panzade
 
  2  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2013 11:46 am
@RABEL222,
Quote:
Too many unrealistic movies.

Actually, "Burning" is a well-regarded movie made by a fine British director.
You might want to read a good article about the movie's fidelity to actual events.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/04/movies/film-fact-vs-fiction-in-mississippi.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
As far as TV coverage? That's a bird of a different plumage
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2013 12:13 pm
Re opening post- 'Duck Dynasty' Star Phil Robertson Claims Black People Were 'Happy' Pre-Civil Rights

As a neutral Brit, Robertson sums it up pretty much as i see it.
I mean, in the old days there were two SEPARATE black and white races living happily side by side in America, but friction only began occurring when compulsory integration was forces on both races.
There's a good similarity to nuclear bombs, where two materials are forced together and explode.
Perhaps a solution would be for blacks and whites to be given separate areas of cities to live in, and separate schools etc.
Even better, a couple of entire states could be given to blacks so that they could all go live there and manage their own affairs..Smile

PS- we have exactly the same "forced integration" problem here in Britain and it's not working, so I wish the government would designate a string of scottish islands as a 'Black Archipelago' for them to settle in.
edgarblythe
 
  4  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2013 12:32 pm
Black people were not happy with segregation. They were considered to be somewhere between mule and human by many of the whites, then, and could be beaten or hanged for nothing substantial. They were considered too stupid to even drive a bus. The women were given jobs as maids and the like. If a pregnant black woman came on a bus with just one empty seat and it was next to a white person, she had to stand up. I watched black people come to the back window of a restaurant to order food, then sit out there to eat it - no matter the weather. I could go on, but the racists among us will never get the picture. Screw 'em.
jcboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2013 12:34 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:

PS- we have exactly the same "forced integration" problem here in Britain and it's not working, so I wish the government would designate a string of scottish islands as a 'Black Archipelago' for them to settle in.


I didn't know they had Hillbillies in Britain.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2013 12:36 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:
Re opening post- 'Duck Dynasty' Star Phil Robertson Claims
Black People Were 'Happy' Pre-Civil Rights
Most likely, as in almost everything, there was a bell-curved distribution
between blacks that were happy and others that were not.
Romeo Fabulini
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2013 12:42 pm
Same with S.Africa, apartheid kept blacks and whites apart and everybody was happy, then that commie terrorist Mandela came along, abolished apartheid and messed up the country, with the result that now S.Af has descended back into the jungle-

"Crime is a prominent issue in South Africa. South Africa has a very high rate of murders, assaults, rapes (adult, child and infant), and other crimes compared to most countries"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_South_Africa

"2011- South Africa has an estimated 5.6 million people living with HIV – more than any other country in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa"


Nice going Mandela..
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2013 02:24 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

glitterbag wrote:
I wish I was surprised.
My husbands Aunt is 95 and has become increasingly aggressive concerning race.
Hopefully as these folks age out, their prejudices will go with them.
No one has a legal duty nor a moral duty to agree with your opinion.
He has as much right to HIS opinion, and to HIS memory of events
as u have to yours. He has as much right to express his opinion and to VOTE upon the basis of it,
as u have for yours. NO ONE has any duty to agree with liberals. I fight against liberalism as well
as I can (consistent with my innate laziness).

No one really means freedom of speech should be limited, what I'm talking about is pure, unadulterated hate. I don't know what to tell you other than she hates lots of folks, female politicians, anyone she considers to be a Yankee, Latinos, special hate on for New Yorkers. I'm not preventing that elderly rascist from spewing her vile insults, but I also don't make excuses for her either. The saddest part is that she has been an angry person for 95 years, spurred on by what she hates. I'm just happy I didn't have to live tormented by hatred all my life.





David
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2013 02:42 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
David, there is a world of difference between voluntary association based upon commonality and oppression based upon racism or any such mindset. As for me, one of my guiding principles is not a political ideology of any kind, but the Golden Rule, which I at least attempt to follow to the best of my ability. (Incidentally, I'm inclined to fault the O.J. Simpson jury for acquitting him.) I don't happen to agree with any form of racism, whether it be represented by the likes of Al Sharpton or David Duke.

I hope you haven't stereotyped me politically for two reasons: (1) I don't care to be prejudged, and (2) It's pointless, anyway. I gave up on politics some time ago. I lost faith that much good would come out of politics. In other words, I'm not one of those whom you label as authoritarians -- which, incidentally, is a relative term (especially in politics). Liberals and conservatives have far more in common with each other than with the totalitarian movements of the 20th century. I think just about any freedom-loving person who ever lived under such a regime would agree. Besides, I live in a one-party state (Texas), which means there is no real political competition. In the scheme of things, David, what I believe or don't believe has little, if any, consequence in the political direction of this country. Well, actually, I'd say none.

After a while politics gets to be silly, if not downright depressing. People have different ways of defining "liberal" and "conservative." For example, many people would consider me to be politically conservative since I am pro-life (i.e., opposed to abortion on demand) and am opposed to same-sex marriage. I see no social good coming out of the legalization of pornography. (I guess that makes me a reactionary.) Hugh Hefner, whom many would consider to be a liberal icon, is one of your heroes, but is definitely not one of mine.

I hope we're still friends after our last exchange in the Zimmerman thread. I still consider you a friend since you are one of the nicest members of this forum -- except at times, perhaps, when you get your dander up. But, then again, we're all human.

I respect your endeavor to be principled and consistent in your political ideology. I'm simply different from you in some respects, that is all. But, then again, I'm different from a lot of people on at least something. Some individuals are hard to categorize (such as me Mr. Green ). Again, I'm not one of your authoritarians. (Do you think the stances I mentioned in the paragraph above would be favorably received in a liberal or "progressive" forum? My pro-civil rights views certainly would not save me from scorn, not to mention emotional outbursts of anger.)
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2013 03:10 pm
@wmwcjr,
I forgot to add this: Choosing to eat lunch with members of one's race is a bit less severe than denying treatment for a snakebite because of the snakebite victim's race. Besides, I'll eat lunch with anyone who has a good personality! Smile
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2013 03:16 pm
@glitterbag,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

glitterbag wrote:
I wish I was surprised.
My husbands Aunt is 95 and has become increasingly aggressive concerning race.
Hopefully as these folks age out, their prejudices will go with them.
No one has a legal duty nor a moral duty to agree with your opinion.
He has as much right to HIS opinion, and to HIS memory of events
as u have to yours. He has as much right to express his opinion and to VOTE upon the basis of it,
as u have for yours. NO ONE has any duty to agree with liberals. I fight against liberalism as well
as I can (consistent with my innate laziness).

David


glitterbag wrote:
No one really means freedom of speech should be limited, what I'm talking about is pure, unadulterated hate. I don't know what to tell you other than she hates lots of folks, female politicians, anyone she considers to be a Yankee, Latinos, special hate on for New Yorkers. I'm not preventing that elderly rascist from spewing her vile insults, but I also don't make excuses for her either. The saddest part is that she has been an angry person for 95 years, spurred on by what she hates.


I'm just happy I didn't have to live tormented by hatred all my life.
Yes; WELL SAID!!!
I remember the impassioned hatred and the abhorrence and execration
in which I held the Kennedys in the 1960s. It was not worth it.
Hatred is a heavy burden, best done without.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2013 03:22 pm
@wmwcjr,
wmwcjr wrote:

I forgot to add this: Choosing to eat lunch with members of one's race
is a bit less severe than denying treatment for a snakebite because
of the snakebite victim's race.
It IS !



wmwcjr wrote:
Besides, I'll eat lunch with anyone who has a good personality! Smile
Yes; I 've eaten with liberals, commies and nazis.





David
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  3  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2013 03:48 pm
apparently Romeo, like Phil, is an expert on the feelings and thoughts of blacks. Tell us, Romeo are/were you also white Trash?
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  4  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2013 08:20 pm
@wmwcjr,
Ill eat with anyone who is buying.
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2013 08:41 pm
@RABEL222,
Hey, that's a great idea! Laughing Cool Wink
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2013 08:53 pm
@blueveinedthrobber,
The kind of thing Robertson was talking about was not about race:

http://able2know.org/topic/191551-1

It was about whether people (any color) are happier before or after being dumbed down and made into a demoKKKrat kept voting block.

In the case of blacks, it's a question of whether they're happier now that 70+ percent of them are born out of wedlock or before that happened.

The one guy in US history who did the most for blacks was Dwight David Eisenhower. DemoKKKrats have never done anything FOR blacks, just TO them.

By the way, how's the blue-veined throbbing problem coming along.

http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh6/mrgreg1978/BlueBalls.png
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2013 09:37 pm
Hey, gang, here's a duck dynasty we can all feel good about! Smile Wink Cool Laughing Razz

http://www.unquest.ro/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Duck-Family-Tree1.jpg
0 Replies
 
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2013 10:11 pm
@edgarblythe,
And libertarians and other right-wingers will say that it was "Constitutional." Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2013 10:33 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
Ill eat with anyone who is buying.
I 'll pay for MY OWN food
and get better control of it
.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2013 11:41 pm
@wmwcjr,
wmwcjr wrote:
David, there is a world of difference between voluntary association based upon commonality
and oppression based upon racism or any such mindset.
That sounds plausible.




wmwcjr wrote:
As for me, one of my guiding principles is not a political ideology of any kind, but the Golden Rule, which I at least attempt to follow to the best of my ability. (Incidentally, I'm inclined to fault the O.J. Simpson jury for acquitting him.)
Thay did what it was natural for the blacks to do.
The results were VERY foreseeable.
I consistently told my friends at the time
that there was O% of a chance of that jury convicting OJ.



wmwcjr wrote:
I don't happen to agree with any form of racism,
whether it be represented by the likes of Al Sharpton or David Duke.
In your opinion, the Germen are no more industrious,
no more meticulous, than the Mexicans?? Its the same??






wmwcjr wrote:
I hope you haven't stereotyped me politically for two reasons:
(1) I don't care to be prejudged, and (2) It's pointless, anyway.
OK. I did not do that.



wmwcjr wrote:
I gave up on politics some time ago. I lost faith that much good would come out of politics. In other words, I'm not one of those whom you label as authoritarians -- which, incidentally, is a relative term (especially in politics). Liberals and conservatives have far more in common with each other than with the totalitarian movements of the 20th century. I think just about any freedom-loving person who ever lived under such a regime would agree.
I argue that the liberals don t love Constitutional freedom as much as thay shud
and thay try to cheat us out of ours.




wmwcjr wrote:
Besides, I live in a one-party state (Texas), which means there is no real political competition. In the scheme of things, David, what I believe or don't believe has little, if any, consequence in the political direction of this country. Well, actually, I'd say none.

After a while politics gets to be silly, if not downright depressing.
People have different ways of defining "liberal" and "conservative."
Those who wish to DEVIATE from the philosphy of freedom
of the US Constitution, are liberals; those who refuse to deviate are orthodox or conservative.






wmwcjr wrote:
For example, many people would consider me to be politically conservative
since I am pro-life (i.e., opposed to abortion on demand)
and am opposed to same-sex marriage.
I recognize any chic's right to self defense from ANY intrusive parasite.
The Authors of the Constitution never opposed freedom of abortion.
Indeed, interference with abortion woud violate the 13th Amendment
(involuntary servitude and slavery). Opposition to legal abortion,
as an act of personal autonomy and of self defense is liberal.



wmwcjr wrote:
I see no social good coming out of the legalization of pornography.
A man 's rights are NOT dependent
upon any "social good" coming out of them.
Whoever chooses not to take an interest in it shud not buy it.
I have no interest in competitive athletics, but I don t try to stop
the World Series games; let what the traffic will bear prevail.
Government has no jurisdiction to interfere.




wmwcjr wrote:
(I guess that makes me a reactionary.)
Hugh Hefner, whom many would consider to be a liberal icon, is one of your heroes,
but is definitely not one of mine.

I hope we're still friends after our last exchange in the Zimmerman thread.
Yes, of course; Y not ????



wmwcjr wrote:
I still consider you a friend since you are one of the nicest members of this forum -- except at times, perhaps, when you get your dander up.
This forum has long been a site of brawling. I like robust! debate.


wmwcjr wrote:
But, then again, we're all human.

I respect your endeavor to be principled and consistent in your political ideology. I'm simply different from you in some respects, that is all. But, then again, I'm different from a lot of people on at least something. Some individuals are hard to categorize (such as me Mr. Green ). Again, I'm not one of your authoritarians. (Do you think the stances I mentioned in the paragraph above would be favorably received in a liberal or "progressive" forum? My pro-civil rights views certainly would not save me from scorn, not to mention emotional outbursts of anger.)
You are among the very mildest,
most gentle, polite posters in A2K.
I have slowly become aware
that this is not your self-image.





David
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  3  
Reply Mon 23 Dec, 2013 01:58 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

The kind of thing Robertson was talking about was not about race:

http://able2know.org/topic/191551-1

It was about whether people (any color) are happier before or after being dumbed down and made into a demoKKKrat kept voting block.

In the case of blacks, it's a question of whether they're happier now that 70+ percent of them are born out of wedlock or before that happened.

The one guy in US history who did the most for blacks was Dwight David Eisenhower. DemoKKKrats have never done anything FOR blacks, just TO them.






By the way, how's the blue-veined throbbing problem coming along.

http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh6/mrgreg1978/BlueBalls.png


My god you're an idiot
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Unbelievable
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 01:05:59