Racist Believers...

[Ben Holmes]

Found in the censored forum:

>> You mean the all-White police controlling an all-black ward?
>
>No the opposite, all-Black police for Black neighborhoods, all Hispanic
>police for a Spanish speaking neighborhoods, Asian police for an Asian
>neighborhoods, etc. At this point it is illogical, impractical, and
>dangerous to expect White Police Officers to patrol ethnic neighborhoods.
>In fact, unconscionable to send white officers into ethnic neighborhoods
>where there is intense animosity toward white people in general and white
>policemen in particular. Police Unions need to step in and say no more.
>Hire Black officers to do that. Must have Black police or street gangs
>takeover the neighborhoods, as they did in Baltimore.

No-one in the censored forum is going to point out that this is simply
racism. They seem to have forgotten Martin Luther King Jr. when he
proclaimed: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day
live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their
skin, but by the content of their character."

These believers still prefer to judge someone by their skin color
rather than their character.

And since believers rarely contradict other believers, you won't see
this racism being pointed out in the censored forum...

[Bud]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 12:13:54 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Found in the censored forum:
>
> >> You mean the all-White police controlling an all-black ward?
> >
> >No the opposite, all-Black police for Black neighborhoods, all Hispanic
> >police for a Spanish speaking neighborhoods, Asian police for an Asian
> >neighborhoods, etc. At this point it is illogical, impractical, and
> >dangerous to expect White Police Officers to patrol ethnic neighborhoods.
> >In fact, unconscionable to send white officers into ethnic neighborhoods
> >where there is intense animosity toward white people in general and white
> >policemen in particular. Police Unions need to step in and say no more.
> >Hire Black officers to do that. Must have Black police or street gangs
> >takeover the neighborhoods, as they did in Baltimore.
>
> No-one in the censored forum is going to point out that this is simply
> racism.

No it isn`t, lurkers. It is seeing a problem and trying to come up with a solution. I don`t see it as a particularly viable solution but labeling ideas as racist just so you can dismiss them is counter-productive. You notice Ben did not argue against the idea presented at all. He couldn`t argue an idea to save his life.

> They seem to have forgotten Martin Luther King Jr. when he
> proclaimed: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day
> live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their
> skin, but by the content of their character."

What does that have to do with what the poster wrote, lurkers?

> These believers still prefer to judge someone by their skin color
> rather than their character.

The poster wasn`t talking about judging, lurkers. Ben should start by contesting that things are as the original poster portrayed them instead of erecting these strawman arguments.

> And since believers rarely contradict other believers, you won't see
> this racism being pointed out in the censored forum...

It isn`t racist to take note that their are race problems in this country, and to suggest solutions, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

"DUD" THE RACIST!!!

While I didn't expect anyone to point out the racism in a fellow
believer's post, I *CERTAINLY* didn't expect to see such rampant
racism in defense!


On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 11:49:30 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 12:13:54 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Found in the censored forum:
>>
>> >> You mean the all-White police controlling an all-black ward?
>> >
>> >No the opposite, all-Black police for Black neighborhoods, all Hispanic
>> >police for a Spanish speaking neighborhoods, Asian police for an Asian
>> >neighborhoods, etc. At this point it is illogical, impractical, and
>> >dangerous to expect White Police Officers to patrol ethnic neighborhoods.
>> >In fact, unconscionable to send white officers into ethnic neighborhoods
>> >where there is intense animosity toward white people in general and white
>> >policemen in particular. Police Unions need to step in and say no more.
>> >Hire Black officers to do that. Must have Black police or street gangs
>> >takeover the neighborhoods, as they did in Baltimore.
>>
>> No-one in the censored forum is going to point out that this is simply
>> racism.
>
> No it isn`t, lurkers. It is seeing a problem and trying to come up
> with a solution. I don`t see it as a particularly viable solution but
> labeling ideas as racist just so you can dismiss them is
> counter-productive. You notice Ben did not argue against the idea
> presented at all. He couldn`t argue an idea to save his life.

"DUD'S" SOLUTION IS TO LOOK AT THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN!!!

Another closet racist, folks!

>> They seem to have forgotten Martin Luther King Jr. when he
>> proclaimed: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day
>> live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their
>> skin, but by the content of their character."
>
> What does that have to do with what the poster wrote, lurkers?

"DUD" CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT RACISM MEANS... (even as he defends it!)

>> These believers still prefer to judge someone by their skin color
>> rather than their character.
>
> The poster wasn`t talking about judging, lurkers. Ben should start
> by contesting that things are as the original poster portrayed them
> instead of erecting these strawman arguments.

THE POSTER WAS *INDEED* JUDGING WHO WOULD MAKE A BETTER POLICE OFFICER
IN PARTICULAR PARTS OF TOWN.

AND DOING IT ON THE BASIS OF THEIR SKIN COLOR...

>> And since believers rarely contradict other believers, you won't see
>> this racism being pointed out in the censored forum...
>
> It isn`t racist to take note that their are race problems in this
> country, and to suggest solutions, lurkers.

IT IS **CERTAINLY** RACIST TO SUGGEST THAT SKIN COLOR IS THE RELEVANT
FACTOR IN POLICE WORK

[Mark Ulrik]

It can be *a* relevant factor. Would you send a black undercover cop to infiltrate a gang of white supremacists?

[Bud]

On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 9:07:54 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> "DUD" THE RACIST!!!

Ben the idiot, lurkers.

> While I didn't expect anyone to point out the racism in a fellow
> believer's post, I *CERTAINLY* didn't expect to see such rampant
> racism in defense!

Typical of the kind of ad hominem response rampant in this country when issues of race are attempted to be discussed, lurkers.

> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 11:49:30 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 12:13:54 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> Found in the censored forum:
> >>
> >> >> You mean the all-White police controlling an all-black ward?
> >> >
> >> >No the opposite, all-Black police for Black neighborhoods, all Hispanic
> >> >police for a Spanish speaking neighborhoods, Asian police for an Asian
> >> >neighborhoods, etc. At this point it is illogical, impractical, and
> >> >dangerous to expect White Police Officers to patrol ethnic neighborhoods.
> >> >In fact, unconscionable to send white officers into ethnic neighborhoods
> >> >where there is intense animosity toward white people in general and white
> >> >policemen in particular. Police Unions need to step in and say no more.
> >> >Hire Black officers to do that. Must have Black police or street gangs
> >> >takeover the neighborhoods, as they did in Baltimore.
> >>
> >> No-one in the censored forum is going to point out that this is simply
> >> racism.
> >
> > No it isn`t, lurkers. It is seeing a problem and trying to come up
> > with a solution. I don`t see it as a particularly viable solution but
> > labeling ideas as racist just so you can dismiss them is
> > counter-productive. You notice Ben did not argue against the idea
> > presented at all. He couldn`t argue an idea to save his life.
>
>
> "DUD'S" SOLUTION IS TO LOOK AT THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN!!!

Has Ben shown this isn`t a component of the problem, lurkers? Aren`t Americans, back and white, looking at the skin color of all the participants in all these incidents being hotly discussed?

> Another closet racist, folks!

Another idiot playing the race card, lurkers. Don`t think there aren`t tens of thousands of black people who agree with the original poster, and would like to see their communities served by all black police presence.

> >> They seem to have forgotten Martin Luther King Jr. when he
> >> proclaimed: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day
> >> live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their
> >> skin, but by the content of their character."
> >
> > What does that have to do with what the poster wrote, lurkers?
>
>
> "DUD" CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT RACISM MEANS... (even as he defends it!)

This is the kind of non sequitur you can expect if you ask Ben to show the relevance of one of his "ideas". As soon as you as "how so", or scratch the surface there is nothing there.

> >> These believers still prefer to judge someone by their skin color
> >> rather than their character.
> >
> > The poster wasn`t talking about judging, lurkers. Ben should start
> > by contesting that things are as the original poster portrayed them
> > instead of erecting these strawman arguments.
>
>
> THE POSTER WAS *INDEED* JUDGING WHO WOULD MAKE A BETTER POLICE OFFICER
> IN PARTICULAR PARTS OF TOWN.

The poster was talking about a problem and offering solutions, lurkers. He wasn`t casting judgement on any group, he was presenting what he considered the reality of the situation and suggesting a better course of action to deal within that reality.

> AND DOING IT ON THE BASIS OF THEIR SKIN COLOR...
>
>
> >> And since believers rarely contradict other believers, you won't see
> >> this racism being pointed out in the censored forum...
> >
> > It isn`t racist to take note that their are race problems in this
> > country, and to suggest solutions, lurkers.
>
> IT IS **CERTAINLY** RACIST TO SUGGEST THAT SKIN COLOR IS THE RELEVANT
> FACTOR IN POLICE WORK

Strawman, lurkers. Ben is the worst when it comes to evaluating other people`s arguments.

[Bud]

I was just staring at that also, it was badly in need of a qualifier (least, most, ect). There is no single relevant factor in police work.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 01:58:53 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
wrote:

It *IS* a relevant factor in the examples given. Looks like Mark Ulrik
is a closet racist too!!!

> Would you send a black undercover cop to infiltrate a gang of white
> supremacists?

Desperate to change the topic, aren't you Mark?

[Mark Ulrik]

Don't be a moron. I don't need other examples. I offered my own below.

> > Would you send a black undercover cop to infiltrate a gang of white
> > supremacists?
>
> Desperate to change the topic, aren't you Mark?

No. You were implying (rather naively) that skin color can't be a relevant factor in police work. You're refusing to answer my simple question because a "yes" would make you a fool and a "no" would make you a racist.

So you run like the coward you are.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 08:37:19 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>

In other words, you've simply changed the topic in order to hide your
racism.

The *TOPIC* and example was given above... and *YOU STILL* demand to
use skin color IN THE EXAMPLE GIVEN.

That proves you a racist.

>> > Would you send a black undercover cop to infiltrate a gang of white
>> > supremacists?
>>
>> Desperate to change the topic, aren't you Mark?
>
> No. You were implying (rather naively) that skin color can't be a
> relevant factor in police work.

You're molesting children again, aren't you Mark.

I stated quite clearly that it's racist to consider skin color as
**THE** relevant factor...

And you refuse to accept the truth of this statement... so you're
merely lying about what I stated, and pretending that I said something
else in order to get around your naked racism.

I was crystal clear in what I stated, and you're simply a liar to
suggest that I was "implying" something else.

> You're refusing to answer my simple question because a "yes" would
> make you a fool and a "no" would make you a racist.
>
>So you run like the coward you are.

You're desperately trying to change the topic to something else,
without first acknowledging the truthfulness of my ORIGINAL STATEMENT.

You're a racist... and a rather despicable one at that... since you've
twice now lied about what I stated.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 02:32:53 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Probably because you're both racist and cannot read. I'll state it
again, "It is **CERTAINLY** racist to suggest that skin color is
**THE** relevant factor in police work.

You're a disgusting racist, "Dud"... and so is Mark.

Do you attend KKK meetings? Or are you simply a closet racist?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 02:30:44 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 9:07:54 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> "DUD" THE RACIST!!!
>

> Ben the idiot...

Clearly intelligent enough to recognize your racist remarks...

[Bud]

Lurkers, have you seen Ben make one real argument against the original posters ideas? I know you haven`t.

[Bud]

Strawman, lurkers. Ben only steals posts from the moderated group so he can lie about the content here where the original poster doesn`t frequent.

> You're a disgusting racist, "Dud"... and so is Mark.

If I asked Ben to quote what I wrote that was racist he wouldn`t be able to, lurkers. He is hopeless when it comes to supporting his positions.

> Do you attend KKK meetings? Or are you simply a closet racist?

Lurkers, notice Ben couldn`t contest one argument I made, and can only resort to this pitiful display of ad hominem? This is why he can`t post in the moderated group, he can`t argue any ideas, he can only sling insults.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 16:41:41 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> Strawman.

How can the ACTUAL POINT of the post be a "strawman?"

You're simply desperate to hide your racism.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 16:41:36 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 10:12:15 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 02:30:44 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 9:07:54 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> "DUD" THE RACIST!!!
>> >
>> > Ben the idiot...
>>
>> Clearly intelligent enough to recognize your racist remarks...
>

> Lurkers...

Can't whine to them, they probably see it too.

[Bud]

It wasn`t the actual point of the post, lurkers. It was a strawman. The original poster took the position that dangers for white police in black areas make it reckless to have white police patrol them. You haven`t seen Ben address the actual argument and you never will. He steals posts from the moderated group and then lies about what the arguments are where the original poster doesn`t frequent.

> You're simply desperate to hide your racism.

Ben is simply afraid to address the real points that other posters make, lurkers.

[Bud]

You lurkers likely have noticed that Ben has yet to address the original posters points and arguments.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 15:09:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> It wasn`t the actual point ...

Simply lying won't convince anyone, "Dud."

Once again, it *CERTAINLY* is racist to suggest that skin color is

**THE** relevant factor in police work.

You're a racist.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 15:12:12 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 10:32:44 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 16:41:36 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 10:12:15 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 02:30:44 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 9:07:54 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> "DUD" THE RACIST!!!
>> >> >
>> >> > Ben the idiot...
>> >>
>> >> Clearly intelligent enough to recognize your racist remarks...
>> >
>> > Lurkers...
>>
>> Can't whine to them, they probably see it too.
>

> You lurkers likely have noticed ...

That "Dud" pays more attention to the color of your skin than the
content of your character. He's racist.

[Bud]

Strawman, lurkers. Ben steal posts from the moderated group so he can misrepresent the arguments here.

> You're a racist.

Ad honimen, lurkers. Note that once more Ben started a post on an issue and as soon as his ideas were explored he fled. He does this every single time.

[Bud]

Lurkers, Ben is a retard who can`t argue ideas, so he has to lie and name call.

[jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 13:59:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

I bet that's not his real name either.

BLACK LIES MATTER!
- -

" I don't even have the heart to tell him I've never infested
Arizona."
- Klaun Shittinb'ricks (1940 - ), acknowledging that he lied
from the very beginning, A jew scam, as expected

Iudaei orbem terrarum infestant.
- correct Latin

"Die Juden sind unser Unglück!"
- Heinrich von Treitschke (1834 - 1896)

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out
because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade
Unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade
Unionist. Then they came for the jews, and I did not speak out
because I did not give a shit. Then they came for me and there
wasn't a single commie bastard left to speak for me."
- Martin Niemöller (1892 - 1984)

Fformby-Smythe's Law of zionism:
"The importance of 'Israeel' to any given jew is directly proportional
to the square of the distance between that jew and 'Israeel'."

[jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)]

Is you a NIGGER?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 13:56:29 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> Strawman...

The point of the topic cannot be a "strawman."

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 13:59:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

I'm merely pointing out *YOUR* statements. **YOU** are the one making
racist statements... I'm only pointing to them.