rate was as low as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.

Most major American city governments have been run by liberal Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime, blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone? Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "racist" Republicans for their problems!

Washington DC is another city that has been dominated by liberal Democrats for decades. It spends more per capita on students than almost any other city in the world, yet it has some of the worst academic achievement anywhere and is a drug-infested hellhole. Barack Obama would not dream of sending his own precious daughters to the DC public schools, of course -- but he assures us that those schools are good enough for everyone else. In fact, Obama was instrumental in killing a popular and effective school voucher program in DC, effectively killing hopes for many poor black families trapped in those dysfunctional public schools. His allegiance to the teachers unions apparently trumps his concern for poor black families.

A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the antithesis of Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society. Not only is it "reverse racism," but it is based on the premise that African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of white supremacy, albeit "benevolent" white supremacy rather than the openly hostile white supremacy of the pre-1960s Democratic Party.

The next time someone claims that Republicans are racist and Democrats are not, don't fall for it.

Good God! I hope that manifesto was a "Cut &Paste", otherwise take a breath..:rules
Btw... "Great post, as usual"!arty2:

 

[regor]

Good God! I hope that manifesto was a "Cut &Paste", otherwise take a breath..:rules
Btw... "Great post, as usual"!arty2:

WTF, did Daddy only allot you a post of month?

Stretch that leash already. :thumbsup

 

[saucedaddy]

WTF, did Daddy only allot you a post of month?

Stretch that leash already. :thumbsup

It's tough to get any airtime these days. You guys have really mastered the fine art of Cut & Paste? These things are drawn out. I see you had a heavy recruitment of nut swingers over the Winter. Ever since lil Geo went on that 2 week rager, this place has been to shaky for Daddy. But it is good to see some of the locals still bringing the heat. Good to see The Lion Slayer jumpin back in. But it seems that G.Coat & Stainmaker have gone semi-soft? And do I read correctly..... You guys are voting for a Reality Show Host for President?:lmao
Btw... "Great post, as usual"! Long live the Fab 5!!!!arty2:

 

[Stainless]

It's tough to get any airtime these days. You guys have really mastered the fine art of Cut & Paste? These things are drawn out. I see you had a heavy recruitment of nut swingers over the Winter. Ever since lil Geo went on that 2 week rager, this place has been to shaky for Daddy. But it is good to see some of the locals still bringing the heat. Good to see The Lion Slayer jumpin back in. But it seems that G.Coat & Stainmaker have gone semi-soft? And do I read correctly..... You guys are voting for a Reality Show Host for President?:lmao
Btw... "Great post, as usual"! Long live the Fab 5!!!!arty2:

Lmao Saucer [emoji23]

 

[regor]

It's tough to get any airtime these days. You guys have really mastered the fine art of Cut & Paste? These things are drawn out. I see you had a heavy recruitment of nut swingers over the Winter. Ever since lil Geo went on that 2 week rager, this place has been to shaky for Daddy. But it is good to see some of the locals still bringing the heat. Good to see The Lion Slayer jumpin back in. But it seems that G.Coat & Stainmaker have gone semi-soft? And do I read correctly..... You guys are voting for a Reality Show Host for President?:lmao
Btw... "Great post, as usual"! Long live the Fab 5!!!!arty2:

Yep, pretty sad, but I'll have to settle for the reality star (with massive smack) over the "should have been in jail already" corrupt snatch. :thumbsup

You know you want on the Trump band wagon. The smack that is on the horizon is nuclear and if you don't jump on, you'll be left in the wasteland with the rest of the Tards!

I judge winning on smack and regardless of whether that bitch wins or not, her and slick Willie the rapist are in for a E-Ticket ride to hell! :fighting:

 

[Gelcoater]

It's tough to get any airtime these days. You guys have really mastered the fine art of Cut & Paste? These things are drawn out. I see you had a heavy recruitment of nut swingers over the Winter. Ever since lil Geo went on that 2 week rager, this place has been to shaky for Daddy. But it is good to see some of the locals still bringing the heat. Good to see The Lion Slayer jumpin back in. But it seems that G.Coat & Stainmaker have gone semi-soft? And do I read correctly..... You guys are voting for a Reality Show Host for President?:lmao
Btw... "Great post, as usual"! Long live the Fab 5!!!!arty2:

Lol,Dick.:finger

 

[Skinny Tire AH]

It's tough to get any airtime these days. You guys have really mastered the fine art of Cut & Paste? These things are drawn out. I see you had a heavy recruitment of nut swingers over the Winter. Ever since lil Geo went on that 2 week rager, this place has been to shaky for Daddy. But it is good to see some of the locals still bringing the heat. Good to see The Lion Slayer jumpin back in. But it seems that G.Coat & Stainmaker have gone semi-soft? And do I read correctly..... You guys are voting for a Reality Show Host for President?:lmao
Btw... "Great post, as usual"! Long live the Fab 5!!!!arty2:

Hey SD, Haven't you heard, it's the new "kinder and gentler" P&G forum, we self censor as not to offend anyone. :TinkerBell:

BTW, Great post as usual

 

[500bbc]

Hey SD, Haven't you heard, it's the new "kinder and gentler" P&G forum, we self censor as not to offend anyone. :TinkerBell:

BTW, Great post as usual

No we don't, fuck SD that cock gobbling Hillary cuntlapper.:finger

 

[Skinny Tire AH]

No we don't, fuck SD that cock gobbling Hillary cuntlapper.:finger

Now, now...That kind of overly aggressive behavior, must stop. Can't you be nice? After all SD has feelings too. And what is a "cuntlapper?"

 

[regor]

And what is a "cuntlapper?"

He likes his ears pinned in between two wrinkled..........cheese ladened............inner thighs. :drnkfr


Tends to leave a bad taste.:thumbsdown

 

[saucedaddy]

No we don't, fuck SD that cock gobbling Hillary cuntlapper.:finger

"Great post, as usual"!oint

 

[saucedaddy]

Hey SD, Haven't you heard, it's the new "kinder and gentler" P&G forum, we self censor as not to offend anyone. :TinkerBell:

BTW, Great post as usual

Not really, just specific to the needs of higher powers!
Also...."Great post, as usual"!:drink

 

[Wombat]

He likes his ears pinned in between two wrinkled..........cheese ladened............inner thighs. :drnkfr


Tends to leave a bad taste.:thumbsdown

uke:uke:uke:

 

[Skinny Tire AH]

And saving the very best for last, I give you Bob "sheets" Byrd. A Grand Kleagle for the KKK for many years and Democratic Senator from West Virginia.

[video=youtube;PnO6ai0Ktro]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnO6ai0Ktro[/video]

 

[Chili Palmer]

And saving the very best for last, I give you Bob "sheets" Byrd. A Grand Kleagle for the KKK for many years and Democratic Senator from West Virginia.

[video=youtube;PnO6ai0Ktro]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnO6ai0Ktro[/video]

He gets the back-peddling award of the century.