Man charged with sexual impropriety; presumed guilty. - Page 11 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14873127
blackjack21 wrote:He said that a lot of the problems today could be solved if we didn't have a lot of the later amendments. That could imply the 13th Amendment, but he obviously means at least the 14th and 16th amendments, which have been used to contort the meaning of the original constitution.
He literally said :"I think it was great at a time when families were united, even though we had slavery, they cared for one another," he said. "People were strong in the families. Our families were strong, our country had a direction, and we corrected many of the problems."

Meaning he supported the institution based on revisionist family values. Forgetting that we took Blacks from their families from Africans and we took them again when we forced them to breed and sell their offspring. He obviously treats Blacks as 3/5s, like most whites does. But it's ironic that he a republican would talk family values issues on Black people considering the GOP were the reason Blacks have broken families in the first place.

So no he meant all of the amendments past the 10th otherwise he would have been specific on what he meant. But again you're just gaslighting racists as any white supremacist would do. But what really got me was that you agree with him on 14th. That really show how you feel about the slavery issue.

Even the 19th amendment has allowed jurists to completely abandon the purpose of the law and social institutions. That is a valid criticism of the modern left.


Giving women the right to vote= abandoning law and social institutions? Why stop there. By your logic, there shouldn't be universal suffrage for white males and only those with property. Do you really want go back to government where only Anglos with property can vote? I mean if what you said is true than what I advocate is just as much. Just admit your an asshole who has more in common with ISIS.




The Democrats did not put an end to it when they were in power.


True, but only because they inherit the republican trade deal. Nafta was pass before Bill was in and so he honor the agreement and the consequences of it. Whether or not he was for it at all is irrelevant.

Obama pushed for the TPP.


He also push for a big infrastructure plan: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... story.html

He also did trump plan of buy america first bull ahead of trump:http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-manufacturing-jobs-plan-2013-2

Again republicans were not american first: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/19/politics/ ... index.html



The establishment maintains the illusion of partisanship to suit their needs, and pushes the notion of bipartisan support when it suits their needs.


The establishment is whites and they support the establishment through trump.


I didn't call blacks lazy as a group.

No you call them violent. That's funny, for a man who's pro-white you sure forget the unglamorous history of our race.

It's not whites per se denying blacks jobs. A lot of whites have lost their jobs to China.

It's not just China per se.. But what I find funny about the anti-globalists is that they believe they can stop "white genocide" and still have all their first world consumer goods and services hand over by African labor. You can either have one or the other not both.


That's why its important to note a real factor in what Roy Moore is not: a tool of Wall Street bankers.


He's a tool of american white supremacy and that's more important: "Only blood will tell" is the motto between you and him. You can't be against wall street and support corporatism. You can't be a capitalist and support aristocratic society and complain about wall street bankers. You get what you vote for. You voted for wall street, you got it. You don't bitch, you own it.

That's why a Chuck Schumer goes out of his way to help a Republican like Thad Cochran.


Help him on what? You say things but again one of your bullshit gaslighting techniques is being vague on it. Go and be elaborate.

It's not because he's white, but because of his role on the banking committee and appropriations committee.


What is his "role"? I do not believe he would work with a republican unless it doesn't hurt the middle class or lower class. Otherwise he would support half the policies of republicans. So this hypopehtical deal, between a republican means it won't hurt them anymore than whites hurt themselves.

It's all about the power of money. To miss this is to miss why Donald Trump won the White House.


He won due to white supremacist talking points. Remember he didn't get vote recognition till Jeb said that when a illegal immigrant comes to america it's base on love. Then trump being the "least racist president" post a vid about an illegal committing a crime and the rest was history. He got where was due to his racism and hilary baggage of being hillary(being a woman and saying she was a woman didn't help much). Face it, 36% support him do to his ideal plan taking away rights for minorities. They just hate Black and minorities, more so then they desire to preserve their race. They are willing to let trump kill them off if it make Blacks misarible. Proving LBJ correct about white ignorance.

It was racism, no more no less. You and I know the truth. It was about white victimization and hate.

So why are you trying to maintain that there is some illusion of white solidarity?


Cause they believe it, even though it's impossible they want a race war. You see it's all pettiness they don't care if they being robe, as long as Blacks suffer.

I would try to point her in the right direction about who is a good person to date and who isn't.


Again would race be require?

Women rebel very quickly if you order them around.


So do men.


They may get their wish.


Either way it's win win.


They already had a negro league in baseball, and it collapsed after they were allowed to play in MLB.


Blacks Nationalists dislike it manly as they think their believe they're be expliotated by white bosses. They want to have separated leagues, manly so Blacks can own the sports business. They're that overconfident in their abilities, that Lavar Ball already sow the seeds of separation: https://www.theringer.com/2017/12/20/16 ... all-league


They are obviously pushing a sexist agenda, and that did not end with Hillary Clinton's ignominious and well-desereved defeat to Donald Trump.


Why are we bring her up, she admit that she won't run and that grand dragon found nothing on her. So let her go, the left got over it. Why won't you? Besides, she lost base on propaganda(some well founded most base on lies), Russian meddling and lack of interest from Dem voters. Also trump told hilary to hack her emails. But it shows how stupid you are for trying to fool me with that quote.



They are very different cases. In the case of the NFL suit, the woman was accused of stealing and then fired.


Accused the same way Moore and Franklin was. Except you sooner believe she did it over them.

Subsequently, she decided it was about sexual harassment and age discrimination.


Maybe cause it was and you're just mysogistic?

Everything was fine until the money ran out.

You assuming the case was close.

That's a common theme in many of these cases. That's why I say a lot of these Hollywood actresses come out when they are passed their sexual sell-by date.


My God you really hate women.

Emma Thompson is an older woman now. There aren't lines of boys lining up to fuck her, so now she comes out with her allegations and support of other women making allegations.


You see, this is why SJWs hate us white males. We're more disgusting than any Black rapper.

It's self serving. They played along, because it suited them to do so. Now they want to take a moral high ground as spite, because the market no longer finds them particularly hot. If you focus on your acting ability, you can be fairly old and still in demand like Helen Miren, Judy Dench or Meryl Streep.


Oh fuck off, you know it's bad enough that even with all those allegations, our white women still votes for criminals in office; and yet you still treat them as property. No wonder white women are leaving white men.

If you try to play the tart card your whole life, it doesn't work. You remember when Hillary was losing to Barack Obama?


No cause I don't care.

What did Bill Clinton say? "I can't make her any younger."


That's means nothing, considering trump was older and uglier in more ways than one. She was just boring and not charming. But again whites would chose Satan if he was republican. They really hate Black people.

That's true. He couldn't make her appealing in other ways too, since she was a neocon war hawk that hates working class people.


Wrong her economic plans benefited working class people: https://www.npr.org/2016/08/11/48956336 ... t-to-trump

"So my message to every worker in Michigan and across America is this: I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages – including the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

I oppose it now, I'll oppose it after the election, and I'll oppose it as president."

Meanwhile trump: has destroyed veterans programs: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues ... -veterans/

He allowed migrants in: http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-hir ... le/2001294

Pay them shit change, that's how much he cares about whites. http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... mar-a-lago

By contrast, in the Charlottesville case, the establishment saw that neo-Nazis were gathering in a park peacefully and didn't like seeing that.
You are defending white supremacy now. Well it proves your racist. There's no reason for a guy who doesn't call himself a racist to defend this. No reason, what so ever.



So they arranged a protest against them in a subsequent rally.


And had permits.


The neo-Nazis were peaceful

No they killed a person and shot at black people.

and 22 of the Antifa and BLM types


Who were actually peaceful and defended themselves. You see you're racist cause you don't believe Black lives matter, and that they don't have the right to self-defense. Like there's no such thing as a peaceful nazi, like in your eyes the only good Black guy is a dead one. Look just admit "I hate Black people" just say it, I respect you more if you just admit it. You can't tell me that these anti-american people are peaceful and not be racist.


ended up getting arrested. So the establishment decided to be more violent in a third round.


Wrong the establishment can not be antifa or blm they're the anti-thesis of the establishment which is US. You're being stupid for no reason, like why fool people who see you for the white supremacist you are. Again there's no evidence of Antifa or BLM being violent unless attacked first. However there is evidence of the neo-nazis wanted to kill: https://www.wired.com/story/leaked-alt- ... -lawsuits/

Again why lie to me? Only White supremacist would lie.

They got their wish.


They attack first.

Violence ensued and someone on their side got killed.

Cause they cause it.

If one of the neo-Nazis had gotten killed, there wouldn't be any outcry at all.


Because they cause it, the only outcry would be from you and the rest of white racists.

That's the establishment for you.

See this is why Blacks want us dead. They see us as abomintation with no empathy: https://www.salon.com/2017/09/19/new-st ... -spectrum/

But to see how low you go for a race war is despicable.

I just know that they were intending to do that, so I'm not going to condemn whoever they want me to condemn.


You're going to condemn a white man committing act? Yet you would condemn Trayon for defending himself? See, now you shown without a shadow of doubt that you're wicked person devoid of good or any Christian traits.

You're going hell when you die, you know that.

That's why I think the Al Franken case is funny, but you don't hear me constantly condemning him.


That's cause you think a women being victim is just a gold digger. Which is sexist.

Women don't harass as much as men. They tempt and taunt.

Evidence?

Yet, here you are taking the white accuser's side over the black man.


No I'm being fair and saying we don't know the full story.

No presumption of innocence for the black man, I see... That's what I mean. Here you are sticking up for Wall Street's establishment and thinking you are standing up for women.


Now you're just making shit up. You're accusing me something I never said.

The person accused of murder is a diagnosed schizophrenic.


So was Lee Boyd Malvo except he had worse mental issues. Yet you called him a killer.

Many of the "leaders" of these right wing protests were "former" Obama supporters.


Sources?

The deep state wanted this fight, and they got it.


No you just want dead Black people.

It would not have occurred had the political leadership in Charlottesville and Richmond allowed the neo-Nazi types to have peaceful protests.


It's call having counter protest, this has been done for decades.

The establishment Republicans are wicked enough to do something like that, but John Conyers is part of the establishment.

Will shut up about the establishment, you're the establishment. You just want white supremacy.

So they wouldn't do that to him. You might say that about Leann Tweeden on Al Franken, but she only brought it up when Franken decided to condemn Roy Moore without disclosing his own cop-a-feel ways, and she had him dead to rights with that picture.


Again now you're changing subjects, you hate Blacks and Women. We get it, pick topic stick with it.


They have always been an also ran. They had better days when they weren't so obviously biased. CNN did too. They used to have a pretty good news operation, and a good foreign desk too. In their heyday, they far outclassed FoxNews as a news organization. As a bunch of political hacks, CNN is a shambles of its former self. It started going down hill when Ted Turner married Jane Fonda, and it has never recovered.



This is another one of your gaslight tactic making bullshit that's relevant to the discussion. You drone on about shit, in an attempt to gaslight.

Offer, acceptance, performance and consideration constitute a contract. They didn't have to accept the contract. Many of them were attorneys/lawyers. They knew exactly what they were doing.


Sexual advance doesn't count as a contract.

I never claimed any of them spoke for all women. I said they all know exactly what they were doing, and what they're doing it for.


Bullshit, do you have any claim that this is for money?


FoxNews does have some fairly decent women like Dana Perino, Ainsley Earhardt and once Greta Van Susteren. However, there are a lot of predatory women out there who aren't called out for their own actions.


And there are assholes that support predatory actions like murder, racism and sexism.

There is no science behind it.


Yes it is.

It is straight up Marxism


Red baiting, look I see where this is going. You're just a gaslighter and white supremacist. I see debating facts with you is pointless, you know your nature and I'm against it.


and a tort invented in the wake of the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings precisely to stop a black conservative.


You can't claim racism, Clarence might did it. I can believe it considering republicans are more prone to sexual deviancy.

The burden of proof is on the accuser in our system of laws


But you automatically said they're lying. So in your mind, it means nothing.
and the establishment wants to change that in the short term as long as the accuser is a woman and as long as the accusation is about sexual harassment.


You're going to hell.


As I stated, there is nary a complaint until the payments stop.


You're sick.

I am utterly opposed to ObamaCare.


Cause Black man.

They try to get people like me to support it by saying, "but...but...the Heritage Foundation came up with it!" So? Why should I care.


Again Obama never said you had to take it, if you have your own health plan.


I'm no more a fascist than I am a communist.


You're a white supremacist.


I'm not an anarchist either.


White supremacist.

Capitalists generally don't refuse anyone, because profit is their motive and economies of scale require maximizing revenue. Christians, racists, sexists, etc. may have different motives. Ascribing those traits to capitalists is typically incorrect.


Bullshit, capitalist can decide who can do business. Why else for white only corporations in the past. Or hell anti-white business:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/18/fishery-could-face-legal-action-for-sign-banning-eastern-european-anglers


I agree. I don't think blacks should be required to serve whites.
They should be able to form all black churches, etc. It's only if their enterprise is so big that all groups depend on it that the commerce clause should come in and prohibit discrimination.


Well then so much for "Capitalists generally don't refuse anyone".

That's a bit of a stretch. As I said, I'm not an anarchist.


You're a racist.


I think the establishment has badly mismanaged things, that they are generally dishonest, and that their boundless ambitions are dangerously counterproductive.



So again you're the establishment.

Calling me a racist is a separate question from a white supremacist. I think all people are racist intrinsically, even if they aren't politically.


No, racists are almost always white supremacists, you're confusing it for xenophobic. And if this is true, you can't complain about Blacks calling all whites racist and oppressing them. By your logic they are correct about their assumption of us. But you probably want genocide to have white world for all I know.


Each side wants to rule the entire world and so they embrace every group possible, which is why they embrace Muslims that want to kill them while trashing Christians simultaneously.

And you embrace Nazis that want to kill Blacks while trashing women simultaneously. Again this is what happen when whites think they tough, they end up getting killed due to our foolishness and then blame other races for it.

But to Blacks, whites are those same Muslims. As you can Blacks have self-hate and guilt more so than whites ever had. And they also have to deal with White migrants in Africa and appease them. Look Zimbabwe and South Africa for all their tough talk, they serve whites that want them dead.

Besides there's no evidence of Muslim wanting to kill whites.






As for calling Obama's wife a monkey, I don't recall doing that but I wouldn't run away from it either. That was done against George Bush constantly and it is done against Trump too. What goes around comes around.


Bullshit, you making the false equivalence fallacy as an excuse to insult Black people. They have been call apes constantly and you know the historic stigma towards Blacks. Not to mention you literally did call her a monkey knowing full well of the racial intentions. I'm not an idiot, you better treat her with respect. And don't play mind games, boy.

As for cops killing blacks, in most of the cases black suspects were non-compliant, resisting arrest, etc. In a few cases, the cops were clearly in the wrong, like the South Carolina cop that shot someone in the back or the cop that stopped a person for a tail light violation and then shot him because he had a concealed carry permit. Those cops should be sent to prison. I don't think what happened to Darren Wilson was even remotely fair.


No sources and doesn't cover the fact that racists run the police force and mostly kill Blacks that were compliant or non-threaten. You see I never get you, you're against establishment(you never told me what that is) except when it comes to killing Blacks.




I have no problem debating race with you, since I think racism is a part of the natural order.



Then don't bitch about "anti-white" hate crimes or Blacks wanting to kill whites. But I also willing to destroy your myths, I been on alot of racists sites and debating them with actual facts. They of course dismiss it as SJWs when it doesn't cater to them. I'll like to see how far you go. "IQ" bullshit, anything, I'll debunk them all.


because I'm keeping to a more scientific position which they find untenable.


I highly doubt it.

We don't need one currency, a world government, a single language, or a single religion. It's pointless. Trade and the law merchant should be sufficient.




Well considering our history and damage to the world, there's a reason why people want us extinct. And you're the compelling argument.
#14873361
Potemkin wrote:I have to disagree. I think the analysis which skinster posted is on the button. The basic issue is, as the article describes, the alienation between men and women in our society. Men are socially conditioned to regard women as a resource (in this case, of sexual gratification). Women have something which men want, and we have to find some way of obtaining it without ending up in prison or with a paternity suit. Women give (or withhold) their consent to our obtaining what we want from them - this way of looking at the sexual relationship is based on the metaphor that the relationship between men and women is one of exploitation at worst or a legal business contract at best. Just as we exploit the land to extract oil or coal or whatever, we exploit women to obtain sexual gratification. With their legally defined 'consent', of course, to avoid the involvement of the courts. Can we think of no better way of relating to women? :eh:

This is wrong. There are differences in male and female libido which are for the most part responsible for the difference in male and female actions. For instance, women regret one night stands more often and men regret having said no to a one night stand more often. We will also never see porn or prostitution industries catering for females arising on the same scale as for men.

To keep with the capitalist terminology, for men sex - not women - is a scarce resource and women have sexual capital, i.e. power. Every women with at least average looks knows this. Men will go to great lengths to get sex, usually by trying to please women. A woman can lead a man around for ages if she wants and if she can keep up the impression that sex lies at the end of his efforts. Less often men will pay for sex and unfortunately sometimes they will use force. Nobody should be surprised that, while only a small minority of men forces sex on women, men make up the majority of sexual predators. We are in the process of unlearning basic facts about human nature and denying reality is becoming increasingly normal as long as it serves progressive ideological purposes.

The only interesting aspect of the current development is that it is evidence that western societies are now female dominated. And of course the Swedish feminist government leads the way:

Radio Sweden wrote:
Sweden to propose new sexual consent law by Christmas

[...]

The idea behind the law has been criticised by many Swedish lawyers, including the Swedish Bar Association, because it is difficult to see how it could be formulated without requiring any couples or groups engaging in a sexual act to each give an explicit verbal consent beforehand.

There are also fears that the law might end up criminalising even voluntary sex if no such prior verbal consent has been given.

[...]



Potemkin wrote:I disagree. The article argues, in fact, that we must go beyond the legalistic definition of 'consent'. The law, by its nature, cannot apply to anything other than a transactional arrangement. There's no law you can pass which can force people to love and respect each other. Yet that is what is needed - mutual love and respect. This is what she refers to as "wanting the sky". And this, it seems to me, is the fundamental point of the article - the thinking of liberal feminism is constrained within the legalistic, transactional framework of 'consent', which is not and cannot be defined in terms of desire or respect or pleasure, but only as a legally defined act of will. This already has the objectification of women and the alienation between men and women in our society built into it.

I take it that, as usual, nothing short of a complete transformation of society will do.

And which kind of society might be best according to the left? The NYT probably gives us a clue: Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism
#14873372
Libertarian353 wrote:But it's ironic that he a republican would talk family values issues on Black people considering the GOP were the reason Blacks have broken families in the first place.

This is false. The black men are the cause of their broken families due to their own sexual impropriety.

Libertarian353 wrote:Again Obama never said you had to take it, if you have your own health plan.

Obama lied too.

Libertarian353 wrote:Besides there's no evidence of Muslim wanting to kill whites.

But they do kill a lot of whites for some reason. Maybe, it is because they are Christian?

Libertarian353 wrote:Well considering our history and damage to the world, there's a reason why people want us extinct.

However, we also brought World War II to and end. HalleluYah.
#14873795
Libertarian353 wrote:He literally said :"I think it was great at a time when families were united, even though we had slavery, they cared for one another," he said. "People were strong in the families. Our families were strong, our country had a direction, and we corrected many of the problems."

Meaning he supported the institution based on revisionist family values.

That's a fairly big leap in logic there. Most people did not own slaves.

Libertarian353 wrote:orgetting that we took Blacks from their families from Africans and we took them again when we forced them to breed and sell their offspring. He obviously treats Blacks as 3/5s, like most whites does.

You have a Marxist understanding of the 3/5ths Compromise. The proponents of treating blacks as 3/5ths of a person for the purposes of census were abolitionists; that is, they were anti-slavery and didn't want slave states to have representation for people who weren't allowed to vote. They were for not counting black slaves at all, but had to settle for treating them as 3/5ths of a person. You should educate yourself on this issue so you don't sound like an idiot.

Libertarian353 wrote:But what really got me was that you agree with him on 14th. That really show how you feel about the slavery issue.

The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with slavery. It has to do with citizenship, the status of a person, and the incorporation of the bill of rights into corporate persons. That is why corporations have the same free speech rights as natural persons, and can contribute unlimited amounts of money to political causes. The 14th Amendment is severely abused by SCOTUS.

Libertarian353 wrote:Giving women the right to vote= abandoning law and social institutions?

The purpose of many laws, rape for example, had nothing to do with how women felt about anything. They had a purpose that has nothing to do with modern conceptions of anything. Treating women and men as absolute equals is a horrible travesty of the obsessive-compulsive fascination with the notion of equality.

Libertarian353 wrote:By your logic, there shouldn't be universal suffrage for white males and only those with property. Do you really want go back to government where only Anglos with property can vote?

There isn't universal suffrage for white males. If you are a felon, under a certain age, or not a citizen, you cannot vote. I think we should extend that to if you are incapable of logic, literacy, or paying a minimum poll tax, you should not be able to vote either.

Libertarian353 wrote:Just admit your an asshole who has more in common with ISIS.

ISIS does not believe in a Republican form of government, property rights, or due process of law.

Libertarian353 wrote:Whether or not he was for it at all is irrelevant.

He signed it into law. He could have vetoed it. So he was for it, and that is relevant. You seem to think that there are material differences between the Democrat and Republican establishments on matters like this, and there isn't.

Libertarian353 wrote:He also did trump plan of buy america first bull ahead of trump:http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-manufacturing-jobs-plan-2013-2

It's good to see you supporting president Trump. The difference between Trump and Obama here is that Trump got it done, and Obama didn't.

Libertarian353 wrote:No you call them violent.

I've said that blacks, as a group, have a higher violent crime rate than whites. That is true. I never said all blacks are violent, as that would not be true at all.

Libertarian353 wrote:It's not just China per se.. But what I find funny about the anti-globalists is that they believe they can stop "white genocide" and still have all their first world consumer goods and services hand over by African labor.

If white people in the US lost their jobs to Chinese laborers, it doesn't stand to reason that they had all their goods and services furnished by blacks in the past or that they would have them furnished by blacks in the future.

Libertarian353 wrote:You can't be against wall street and support corporatism. You can't be a capitalist and support aristocratic society and complain about wall street bankers.

I can be for nationalism and subordinate capitalism to the interests of the state. Being a capitalist doesn't mean that I have no country or any other interests. In that sense, I'm no more a capitalist than a communist. Capitalism, without a state to enforce contracts and defend property rights, is meaningless. Consequently, capitalism must be subordinate to the rule of law.

Libertarian353 wrote:What is his "role"? I do not believe he would work with a republican unless it doesn't hurt the middle class or lower class. Otherwise he would support half the policies of republicans. So this hypopehtical deal, between a republican means it won't hurt them anymore than whites hurt themselves.

Schumer isn't simply in the tank for the middle and working classes. He's the senior senator from New York. He represents Wall Street.

Protesters occupy Sen. Chuck Schumer’s office, blast Wall Street ties
The protesters came from groups that included Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter. They argue Hillary Clinton's defeat was because of her coziness with big money donors, and that Schumer is from the same mold.


Libertarian353 wrote:He won due to white supremacist talking points. Remember he didn't get vote recognition till Jeb said that when a illegal immigrant comes to america it's base on love.

Well, if Jeb Bush wanted to commit political suicide, that was his choice. Trump didn't make Bush do that to himself anymore than Trump made Hillary call half the country deplorable.

Libertarian353 wrote:Face it, 36% support him do to his ideal plan taking away rights for minorities.

Donald Trump likes minorities.

Libertarian353 wrote:Blacks Nationalists dislike it manly as they think their believe they're be expliotated by white bosses. They want to have separated leagues, manly so Blacks can own the sports business.

I don't completely disagree with you here. My point is that it is minorities today who are campaigning for racial segregation.

Libertarian353 wrote:Accused the same way Moore and Franklin was. Except you sooner believe she did it over them.

I'm not assuming that she stole anything. I'm saying that she did not bring any case of age discrimination or sexual harassment before she was fired for stealing.

Libertarian353 wrote:My God you really hate women.

I'm not gay.

Libertarian353 wrote:You see, this is why SJWs hate us white males. We're more disgusting than any Black rapper.

Except for the Vanilla Ice types like Eminem, who among white men make songs constantly denigrating women? It's pretty common in rap culture.

Snoop Dog wrote:Bitches ain't shit but hoes and tricks
Lick on these nuts and suck the dick.


Kanye West wrote:I know she like chocolate men
She got more niggas off than Cochran.

Kanye West and Donald Trump are friends.

JayZ wrote:You ain't no better because you don't be fucking rappers
You only fuck with actors
You're still getting fucked backwards

I can see why Obama invited him to the White House.

Eminem wrote:Slut, you think I won't choke no whore
Til the vocal cords don't work in her throat no more?!



Libertarian353 wrote:That's means nothing, considering trump was older and uglier in more ways than one.

You are missing the point. Women and men are different. Do you think Melania would be with Trump if he weren't a billionaire? Darwinian sexual selection prevails, not Marxist horseshit.

Libertarian353 quoting Hillary wrote:"So my message to every worker in Michigan and across America is this: I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages – including the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

I oppose it now, I'll oppose it after the election, and I'll oppose it as president."

She also said you have to have a public position and a private position. We know from WikiLeaks what she says to Goldman Sachs, but won't say to the general public.

Libertarian353 wrote:You are defending white supremacy now. Well it proves your racist. There's no reason for a guy who doesn't call himself a racist to defend this. No reason, what so ever.

I don't defend white supremacy, because I think the notion is absurd. A Jewish mayor who doesn't like neo-Nazis (who are notorious for their antipathy for Jews) decided to work with political actors to stoke opposition to the peaceful assembly of neo-Nazis. He got one assembly that ended in Antifa/BLM types getting arrested while the neo-Nazis remained peaceful. So they went for a second bite of the apple and got the protesters to be more violent and the police to stand down. They ended up getting someone killed, because of their horrible ethics.

Libertarian353 wrote:You see you're racist cause you don't believe Black lives matter, and that they don't have the right to self-defense.

They weren't attacked. They didn't have a permit to confront the neo-Nazis, but they did so unlawfully anyway.

Libertarian353 wrote:Again there's no evidence of Antifa or BLM being violent unless attacked first.

Bwahahahaha... :lol:

Libertarian353 wrote:Yet you would condemn Trayon for defending himself?

Trayvon got on top of someone and punched him. That's not a portrait of self defense.

Libertarian353 wrote:That's cause you think a women being victim is just a gold digger. Which is sexist.

I didn't call Leann Tweeden a gold digger. She didn't sue Franken at all. She just pointed out that Franken was a hypocrite. As far as I know, Franken hasn't been sued for sexual harassment.

Libertarian353 wrote:No I'm being fair and saying we don't know the full story.

So do you presume the black men in question are innocent until proven guilty? Should they be suspended from their jobs without pay just because someone accused them? Is that your idea of "fairness"?

Libertarian353 wrote:So was Lee Boyd Malvo except he had worse mental issues. Yet you called him a killer.

Lee Boyd Malvo wasn't diagnosed before killing those people. He plead not guilty by reason of insanity. I didn't say that the man in the Charlottesville case wasn't guilty of any criminal act. I'm pointing out that his state of mind remains in question. We haven't heard the case against him yet. We did hear the case against Lee Boyd Malvo.

Libertarian353 wrote:No you just want dead Black people.

BLM wants dead cops. They chant this at protests. The gal that died in Charlottesville was white.

Libertarian353 wrote:Sexual advance doesn't count as a contract.

It doesn't constitute harassment either.

Libertarian353 wrote:You can't claim racism, Clarence might did it. I can believe it considering republicans are more prone to sexual deviancy.

Most of the LGBTQ crowd votes Democrat, not Republican. Currently, Nancy Pelosi is trying to prevent the releases of which members of Congress settled sexual harassment claims at taxpayers expense, because they are overwhelmingly Democrats.

Libertarian353 wrote:You're going to hell.

For insisting on a presumption of innocence? We shall see...

Libertarian353 wrote:Well then so much for "Capitalists generally don't refuse anyone".

That's correct. They generally don't refuse anyone.

Libertarian353 wrote:And you embrace Nazis that want to kill Blacks while trashing women simultaneously. Again this is what happen when whites think they tough, they end up getting killed due to our foolishness and then blame other races for it.

Again, I'm not a Nazi. The NSDAP were working class socialists. I'm an upper middle class capitalist with nationalist sentiments. Heather Heyer was white.

Libertarian353 wrote:Besides there's no evidence of Muslim wanting to kill whites.

Radical Muslims want to kill non-Muslims and tolerant Muslims.

Libertarian353 wrote:Bullshit, you making the false equivalence fallacy as an excuse to insult Black people. They have been call apes constantly and you know the historic stigma towards Blacks. Not to mention you literally did call her a monkey knowing full well of the racial intentions.

I have no problem with this sort of thing, because my views aren't predicated on non maleficence to another person's feelings. However, why don't you quote what I said?

Anyway, getting back to the topic at hand, it seems as if the #metoo movement is dying out a bit, as it is taking down a lot more liberals than conservatives. I wonder if the media is trying to put the genie back in the bottle.
#14873957
blackjack21 wrote:Except for the Vanilla Ice types like Eminem, who among white men make songs constantly denigrating women? It's pretty common in rap culture.

How did you discover those lyrics? You don't actually listen to that kind of music, do you? The only one I can remember is MC Hammer - "U Can't Touch This" because of the beat. But at the time I never thought it had anything to do with sex or downgrading women. But you could be right. I now wonder what it was u can't touch.

#14874940
blackjack21 wrote:That's a fairly big leap in logic there. Most people did not own slaves.


Yes they did, they also had Irish slaves (which were consider more numerous and were treated worse than Blacks were) as the white racists would say. I guess they don't count racist. What do you consider most? Most people did not want trump, but I guess democracy doesn't matter.


You have a Marxist understanding of the 3/5ths Compromise.


Saying ad Hominon isn't an argument and I'm not a marxist.


The proponents of treating blacks as 3/5ths of a person for the purposes of census were abolitionists; that is, they were anti-slavery and didn't want slave states to have representation for people who weren't allowed to vote.


That's irrelevant to the neo-confederates like Roy Moore, who is illiterate to history. His beliefs and most racists beliefs today consider Blacks as second class citizens and so use 3/5 as an insult. Regardless of the context, which in your attempt to slander abolitionist movement(your cypto-racism again) by derailing the topic in order to gaslight me; White supremacists and confederates use it as an insult to Blacks.

They were for not counting black slaves at all, but had to settle for treating them as 3/5ths of a person. You should educate yourself on this issue so you don't sound like an idiot.


Except you're trying to use a history lesson in attempt to fool me. Again another one of your gaslighting tactics is derail the discussion. You did it the las vegas shooter, you did it with some rant about Ted Turner and his marriage which has no relevance; now you're doing it with this. I know full well of the 3/5 and you know damn well of the context of what I say. The same context as anti-racism=anti-white or white supremacist republicans trying to sway Blacks to vote against their own interest by saying "democratic" plantation. I also wonder were Irish slaves consider 1/5 due to them being treated "worse"? :?:

Also considering the anti-voting policies against Blacks by republicans, it wouldn't surprise me to see Blacks being consider 3/5 in order to make their vote count less.

The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with slavery.


It has everything to do with slavery "The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War.".

And it's a Reconstruction Amendment relating to Slaves, this was necessary to incorporate Blacks and "Irish" slaves as full fled citizens with equal rights.


It has to do with citizenship, the status of a person, and the incorporation of the bill of rights into corporate persons. That is why corporations have the same free speech rights as natural persons, and can contribute unlimited amounts of money to political causes. The 14th Amendment is severely abused by SCOTUS.


Which you support, on basis of free association. All republicans control by corporations support this basis of free association. What's the issue, if Citizens United which trump took hired the CEO as deputy campaign manager and trump supported the case from 2010; I can't see why anyone can't. I'm against it but, by logic a Black Supremacist organization can support Black causes and whites on their racist causes.

The purpose of many laws, rape for example, had nothing to do with how women felt about anything.


False, there's plenty of consent and no means no laws, now you're just in the different reality.


They had a purpose that has nothing to do with modern conceptions of anything.Treating women and men as absolute equals is a horrible travesty of the obsessive-compulsive fascination with the notion of equality.


So you're supporting a Saudi style society for women. It doesn't matter about your feelings, what matters is they have the same equal rights as men. But the fact that you'll deny and do some socialist tactic of force against women rights. You're no better than the feminazis in fact you only embolden their point that we white men are evil and oppressive by nature. I can see why white women are leaving us.

There isn't universal suffrage for white males. If you are a felon, under a certain age, or not a citizen, you cannot vote.


Another one of the party of Black people laws. Straw manning tactics, is also another one of your gaslighting. That had literally nothing to do with what I said. It made just as sense as saying " Not anyone can drink alcohol, if you're a certain religion have health issues or pregnant you can not drink.

And your wrong in all accounts in the next sentence. Maine and Vermont, both overwhelmingly white, are the only two states without any felon voting restrictions; even inmates can vote. Surely no racism there. :roll:

Felon voting rights are only restored through a governor’s executive action or a court order. Similar rules apply in Alabama, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi and Virginia.

Felons can vote in Alabama
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/1 ... e_pus.html

But notice the correlation between Black heavy areas and voting rights: These state prohibitions disproportionately affect African-Americans, particularly black men: one of every 13 African-Americans of voting age — more than 7 percent nationally — is disenfranchised, according to Sentencing Project’s analysis. In some of the strictest states, more than 20 percent of the African American population is disenfranchised, the report found.

As for the illegal age right wing/Russian memes on the media told 17 year olds to vote:http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/midwest/ct-illegal-voting-wisconsin-20170313-story.html

This is the attempt by Alt-right trolls to commit voter fraud and blame the democrats for it.

I think we should extend that to if you are incapable of logic, literacy, or paying a minimum poll tax, you should not be able to vote either.


You would want that, no republican will ever be elected again if we gone by your rules.



Here it is white people being our own enemies. Even if you take away all the Blacks(since you think they stupid) The smartest people will vote Blue.

ISIS does not believe in a Republican form of government, property rights, or due process of law.


Reagan and America believe so....



And considering you and republican whites neither believe it, your argument is mute...

He signed it into law. He could have vetoed it.


And would have been override, so mute point.

So he was for it, and that is relevant.


It's call compromised.

You seem to think that there are material differences between the Democrat and Republican establishments on matters like this, and there isn't.



I don't for obvious reasons, but for those who prefer american style freedom and government, you can't be more wrong. https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/commen ... p/dornc4n/

Now read the comments, and you and I know that's bullshit.

It's good to see you supporting president Trump.


It's good to see you support white genocide: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-than- ... mp-states/

The difference between Trump and Obama here is that Trump got it done, and Obama didn't.


He got nothing done, did you not see what I say?

I've said that blacks, as a group, have a higher violent crime rate than whites.


You said Blacks are naturally violent. Now show me you saying EXACTLY that.

That is true. I never said all blacks are violent, as that would not be true at all.


There also less likely to commit hate crimes against us, compare to us.

If white people in the US lost their jobs to Chinese laborers, it doesn't stand to reason that they had all their goods and services furnished by blacks in the past or that they would have them furnished by blacks in the future.


Except you're wrong 13th states end of slavery except under criminals, therefore goods and services have been and continue to be furnished by Blacks.

I can be for nationalism and subordinate capitalism to the interests of the state.


Fascism, but we all know you deny it.

Being a capitalist doesn't mean that I have no country or any other interests.


There's a reason white pride world wide exist.

In that sense, I'm no more a capitalist than a communist. Capitalism, without a state to enforce contracts and defend property rights, is meaningless. Consequently, capitalism must be subordinate to the rule of law.



Except the state will due none of that in the interest of corporate monopoly

Schumer isn't simply in the tank for the middle and working classes. He's the senior senator from New York. He represents Wall Street.


And trump isn't?

Protesters occupy Sen. Chuck Schumer’s office, blast Wall Street ties


Proves nothing BLM also occupy Sanders presidential run, and he allow them to speak. Unlike the "least racist" president.


Well, if Jeb Bush wanted to commit political suicide, that was his choice.


I guess Reagan should have also committed political suicide with his ammesty.

Trump didn't make Bush do that to himself anymore than Trump made Hillary call half the country deplorable.


Trump had a moral choice to not be an asshole and he failed. Hillary was right half trump supporters didn't want a woman as president that's why alt-right wanted to abolish women from voting with the twitter trend #abolishthe19th.

Donald Trump likes minorities.


He likes them the same way Hilary did in the 90s. So not much, also he had Haitians had aids and Nigerians live in huts. Now you would defend his racist statements, yet you consider Obama racist towards cops. I remember lurking in the summer you tried to find some bullshit against Obama towards Tewodros III and one of them was some drunk ad from 2007. The time when Republicans funded it and had a president. That's some cuckold there.

Also I would say he's benefiting Blacks alright: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/age ... rs-n758211

I don't completely disagree with you here.
My point is that it is minorities today who are campaigning for racial segregation.


See now you're projecting and replacing whites who did self- segregate(white flight, schooling etc) to Blacks who actually supported integration.

Why do you lie? Can you at least admit you want dead Blacks?

I'm not assuming that she stole anything. I'm saying that she did not bring any case of age discrimination or sexual harassment before she was fired for stealing.


How would you know, did you study the case and not just some tabloid that doesn't disclose the case.

I'm not gay.


That's irrelevant and homophobic. Gay people can do women and straight people do males. You just disregard women the same way a Muslim disregard Christian.

Except for the Vanilla Ice types like Eminem, who among white men make songs constantly denigrating women?


But you support republicans and trump who constantly denigrate women by both words and deeds. So set the standard to yourself.

It's pretty common in rap culture.


And our culture considering whites buy rap music mostly.

Kanye West and Donald Trump are friends.


The same way a slave are friends to his slave owner. Set the democrat standard towards republicans.

I can see why Obama invited him to the White House.


He knew the bullshit and trump act well.

You are missing the point. Women and men are different.


The same way Slav different from Irish.

Do you think Melania would be with Trump if he weren't a billionaire?


Do you think she was with trump because of money. Then again she was trophy wife, she would take anyone. She came from country destroyed by the west, so I can't blame her. Plus she doesn't look like the gold digger type, she has money and yet unhappy with the marriage. She even liked a tweet about separating herself: https://nypost.com/2017/05/02/melanias- ... nd-donald/

Besides she has a son, the baggage alone would kill her. But I can say the male equivalent would only be with women for sex and money. They called players or gigglos. They even go out to pretend to be something they're not like Kevin Federline taking Brittney Spears money from the divorce. It goes both ways, yet you believe only women does it more.

Darwinian sexual selection prevails, not Marxist horseshit.


Ad Hominon attacks in nod of "cultural marxism" bullshit. Everything you hate could be consider Marxist, the same way a white man consider a Black man being successful and not white worshiping, a racist.


She also said you have to have a public position and a private position. We know from WikiLeaks what she says to Goldman Sachs, but won't say to the general public.


And we know what trump says to Goldman Sachs, FCC and wall street. At least with Goldman Sachs, I assume from wikileaks(Putin arm) that she supporters Net Neutrally.

I don't defend white supremacy, because I think the notion is absurd.

You defended Neo-Nazis.

A Jewish mayor who doesn't like neo-Nazis (who are notorious for their antipathy for Jews) decided to work with political actors to stoke opposition to the peaceful assembly of neo-Nazis.


Well considering cops wanted to oppose Blacks right to bear arms: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... ments.html




And considering the only time a republican wanted gun control was to take Black guns away: http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/ex- ... ns-7744886

Considering the party of Lincoln try to stop Blacks who bought property from tearing down two democrat statues in Tennessee: http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/po ... 973168001/

And consider all the opposition to BLM by republicans to the point they can't even allowed to get permits to peaceful protest; I say what you said: "What comes around goes around." But at least the Mayor gave the killers permits who kindly came to Jewish temples and harass them which is illegal. So I say the Mayor was in legal right to do what he did.

He got one assembly that ended in Antifa/BLM types getting arrested while the neo-Nazis remained peaceful.


Considering they had permits and didn't commit violence unless attacked. Also Neo-Nazis killed a person and shot at people. You know this but you're a white supremacist.


So they went for a second bite of the apple and got the protesters to be more violent and the police to stand down.

No, Neo-Nazis are in nature violent, they wanted to kill all Blacks and minorities. Their goal was to plan violence, how many BLM/Lefties had guns?

They ended up getting someone killed, because of their horrible ethics.


No the Neo-Nazis killed a woman, and planned it. You're doing the socialist tactic of blame others for your own responsibility.


They weren't attacked.


They shoot at a Black person while the cops w
They didn't have a permit to confront the neo-Nazis, but they did so unlawfully anyway.


Except they did.


Bwahahahaha... :lol:


Not an argument.


Trayvon got on top of someone and punched him. That's not a portrait of self defense.


James Fields came to Virginia to kill a woman and neo-nazis threaten the mom and her funeral to the point she has to bury her daughter in undisclosed location. That's not a portrait of peaceful.

I didn't call Leann Tweeden a gold digger.


You imply she did it for money or assuming she was sexual deviant.

She didn't sue Franken at all. She just pointed out that Franken was a hypocrite.


Which most trump voters like you are.

As far as I know, Franken hasn't been sued for sexual harassment.


But trump has.

So do you presume the black men in question are innocent until proven guilty?


As any man who follows the law. Unlike you who won't condemn an illegal act.

Should they be suspended from their jobs without pay just because someone accused them?


I can't decide corporate discussions.

Is that your idea of "fairness"?


Repeat earlier.

Lee Boyd Malvo wasn't diagnosed before killing those people.


Well because he wasn't admitted to a doctor before the killings, doesn't make doctor word any less credible.

He plead not guilty by reason of insanity.

Which is true.

I didn't say that the man in the Charlottesville case wasn't guilty of any criminal act.


He's charged first degree.

I'm pointing out that his state of mind remains in question.


He drove all the way out of state to kill, his mind is clear. Premeditated.

We haven't heard the case against him yet.


We have: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/201 ... 954321001/

We did hear the case against Lee Boyd Malvo.


Right, judge ruled out life http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow ... story.html

BLM wants dead cops. They chant this at protests.


Cops want dead Blacks. Actually have Black pics as target practice. I can see BLM argument. Cops kill more whites and Neo-Nazis actually joined the police which in turn killed by Neo-Nazis

The gal that died in Charlottesville was white.


Neo-Nazis killed more whites.


It doesn't constitute harassment either.


It does if the women don't consent.


Most of the LGBTQ crowd votes Democrat, not Republican. Currently, Nancy Pelosi is trying to prevent the releases of which members of Congress settled sexual harassment claims at taxpayers expense, because they are overwhelmingly Democrats.


Well considering the right and you support sexual harassment with your vote you're in no position.


For insisting on a presumption of innocence? We shall see...


Yea, like you on James Fields except I'm not a racist.


That's correct. They generally don't refuse anyone.


Again, I'm not a Nazi.


I never said it, I said you supported them.

The NSDAP were working class socialists
.

They're about as socialists as Republicans are Black people party.

I'm an upper middle class capitalist with nationalist sentiments.


Racist sentiments and most likely a parasite.

Heather Heyer was white.


The cops Neo-nazis killed were white, ironic.


Radical Muslims want to kill non-Muslims and tolerant Muslims.


Evangelicals want to kill non-whites and tolerant Christians.


I have no problem with this sort of thing, because my views aren't predicated on non maleficence to another person's feelings.


Well it's not by my feelings, it's what God will send you to when you die.

However, why don't you quote what I said?


Repeat.

Anyway, getting back to the topic at hand, it seems as if the #metoo movement is dying out a bit, as it is taking down a lot more liberals than conservatives.


No it's taking down more conservatives than liberals. See I can say a statement.

I wonder if the media is trying to put the genie back in the bottle.


No trump is willingly to work with liberals to stop it, considering he worked with hollywood.
#14874958
Libertarian353 wrote:James Fields came to Virginia to kill a woman and neo-nazis threaten the mom and her funeral to the point she has to bury her daughter in undisclosed location. That's not a portrait of peaceful.

James Fields came to be part of the "unite the right" rally. The mother of the woman said her daughter died of a heart attack.


Libertarian353 wrote:Evangelicals want to kill non-whites and tolerant Christians.

This is untrue. Evangelicals don't want to kill anyone. Evangelicals want people to come to the knowledge of the Lord so they can be saved. Praise the Lord.



How Trump won Evangelicals by a record 81 percent



Franklin Graham: God had a hand in this election

#14875994
Hindsite wrote:James Fields came to be part of the "unite the right" rally.



Because he was a nazi correct, are you going to condemn him and killings?

Hindsite wrote:The mother of the woman said her daughter died of a heart attack.


So are you going to believe a mother who has no field of medical science; or the doctors that said blunt trauma was what killed her and the Judge that charge Fields with first degree?

Hindsite wrote:This is untrue.


This is true, otherwise they wouldn't vote for trump.

Hindsite wrote: Evangelicals don't want to kill anyone.


They threaten a one who condemn trump, they allowed ICE and cops to commit illegal acts of violence and murder. They threaten the descendants of the confederate generals for want to tear down those statues(which the generals at the time also never wanted). They allowed Blacks to fear for their lives. You laugh when a Black guy that was in chokehold died. You're not a christian anymore than a Communist is.

Hindsite wrote: Evangelicals want people to come to the knowledge of the Lord so they can be saved.


I rather they be saved from Evangelicals.

Hindsite wrote:Praise the Lord.


Yes praise Satan.
#14876228
Libertarian353 wrote:Because he was a nazi correct, are you going to condemn him and killings?
No, James Fields was not a nazi. He was just a guy trying to exercise is first amendment right.

Libertarian353 wrote:So are you going to believe a mother who has no field of medical science; or the doctors that said blunt trauma was what killed her and the Judge that charge Fields with first degree?

Yes, I believe the mother is more correct because she found that out directly from the doctor before the lawyers got involved. I never heard of someone dying of blunt trauma before. The blunt trauma reason, instead of heart attack, was used in order to charge Fields with murder with a motor vehicle.

Libertarian353 wrote:This is true, otherwise they wouldn't vote for trump.

Not true. Evangelicals did not vote for Trump because they thought he would kill the liberal nut jobs. They voted for him because he was against the killing of innocent babies in their mother's womb among other reasons, like restoring justice.

Libertarian353 wrote:They threaten a one who condemn trump, they allowed ICE and cops to commit illegal acts of violence and murder. They threaten the descendants of the confederate generals for want to tear down those statues(which the generals at the time also never wanted). They allowed Blacks to fear for their lives. You laugh when a Black guy that was in chokehold died. You're not a christian anymore than a Communist is.

You sound like one who is hallucinating. I am a Christian. I am not a communist. Praise the Lord.

Libertarian353 wrote:I rather they be saved from Evangelicals.
Yes praise Satan.

You sound like an atheist.
#14876302
Potemkin wrote:I have to disagree. I think the analysis which skinster posted is on the button. The basic issue is, as the article describes, the alienation between men and women in our society. Men are socially conditioned to regard women as a resource (in this case, of sexual gratification).

No Potemkin! No!

We are biologically conditioned to regard women as a resources for sexual gratification, but perhaps even more importantly women are biologically conditioned to regard themselves as a resources for sexual gratification. Now society / culture certainly exaggerates, crudifies, simplifies and distorts our sexuality, no doubt about that. Particularly the disgusting ideology known as Islam. Hence as a feminist man its is my joyful duty to help extirpate Islam from the planet. However the underlying biological dialectic remains for the majority of men and the majority of women, even for the majority of bisexual men and women.

Potemkin wrote:Can we think of no better way of relating to women? :eh:

I want it all Potemkin. I want a harem of Islamic State style sex slaves and I want a regular girlfriend to have a meaningful full spectrum relationship with.

Feminism is only the latest assault on heterosexual men. Homosexuals like Plato, St Paul and the Buddha have been trying to tell us what we should want for years. Islam was started by heterosexuals, but because the thieving terrorist parasite Muslim leaders wanted to steal the lion's share of the women, they had to hood wink the rest of society into accepting a homosexual culture. Yes there's a reason that Islam is the most gay culture in the world where the men go round holding hands.
#14876303
We are biologically conditioned to regard women as a resources


No, we are socially conditioned that way. Regarding anything as a resource to be controlled is a social invention that our hunter gatherer ancestors simply did not have.

As always you are full of ridiculous nonsense.

Feminism is only the latest assault on heterosexual men. Homosexuals like Plato, St Paul and the Buddha have been trying to tell us what we should want for years. Islam was started by heterosexuals, but because the thieving terrorist parasite Muslim leaders wanted to steal the lion's share of the women, they had to hood wink the rest of society into accepting a homosexual culture. Yes there's a reason that Islam is the most gay culture in the world where the men go round holding hands.


What a load of delusional toss. :eh:
#14876307
lol, Rich just proved that there is a white privilege patriarchy movement trying to repress the under classes.

Rich is more of the problem than the dipshit SJWs. If people like Rich would just vanish or shut up, they would have no ammo. He is completely justifying their complaints.
#14876330
mikema63 wrote:No, we are socially conditioned that way. Regarding anything as a resource to be controlled is a social invention that our hunter gatherer ancestors simply did not have.

As always you are full of ridiculous nonsense.

What a load of delusional toss. :eh:

I have hope for you Mike, one day it may dawn on you that everything I say is not nonsense however unpleasant the implications. Hunter gatherers were highly possessive, just as groups not as individuals. Hunting, gathering, fishing grounds were scare resources. Without resource limitations populations can easily double in each generation. That means that just eight people in the year 1017, without scare resource restrictions could have produced the entire world population. Without resource restrictions its very easy for women to average 4 children surviving to reproductive age.

Low birth rates and high rates of productivity growth are a modern phenomenon. The populations of pre modern times perpetually bumped up against resource limits, in agrarian times populations contained by periodic famines and mass death epidemics. Quality of life for hunter gathers was certainly higher than most post agrarian societies. But life was still short and genocidal inter ethnic conflict the norm.

The old Testament says go forth and multiply, but the authors of the Old Testament weren't stupid like our modern SJWs, they realised that if Arabraham's progeny were to multiply others would have to be genocided. All the rest is just identity politics, forging the Israelites into a lean mean genociding machine. The math of pre modern genocide really is quite simple, you don't need to understand Category theory or even the lambda calculus.
#14876672
Hindsite wrote:No, James Fields was not a nazi. He was just a guy trying to exercise is first amendment right.


And Micah Xavier Johnson was not a terrorist. He was american soldier fighting against tyranny using his second amendment right.

Hindsite wrote:Yes, I believe the mother is more correct because she found that out directly from the doctor before the lawyers got involved.


No, you just said that.

Hindsite wrote: I never heard of someone dying of blunt trauma before.


https://www.officer.com/investigations/ ... rce-trauma

Hindsite wrote:The blunt trauma reason, instead of heart attack, was used in order to charge Fields with murder with a motor vehicle.


So you admit he was involve in her death. He killed her.

Hindsite wrote:Not true. Evangelicals did not vote for Trump because they thought he would kill the liberal nut jobs.


That was the intention to create white power theocracy. I remember you ignoring the bible if it gets in your interest.


Hindsite wrote:They voted for him because he was against the killing of innocent babies in their mother's womb among other reasons, like restoring justice.


So you prefer killing babies outside the womb, where they suffer. Also you're against freedom for women, to choose. Do you know republicans commit more abortion than liberals?

Hindsite wrote:You sound like one who is hallucinating.


You're a racist idiot.
Hindsite wrote: I am a Christian.



No you're not. You know nothing of Christ or any of his teachings. The real one idol worship.

Hindsite wrote: I am not a communist.


Of course not it's more in line with Christ teaching.

Hindsite wrote: Praise the Lord.


Praise Allah.

Hindsite wrote:You sound like an atheist.


You act like one.

@Rich :lol: See I rather you be honest with your anglo genetics, unlike Blackjack who think he's slick on hiding his feelings. But you have no moral argument against Islam.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11

@skinster well, you've been accusing Israel of t[…]

...You are a supporter of the genocide against th[…]

Before he was elected he had a charity that he wo[…]

Candace Owens

... Too bad it's not as powerful as it once was. […]