1
   

A tad racist perhaps?

 
 
kev
 
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 03:23 pm
Is this man just a bit racist?


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20040803/ap_on_el_ho/eugenics_candidate
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,375 • Replies: 17
No top replies

 
doglover
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 03:33 pm
Lets see....he's republican and from Tennessee and a paranoid loser of a white man who believes he is losing his power to people of color.

He's not just racist...he's a racist piece of ****.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 03:51 pm
Oh, Thank God! I was beginning to think all of these guys were in Oklahoma.
0 Replies
 
doglover
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 08:53 pm
Eva wrote:
Oh, Thank God! I was beginning to think all of these guys were in Oklahoma.


Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 09:10 pm
Well, I'd say he's no less an embarrassment to the GOP than would be Robert Byrd to The Dems, were they as a group in fact capable of embarrassment.
0 Replies
 
doglover
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 09:16 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Well, I'd say he's no less an embarrassment to the GOP than would be Robert Byrd to The Dems, were they as a group in fact capable of embarrassment.


Sure, the Democratic party has had members who were racist and otherwise an embarrassment but not nearly as many as the Republican party has. I happen to think that the conservative Republican theology/platform attracts people who are racists and who do not celebrate diversity of any kind.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 09:27 pm
I think your perception "they do it worse" is a matter of perspective, doglover, and of partisanship. You oughtta look into the Dixiecrats ... or George Wallace. Both parties are staffed by that damnably unpredictable, fallible, imperfect critter called "Human" in pretty much equal proportion.
0 Replies
 
doglover
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 09:35 pm
timberlandko wrote:
I think your perception "they do it worse" is a matter of perspective, doglover, and of partisanship. You oughtta look into the Dixiecrats ... or George Wallace. Both parties are staffed by that damnably unpredictable, fallible, imperfect critter called "Human" in pretty much equal proportion.


George Wallace, Robert Byrd...those men were really a reflection of their time...a time in the 60's (and prior) when racism was at the very least tollerated and oft times accepted.

When we speed things forward to todays world, I believe that its conservatives (GOP) who still embrace racism. The only difference is, they wrap it in a prettier package.
0 Replies
 
El-Diablo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 09:39 pm
Wow what a nutcase. If he were to pop up at my door I might jsut have to test that bullet proof vest of his...
0 Replies
 
doglover
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 09:43 pm
El-Diablo wrote:
Wow what a nutcase. If he were to pop up at my door I might jsut have to test that bullet proof vest of his...



Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 06:33 am
doglover wrote:
When we speed things forward to todays world, I believe that its conservatives (GOP) who still embrace racism. The only difference is, they wrap it in a prettier package.


Partisan poppycock. Here, unwrap this:

Quote:
Challenging the Racist Democrats

By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 5, 2003


Everybody knows -- but no one wants to say -- that the Democratic Party has become the party of special interest bigots and racial dividers. It runs the one-party state that controls public services in every major inner city, including the corrupt and failing school systems in which half the students -- mainly African American and Hispanic -- are denied a shot at the American dream. It is the party of race preferences which separate American citizens on the basis of skin color providing privileges to a handful of ethnic and racial groups in a nation of nearly a thousand. The Democratic Party has shown that it will go to the wall to preserve the racist laws which enforce these preferences, and to defend the racist school systems that destroy the lives of millions of children every year.

On the other side of the aisle, the Republican Party has shown itself to be tongue-tied and lame-brained when it comes to opposing this racist stain on American life. Republicans rarely mention the millions of young victims claimed by the Democrats' racist school policies every year. They are too cowardly to openly challenge race preferences that constitute a true American apartheid. Consequently, for nearly a decade it has been left to one man and those he inspires to take on these injustices and he is doing so again in the upcoming California recall election.

Ward Connerly has placed Proposition 54 - - the Racial Privacy Initiative -- on the October California ballot. The new law would bar the government from inquiring into a citizen's racial identity. The Constitution does not mention race or use the words "black" and "white" to describe its citizens. The census was devised by the founders to set the number of congressional districts, not to balkanize America into racial categories. Democrats have turned it into a system to define Americans by skin color. Every Democrat legislator and every so-called "liberal" spokesperson is opposed to Connerly's proposition because it would threaten their apartheid programs. The time has come to challenge this system and set Americans -- particularly African and Hispanic Americans who its prime victims -- free.

[The following editorial appeared in the Wall Street Journal on April 4]:

The Color of California

As if the unprecedented effort to recall California Governor Gray Davis isn't enough excitement for one special election, the campaign promises some racial fireworks as well.

Sharing ballot space on October 7 with Mr. Davis's would-be successors will be Proposition 54, also known as the Racial Privacy Initiative. The measure prohibits state and local government entities from collecting and using racial data. It reads, in part: "The state shall not classify any individual by race, ethnicity, color or national origin in the operation of public education, public contracting or public employment." For champions of identity politics, and the media are certainly among them, these are fighting words.

The main proponent of Prop. 54 is Ward Connerly, the University of California Regent behind the state's successful Prop. 209, which banned public-sector racial discrimination in 1996 and prompted copycat initiatives elsewhere in the country, most recently in Michigan.

Mr. Connerly has said the goal of his current initiative is to get the state government "out of the racial classification business" and move us one step closer to a colorblind government. The backers of Prop. 54, he says, "seek a California that is free from government racism and race-conscious decision making."

That sounds like a core American aspiration, or at least it was until racial preferences became a political industry. Mr. Connerly can take comfort in the fact that many of his current critics -- educators, civil rights groups, Democratic public officials, liberal journalists -- also predicted catastrophe if Prop. 209 passed. They claimed, for instance, that minority enrollment at state
universities would plummet without racial preferences. It didn't happen. Both minority enrollment and, more importantly, minority graduation rates, have increased.

Now these same folks are claiming that if Californians aren't forced to check off some hyphenated-American box on a government form, medical research will suffer and anti-discrimination laws will go unenforced.

Not true. The Racial Privacy Initiative makes exceptions for data collection in both areas. If black mothers in Oakland are suffering uniquely high infant-mortality rates, nothing in Mr. Connerly's measure would prevent a proper response. Nor would it have any bearing on the large body of federal law -- the Voting Rights Act or the No Child Left Behind Act -- that require the collection
of racial data for enforcement purposes.

Some of our friends (scholars James Q. Wilson and John McWhorter) object to Prop. 54 on the grounds that racial statistics are essential to social scientists like themselves. They have a valid point that statistics showing racial progress can rebut political demagogues.

But that must be measured against the damage done by explicit state endorsement of racial categorization. As for the statistics, Prop. 54 affects only state entities. Reams of racial data would continue to flow from federal agencies -- like the Census Bureau and the Education Department -- or any nongovernment sources in California wishing to provide such information.

It is true that these limitations make Mr. Connerly's crusade largely symbolic. Still, the reaffirmation by American voters that racial distinctions should be irrelevant to government policy would be welcome right about now. All the more so given the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to uphold racial discrimination at the University of Michigan. The decision effectively requires the
nation to view itself (at least for another 25 years) through a racial prism that many Americans already find obsolete. In the name of "diversity," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has cast her lot with the grievance groups who profit from racial balkanization.

As opposed to legal and business elites, average Americans are showing an increasing uneasiness with traditional racial categories. The demographic trends are illustrative. According to Joel Kotkin of Pepperdine University, nearly a third of second-generation Asians and Hispanics -- the largest ethnic minority -- marry out of their ethnic group.

In 1997, one in seven babies born in California were to parents of different races. The 2000 Census offered 63 different ways to self-identify and found that 40% of people under 25 belong to a racial or ethnic category other than "non-Hispanic white." What box does Tiger Woods check, and why should he have to check one?

A nonpartisan Field Poll released last month shows California voters supporting Prop. 54 by 50% to 29%, though it is hard to know how its presence on the Gray Davis recall ballot will affect it. Mr. Davis opposes it, and people who think he's been a splendid governor tend to be Prop. 54's strongest opponents.

It seems to us that there's little danger from a public endorsement of a proposition that seeks to make America less racially self-conscious. The opposite danger is far more troublesome, especially as we become a more racially polyglot nation. Down the path of the Supreme Court's recent Michigan decision lies a nation divided by race, not united in common principle.

Prop. 54's success would be a fitting rebuke to the Supreme Court (all the more potent because it would come from the nation's largest and most racially diverse state) and a public reaffirmation of the Constitution's colorblind commitment to equal protection under the law.


Quote:
The significance of Carol Moseley Braun

January 18, 2004

Carol Moseley Braun, who ended her presidential campaign this week, is frequently and accurately described as the only African-American woman ever to serve in the United States Senate.

But, assiduous newsreader though I am, I have never seen her identified by the following descriptor, which in addition to being equally accurate is vastly more remarkable:

Carol Moseley Braun is the only African-American Democrat ever to serve in the United States Senate.

Isn't that really astonishing? A political party that for the past seventy years has claimed the allegiance of as many as ninety per cent of the black voters of this country has elected precisely one of them to the Senate. And the only way Moseley Braun won was by challenging and defeating the Illinois Democratic Party's anointed and endorsed candidate - incumbent Senator Alan J. Dixon in 1992.

I paused in mid column just now and did some rough math, which suggests that somewhere between a quarter and a third of all Democrats are African-Americans. So if we applied the concept of affirmative action quotas to the Democratic Senate membership, there should be approximately twelve black Democratic Senators in the current Congress. But in fact, there are none. There weren't any in the last Congress either, or the one before that. Except for Moseley Braun's single six-year term, there have never been any black Democratic Senators.

There have been three black Republican Senators: Hiram Revels, Blanche Kelso Bruce and Edward Brooke.

Oh, Democrats will let African-Americans serve in the House of Representatives, but only after carefully carving out black-majority, which is to say segregated, districts for them. Well, you can't expect white Democrats to vote for one of them, can you?

So the Democratic Party's policy, throughout the modern, post-World War II era has been to create separate-but-equal congressional districts. Keep blacks in the ghetto - the urban plantation. The handful of African-American Republican members of Congress, by contrast, have come from suburban and rural areas, where they have been, often enthusiastically, supported by Republican voters. Moreover, whenever the Republican Party has attempted to run black candidates in black areas, they lose overwhelmingly, and this pattern holds for other offices, too.

White Republicans have no problem whatsoever voting for black Republicans, when they can find one to vote for. Black Democrats won't vote for a black Republican. White Democrats won't vote for a black Democrat. Which is the racist party?

Yet when President Bush laid a wreath at the tomb of Martin Luther King this week, a group of several hundred demonstrators booed him. The demonstration itself is not important - any liberal organization that can't produce on a given occasion five hundred or so sign-waving demonstrators just isn't trying. But the fact that such an event has credibility, particularly with many African-Americans, is important, and it is through such public relations techniques that the animus of blacks toward Republicans continues, generation after generation.

When, the next day, the President appointed Charles Pickering to a seat on the Federal Appeals Court, leading Democrats trotted out their invective again, feeding the myth of Republican racism by charging, wholly irresponsibly, that Pickering is a bigot - this on the unimpeachable evidence that he is a Mississippi Republican (as were, by the way former Senators Revels and Bruce). The Pickering appointment, Vermont's Howard Dean sneered, was the "ultimate hypocrisy" by Bush.

Nonsense. The ultimate hypocrisy is that the Democratic Party pretends to be the party of civil rights. It is not, to which the lonely career of Carol Moseley Braun stands as the perfect rule-proving exception.

If Democrats are eager to play the race card against white, particularly southern white, Republicans, they positively slam the card down on the table when it comes to black Republicans. Before Clarence Thomas, there was Massachusetts' Brooke, who was defeated in his bid for a third Senate term in a vicious, slanderous, politics-of- personal destruction campaign run by the Kennedys for the benefit of Paul Tsongas in 1978.

Today, Colin Powell is insulted as a "house nigger," California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown's nomination to the Federal bench is filibustered by the same hypocrites who claim Pickering is a racist and even Condoleezza Rice is pilloried for the apostasy of having strayed off the plantation and joined the Republicans.

The massahs were Democrats. The whip-toting overseers were Democrats. The Klansmen were Democrats. The filibusterers of the Civil Rights bills in the 1960's were Democrats. The liberals whose welfare-state policies destroyed families in post- Great Society inner cities were Democrats. That such a party gets to claim the allegiance of so many African-American voters is one of the great con jobs of all time.


Quote:
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THE DIXIECRATS
By Frances Rice: Contributor to LHI

For decades the Democratic Party has tried to hide its racist past by throwing up a smoke screen using the "Dixiecrat" mantra. Well, its time to clear away the smoke and look at the racist Democrats behind the smoke screen. It is an article of faith for Democratic Party activists and their liberal university professor supporters that all of the anti-black Southern Democrats found a home in the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party gladly got rid of them based on principle. History shows that the Democratic Party's "article of faith" is untrue.

The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, ran a third party ticket that supported continued racial segregation. Even so, they continued to consider themselves to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections. Since the Republican Party was founded as the anti-slavery party, Southern Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican.

With very few exceptions, the Dixiecrats and their supporters continue their political careers as Democrats today. The most notable examples are Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia who is well known for having been a "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan, and Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings who put up the Confederate flag over the state capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina.

Recently, Senator Dodd praised Senator Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War. Democrats who denounced Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about Senator Strom Thurmond have remained silent about Senator Dodd's racist remarks. Mr. Thurmond was never a member of the Klan and he defended blacks against the poll tax and lynching. If Mr. Byrd and Mr. Thurmond were alive during the Civil War and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.

Yes, it's true that Democratic President Harry S. Truman brought an end to racial segregation in the military, but he did so because Republicans pressed the issue. Acting as typical racist Democrats, President Truman and President Franklin D. Roosevelt rejected anti-lynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission. After President Roosevelt received the vote of blacks who were swayed by the "New Deal" government handout program, he banned black newspapers from the military shortly after taking office because he was convinced the newspapers were communists.

The South did not begin the switch to the Republican Party until the late 1970s. Georgia did not switch until 2002. Southern Democrats who switched to the Republican Party did so because they got over their dislike for the Republican Party as the anti-slavery Party and adopted the Republican Party's core values: lower taxes, limited government, personal responsibility and equal opportunities for all Americans. In addition to championing equality of opportunity for all, the Republican Party opposes the soft bigotry of low expectations championed by the Democratic Party.

Democrats cause great harm to the black community, yet blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats because blacks believe that the Democratic Party has been historically the friend of Civil Rights and the party of black voters. The book entitled Unfounded Loyalty: An in-depth look into the love affair between blacks and the Democrats by Dr. Wayne Perryman documents that the opposite has been true since the pre-Civil War period. It is an eye opener to those who have voted against their own best interests and compromised their cultural Christian values for party loyalty.


I would say that among the most promimemt of contemporary racists and their defenders are Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Chris Dodd. While you're considering that consider too the roster of other-than-white folks included among the key figures of the Kerry-Edwards campaign, or among those being floated as possible picks for post-election appointment to positions of responsibility. Consider as well which party has been behind the appointment of several other-than-white judges to federal benches, and which party has been obstructionist on those appointments.

What you perceive is at odds with the evidence, I believe. Of course, your mileage may vary. You can always point to an off-the-cuff, supposed-to-have-been off-the-record, in-passing and essentially innocent and insignificant remark made by Trent Lott at what was a private, thoroughly unofficial birthday party for an old man who may have had at one time espoused archaic views but who none the less had an enviable record of public service ... much the same as Robert Byrd. Oh. wait a minute ... you guys already did that, minus consideration of Robert Byrd, and of Chis Dodd's defense of Byrd, didn't you?

Efit to Add:
And please note I do not disclaim that partisanship is evidenced by the articles I quoted. Certainly it is. That with which I take issue is not partisanship itself, but unfounded, unthinking, uncritical partisanship.
0 Replies
 
doglover
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 09:07 am
I don't have time to read your post timberlandko as I have to run but I will read it tomorrow when I have time to give it consideration and respond.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 11:35 am
From the end of Reconstruction to the middle of the 20th century, a period of almost a hundred years, the South was solidly Democratic. Virtually every elected and appointed political post was held by Democrats. This is the period when Jim Crow laws were enacted to deprive Blacks of civil rights. This is the period when social inferiority was enforced by lynch law. Those guys who spread terror behind white sheets were Democrats. The hold that the Democratic Party had over the South was so great that few republicans even bothered to run campaigns in the region.

During that same period the Executive Branch was largely dominated by the Republican Party. Republicans during most of that period interpreted the Constitution to mean that the Federal government had no jurisdiction over how the individual States governed themselves. Segregated schools were a local matter, not Federal. Lynching teenagers for sport was a violation of local laws against murder, not a Federal crime. Any suggestion that the Federal government should intervene on behalf of the downtrodden, was blocked by senior Democrats in the House and Senate.

Mrs. Roosevelt's compassion and efforts to assist Southern Blacks and other minorities was labeled Communistic and a political scandal. When Truman integrated the Armed Forces in the 1950s, Democrats direly predicted both political and actual disaster as the Military resisted the order. They were wrong, for the times had changed. The Nazi death camps clearly demonstrated the consequences of racism taken to its "final solution". Silent Southerners began to make their own opposition to Jim Crow and political control by terror known. Television broadcast the efforts of a small band of civil rights protesters known to the entire country. Most Americans in both parties strongly oppose racism and believe in equal justice. We hate repression and when the brutal methods used by the racist politicians of the South were seen in American living-rooms they and their odious policies were doomed.

It is long past time to cool the rhetoric. Not all Southern Democrats during the worst period of racism since the Civil War were racists, nor during the same period were all Republicans free of racist beliefs. In the scant fifty years since the country pulled down Jim Crow, remarkable progress has been made. I don't believe that any Jim Crow laws are left on the books anywhere. Blacks who were once prevented from voting now make up an important block of votes in every State. Blacks now can be found in every level of government, often elected with White votes. Was this the result of just the Republican Party? Just the Democratic Party? The answer, of course, is that both political parties have contributed to making the changes necessary to end racism enforced by political power.

Has the "revolution" been entirely successful? No, it has not. Racism and prejudice can still be found in people of all political parties, in every group. Prejudice isn't nearly so ease to get rid of as the political means by which it is enforced. How does one change the hearts and minds of people? The answer is, slowly. It may take generations before prejudice is really on the ropes. In the meantime, it is political suicide to do or say anything that some might interpret as "racist". People who in their hearts easily accept their children's intermarriage with children of other racial/ethnic, or even people of the same sex, may sometimes say things that make them seem prejudiced.

There are people of good will in every group, in every political party. No group has a "lock" on either prejudice/racism, or is entirely free of prejudice and racism. Lets not continue to "wave the bloody shirt".

The country is faced with a determined enemy who is willing to die in an attempt to destroy Western Civilization and the United States. This enemy has no chance of winning on the open battlefield, so they have adopted the terrorist style. Terrorism can be an effective strategy if those using it can accomplish two things: They must induce anxiety, fear and a sense of futility, and they must destroy the will of their opponents to continue the fight. Generally the first is accomplished by ambush, murder, sabotage, kidnaping/highjacking, and bombing. The price of conducting these sorts of operations is attrition. The smaller group is slowly whittled away, as the larger group may become even stronger. Al Queda loses a significant bit of its resources every time a cell is rolled-up, or a major leader is captured or killed. In sheer numbers, the United States could lose 10,000 soldiers and not be materially weakened at all.

If the target of this low-intensity strategy was able to keep secret all of the attacks, terrorism would be useless. Such a degree of secrecy in the modern world is only possible in places like DPRK, so that really isn't an option for the United States and its allies who are dedicated to the idea of openness. The enemy knows this, and they plan their operations to take advantage of it. Operations are planned to kill and destroy in ways that will gain the greatest amount of media coverage. All those who silently back, support and finance terrorism can see and celebrate each operation as a great victory. Each attack, even if thwarted, helps to instill anxiety, fear and uncertainty in the targeted population. Doubts are fostered, and political divisiveness encouraged. The costs of continuing the struggle seem to become ever heavier. The people increasingly ask if what is being accomplished is worth the death of a single soldier. Terrorists using the low-intensity option count on their target's open society and traditions of popular support being erroded over time. At some point, they hope and believe that the Will to continue will be broken, and then ... they are victorious.

Now there are probably a bunch of you out their who will take this to mean that I advocate suppression of dissent, of controlling the media by using a range of techniques, of accusing opponents of the current administration of disloyalty. Wrong. Wrong and wrong. That, I believe, would be just as helpful to our enemy. What I do advocate is a reduction in the heat of our rhetoric, a return to having faith in the essential propriety of our representative government to do the right thing. It is not necessary that everyone agree with any policy, much less all policies, taken by the government on our behalf. Some intelligence matters and military operations would be ruined if they became known, so lets not expect every single thing to appear on the front pages of our newpapers. I believe that President Bush has done a pretty good job of dealing with the threat. I know that many of you disagree, and that is certainly your right. We will be conducting a national election in a few months, and can expect that the enemy will try to influence the outcome. Let's be wary.

I believe that the electorate is pretty evenly divided, so it is entirely possible that either candidate might win. Both Democrats and Republicans will work hard to get their own men into office, we should expect no less. However, one or the other will lose. If the next administration is Democrat, then I expect that Republicans will give the same loyalty and support to President Kerry as they would to Bush. I believe that Kerry is an honorable man who, if elected, will discharge is duties and responsiblities to protect and defend the nation and Constitution faithfully. I believe that means that a Democratic administration will probably not alter the course of our campaign against terrorism very much. If President Bush is re-elected, I think that slightly more probable at the moment, we can be assured that he will "stay the course" (that assurance may be the deciding factor for many voters). I would hope that most Democratic voters will support the newly elected President Bush, and that the nation will close ranks at least until the terrorist threat has passed. There will, I know, be some in both parties who will not constrain their hatred for the other side. That's alright and I wouldn't have it any other way. Well, not really. I really would wish that folks would not get so emotionally involved in hating the opposition that they can't rise above it.
0 Replies
 
flyboy804
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 12:03 pm
This post by Asherman is probably the finest I have ever seen on A2K.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 12:30 pm
Hell, flyboy, that was damned good, yeah, but there are plenty of fine posts here, and that one wasn't even among Asherman's finest.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Aug, 2004 12:21 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Well, I'd say he's no less an embarrassment to the GOP than would be Robert Byrd to The Dems, were they as a group in fact capable of embarrassment.

{Thwack}

That's the sound of a bullseye being made. Cool
0 Replies
 
Tidewaterbound
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Aug, 2004 04:48 pm
flyboy804 wrote:
This post by Asherman is probably the finest I have ever seen on A2K.


It is indeed what I'd consider very fine.

Thank you Asherman, I hope you can enlighten all who read and are able to comprehend.

Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Tidewaterbound
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Aug, 2004 04:53 pm
My only postmortem to this is that, unfortunately, we still have the rabid, of both sides, among us.

We can only hope that the rational majority will respond and perhaps better educate the unknowing.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
  1. Forums
  2. » A tad racist perhaps?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/07/2021 at 07:58:09