Why we are on the verge of collapse...

[Anonymous]

Er, steady their, sparky.



===



I am, however, in the absence of proof to the contrary, entitled to believe your assertion must be fallacious.

There, there....you, like other BCers, are of course at liberty to believe whatever you like.  Such is the nature of BC.  



I'd quote Galileo's famous sentiment also ("Eppur si muove") except that it turns out after four centuries that the quote may be spurious.



The sentiment, of course, remains as a great example of Treppenwitz.

[Wazzzup]

You don't have to respond peaches, I just want to know that you saw this



I'll give my race based marxism explanation one more try-- classical marxism was "workers unite" but the left no longer cares about poor and lower class whites, indeed many ridicule them, and the democrat party has written them off.  So The left has transferred the old class struggle marxism into a race based marxism in order to disinclude poor whites, (and include well off minorities). The old marxism was "workers unite," now its "minorities unite." and under this belief system all races need to have the exact same stuff or oppression is causing inequality.  

I don't deny that there are plenty of blacks who are prejudiced against whites generally, and I don't have to wonder why this is so.

In other words whites deserve to be hated.  that seems to be what you are implying.  If not please clarify.

I'll save that for another conversation if you don't mind.  This one is already all over the map.

that's fine I'll wait.  But I'll say this in the meantime.  I know there are a whole lot of leftists, probably a majority these days unfortunately, who think that whites deserve to be hated for "history."  Even though very few blacks who experienced Jim crow laws are alive today, and very few whites who advocated them are around either.  



the other half of the "whites deserve to be hated" thinking is marxism, IMO, Like I said above--whites have stuff minorities don't, so whites must be cheating them with racism. the theory doesn't work--because Asians are outdoing whites in many ways in America.  So how can that be? whites are holding everybody else down but, whites say to Asians, "you go ahead and succeed we won't hold you back like the others".  Makes no sense.[/quote]

[Wazzzup]

Last time I looked, whites were in no more danger from blacks than from other whites.  There is a shit ton of black on black street crime, that much is true.  White on black

and black on white are about equal.

 

Equal in aggregate possibly, but not at all on an individual level, the year I found FBI stats for, 2013, showed that

a white person is nearly 13 times more likely to be murdered by a black person, than a black person murdered by a white person.

 that is a truly stunning statistic IMO.      

And even after racism became politically incorrect it only moved further under the radar.

It's an observation based on my interest in social anthropology.  How else could you explain that there was no overt white racism for a few decades,

yet when Trump started dog whistling the racists started pouring out of the woodwork?

Did they?  maybe. or maybe that was the narrative the completely unobjective media wanted.--that racists were coming out in droves and trump was their pied piper. So the media ferreted out any story they could find to support that narrative.  They are quite adept at making mountains out of molehills when it suits their purposes.



Doesn't matter anyway.  trump made clear he disavowed these groups over and over.



This is quite unlike Obama who never distanced himself from the hate group black lives matter in any way, never criticized them, he even met with many of them at the white house.  Though BLM people were caught advocating cop killing, and many BLM groups were involved in numerous riots and lootings, (at a few of which they went looking for whites to beat up).  Also members and associates of BLM killed about ten cops execution style.  In addition obama also met many times with Al Sharpton and even met with farrakhan in '05.  I'm quite sure trump never met with any comparable whites.  



Indeed *IF* white extremist groups were coming out of the woodwork it may well have had little to do with Trump, it may have  been in response to Obama's open encouragement of anti-white extremists throughout his presidency.



FYI a clan rally is usually about 20 Billybobs in pointy hats getting laughed at by 200 other people.  Like CC said, they are a threat to no one.  They haven't had any real power since the 60s.   However, Black lives matter, antifa and trump haters in general, are OTOH very very serious threats to democracy.

[Anonymous]

And even after racism became politically incorrect it only moved further under the radar.

It's an observation based on my interest in social anthropology.  How else could you explain that there was no overt white racism for a few decades,

yet when Trump started dog whistling the racists started pouring out of the woodwork?

You've been asked to prove that and you won't because you can't.

[Anonymous]

You don't have to respond peaches, I just want to know that you saw this



===

Yes, I saw it.  And dude, I'm also aware there are other points in this thread that I owe you a repsonse on .  I'll get to it when I can, and I appreciate your patience.

You've been asked to prove that and you won't because you can't.

Perhaps not to the complete satisfaction of your crew, but I assure you there are credible sources for the claim.  It's bookmarked and I'll get to it as and if time permits.  This is a message board, not a live chat.



You may not be aware of it, but if I were to make a claim on your forum that Trump has improved the economy and said I'd seen it on Fox or on DailyCaller, people would nod their heads sagely.  But if I made the opposite claim it would not matter what sources I offered.  Your crew would try to impeach my sources, question my parentage and my motives, and call me half a dozen predictable names.  



I have a limited interest in that exercise, where I do the leg work and others sit back drinking beer and insult me without disproving (or in some cases, even reading) anything I've offered.  Consequently the chore (to which I haven't even agreed) is not at the top of my priorities.

[Bricktop]

Er, steady their, sparky.



===



I am, however, in the absence of proof to the contrary, entitled to believe your assertion must be fallacious.

There, there....you, like other BCers, are of course at liberty to believe whatever you like.  Such is the nature of BC.  



I'd quote Galileo's famous sentiment also ("Eppur si muove") except that it turns out after four centuries that the quote may be spurious.



The sentiment, of course, remains as a great example of Treppenwitz.

One again, a leftist is caught out lying, and his response is to waffle and pretend he's more intelligent that anyone else by quoting dead people.



This is pure leftist debating, plain and simple.

[Bricktop]

You don't have to respond peaches, I just want to know that you saw this



===

Yes, I saw it.  And dude, I'm also aware there are other points in this thread that I owe you a repsonse on .  I'll get to it when I can, and I appreciate your patience.

You've been asked to prove that and you won't because you can't.

Perhaps not to the complete satisfaction of your crew, but I assure you there are credible sources for the claim.  It's bookmarked and I'll get to it as and if time permits.  This is a message board, not a live chat.



You may not be aware of it, but if I were to make a claim on your forum that Trump has improved the economy and said I'd seen it on Fox or on DailyCaller, people would nod their heads sagely.  But if I made the opposite claim it would not matter what sources I offered.  Your crew would try to impeach my sources, question my parentage and my motives, and call me half a dozen predictable names.  



I have a limited interest in that exercise, where I do the leg work and others sit back drinking beer and insult me without disproving (or in some cases, even reading) anything I've offered.  Consequently the chore (to which I haven't even agreed) is not at the top of my priorities.

That smacks of elitism. Do you consider yourself elite?



Your assurances are fine...but again, I ask, how hard is it to post a URL.



If I see a report on Fox News, or CNN, or the BBC or our very own variation of that government owned channel, I treat all with equal skepticism and cynicism. I have done so long before Trumps election ramped up media hysteria to the ludicrous heights it reaches now, having been on the receiving end of their mendacity in the past.



That does not mean that they are all lying simultaneously. Facts are facts, and are easily verifiable. More often than not, it is the context in which those facts are reported that distorts and perverts the truth.



You stated what you believed to be a fact, by failing to qualify it as anything but. That you dangle your inane "I am intelligent...here's a quote proving it" troll in lieu of backing your claim is telling.

[Anonymous]

You don't have to respond peaches, I just want to know that you saw this



===

Yes, I saw it.  And dude, I'm also aware there are other points in this thread that I owe you a repsonse on .  I'll get to it when I can, and I appreciate your patience.

You've been asked to prove that and you won't because you can't.

Perhaps not to the complete satisfaction of your crew, but I assure you there are credible sources for the claim.  It's bookmarked and I'll get to it as and if time permits.  This is a message board, not a live chat.



You may not be aware of it, but if I were to make a claim on your forum that Trump has improved the economy and said I'd seen it on Fox or on DailyCaller, people would nod their heads sagely.  But if I made the opposite claim it would not matter what sources I offered.  Your crew would try to impeach my sources, question my parentage and my motives, and call me half a dozen predictable names.  



I have a limited interest in that exercise, where I do the leg work and others sit back drinking beer and insult me without disproving (or in some cases, even reading) anything I've offered.  Consequently the chore (to which I haven't even agreed) is not at the top of my priorities.

That smacks of elitism. Do you consider yourself elite?



Your assurances are fine...but again, I ask, how hard is it to post a URL.



If I see a report on Fox News, or CNN, or the BBC or our very own variation of that government owned channel, I treat all with equal skepticism and cynicism. I have done so long before Trumps election ramped up media hysteria to the ludicrous heights it reaches now, having been on the receiving end of their mendacity in the past.



That does not mean that they are all lying simultaneously. Facts are facts, and are easily verifiable. More often than not, it is the context in which those facts are reported that distorts and perverts the truth.



You stated what you believed to be a fact, by failing to qualify it as anything but. That you dangle your inane "I am intelligent...here's a quote proving it" troll in lieu of backing your claim is telling.

Now the troll is in YOUR mouth, sir.  I've seen your work before, and like many others I don't mistake your oily blithe self-assurance for real content.



Many, many facts are not "easily verifiable" in the US these days, as you should know.

[Bricktop]

Then I am compelled to enquire as to why you CLAIM your statement to be fact, when you are now tacitly admitting you lack any valid and viable evidence?



There is a specific criteria on what renders information to be a fact. That is, it is verifiable by corroboration of some form of evidence.



That is why I am constantly self assured, corky. I deal only with fact. The literary quality only enhances that.

[Anonymous]

Then I am compelled to enquire as to why you CLAIM your statement to be fact, when you are now tacitly admitting you lack any valid and viable evidence?



There is a specific criteria on what renders information to be a fact. That is, it is verifiable by corroboration of some form of evidence.



That is why I am constantly self assured, corky. I deal only with fact. The literary quality only enhances that.

If only it were so that you deal only with fact, you'd be aware that the complete correspondence of Adams and Jefferson (spanning half a century) has been in print for many decades, and you'd also know that it's not been archived online...nor is there a published "concordance" as there is with the Bible for looking up a phrase.  Thus, by agreeing to post a citation I would be condemning myself to go to the library and re-read some unknown amount of correspondence I've already read and digested in order to give you a date which you could only verify by going in turn to a library yourself.



As it is, you should be grateful that I've shared my factual knowledge of this correspondence with you and saved you a lot of time and trouble.

[Wazzzup]

Yes, I saw it.  And dude, I'm also aware there are other points in this thread that I owe you a repsonse on .  I'll get to it when I can, and I appreciate your patience.

No problem.  You can respond at whatever pace you want.  or not even respond if you prefer.



Web chatting is a hobby but, big debates can make it feel like work sometimes.

[Bricktop]

I wonder if he will provide evidence of the rise of "white supremacists" (whatever they are) before or after he addresses your viewpoints?

[Anonymous]

I wonder if he will provide evidence of the rise of "white supremacists" (whatever they are) before or after he addresses your viewpoints?

It's hard to prove what exists only in the brainwashed minds of progtards.

[Bricktop]

Even harder to prove the existence of imaginary phenomenon. Which, on reflection, is the same thing.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if he will provide evidence of the rise of "white supremacists" (whatever they are) before or after he addresses your viewpoints?

I have never met an admitted white supremacist and I spend a lot of time in the US. That is pre and post November 2016.