Avi, the foole.
Miguel O'Pastel
who can run computers are not necessarily de facto smart.
M
Bill wrote in message <7nfkju$gpj$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>...
|Well, out of curiosity, I decided to see what Avi has actually posted in
|the past week. 1603 articles for alt.califonia on the server. 305 of
|them from Avi. Thats just under 20%, or one fifth of the artciles.
|
|The posts were of the following type:
|
|Empty posts - no new material
|"Me Too" posts when someone posted something that would make the US a
| place Avi might want to live (gun control, hate crimes, welfare, etc.)
|Childish insults in responce to everyone he doesn't like on this group.
|
|Not one thoughtful responce to any issue.
|Not one attempt to debate any issue that he disagred with
|Not one attempt to even respond coherantly to someone he dislikes
| (i.e. me, Jafo, Anglemoon, rccrumb)
|
|And he wonders why nobody will respond to his cries for proof.
|--
|Pure drivel tends to drive ordinary drivel off of the TV screen.
rrcrumb
Aviator nearly always comes up short.
As for myself, I engage him but would never call it
debate or argument. He did something a few months
back that convinced me it was a waste of time.
_____________________________________________
Bill <wmcc...@206.165.6.201> wrote in message
news:7nfkju$gpj$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com...
Miguel O'Pastel
oFF!!!
M
rrcrumb wrote in message <0WKm3.9854$hH6....@news1.mia>...
Miguel O'Pastel
to bet that most all racists were physically of sexually abused as children
and/or come from an authoritarian religious background with sadistic
overtones.
M
M
mik...@mindspring.com wrote in message
<37aab886...@news.mindspring.com>...
|On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 18:31:14 -0700, "Miguel O'Pastel"
|<heresl...@you.kid>'s laid this one on us:
|
|>Racism alike pedophilia and sweatshops, is not debatable. Just knock it
|>oFF!!!
|>M
|
|Well, that's debatable :)
|
|Just kidding, I look at racism as a sort of social dysfunctionality.
|If there is a superior race, it would not be a race that exploits
|other inferior races but it would be a benevolent and compassionate
|race.
|
|I can't think of any race of humans that are like that.
|
|
| o | | o
| _ _ _ | | _ _ _ _
|/ |/ |/ | | |/_) |/ | / |/ |/ |
| | | |_/ |_/ | \_/ |__/ |/ | | |_/ ©
| /|
| \|
|Today or Tomorrow??TOMATO/TOMOTTO!!
Aviator
it necessary to resort to spite, to cover for the numerous lies he
has posted
As he cannot prove any of the crap he posts, he has now turned to
schoolkid spite in a pathetic attempt to discredit me
I guess it shows us just how dumb this uneducated moron really is
Bill <wmcc...@206.165.6.201> wrote in message
news:7nfkju$gpj$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com...
> Well, out of curiosity, I decided to see what Avi has actually
posted in
> the past week. 1603 articles for alt.califonia on the server.
305 of
> them from Avi. Thats just under 20%, or one fifth of the
artciles.
the "artciles"??? Well done FOOL!!!!
Aviator
rrcrumb <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0WKm3.9854$hH6....@news1.mia...
> You and Jafo try to debate him in good faith and
> Aviator nearly always comes up short.
>
> As for myself, I engage him but would never call it
> debate or argument. He did something a few months
> back that convinced me it was a waste of time.
Dan, apart from being a common criminal, you are also a pathetic
liar
If one checks your posting history in the last three months, 97%
of your responses are nothing more than your insultingly idiotic
cut n pastes, peddling total lies
But then one doesn't expect integrity from a common crook
A perished condom is more useful than you
>
>
> _____________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
> Bill <wmcc...@206.165.6.201> wrote in message
> news:7nfkju$gpj$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com...
> > Well, out of curiosity, I decided to see what Avi has actually
posted in
> > the past week. 1603 articles for alt.califonia on the server.
305 of
> > them from Avi. Thats just under 20%, or one fifth of the
artciles.
> >
^saphire
Aviator wrote:
> It would seem that the lying scumbag who calls himself Bill, finds
> it necessary to resort to spite, to cover for the numerous lies he
> has posted
>
> As he cannot prove any of the crap he posts, he has now turned to
> schoolkid spite in a pathetic attempt to discredit me
>
> I guess it shows us just how dumb this uneducated moron really is
>
Avi, it would appear that you are being baited. Rise above it, they
aren't worth your time.
Miguel O'Pastel
understanding it, and looking for someone to blame for your misery. Most
sane people don't hate whole groups of people because of bad experiences
with a few. Of course if one were a child, it might be quite different and
even unconscious fears could easily translate into hate.
M
M
mik...@mindspring.com wrote in message
<37adbea7...@news.mindspring.com>...
|On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 18:53:08 -0700, "Miguel O'Pastel"
|<heresl...@you.kid>'s laid this one on us:
|
|>I am sure good or bad human qualities are not related to race. i am
willing
|>to bet that most all racists were physically of sexually abused as
children
|>and/or come from an authoritarian religious background with sadistic
|>overtones.
|
|
|I dunno. What about crime victims? If someone were a victim of an
|assault or rape or had family member as a victim, and the perp was a
|member of a different race, that might taint ones views.
Miguel O'Pastel
truth about. Every time you open your moths, someone sticks afoot in it.
Are y'all masochists?
M
rrcrumb wrote in message ...
|Avi......
|
|Aren't you afraid of getting shocked if you spill some of
|that vodka on the keyboard?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|Aviator <S...@tter.com> wrote in message
|news:7ngl70$jgh$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
|>
|
|<<<<<<< Usual meanderings mercifully snipped >>>>>>>>>>
|
|
Miguel O'Pastel
with hate crimes against humanity. War crimes a considered more serious
than just crimes. So are hate crimes. Aviator made a fool of you more than
once, of course you helped a lot.
M
Bill wrote in message <7ngt32$imr$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com>...
|In article <379BE09F...@world1.net>,
|^saphire <poetin...@world1.net> posted, then thought about:
|Close on the baited part. However, it required little effort - as Avi has
|responded to every post I've made in this group in the past week. And
|with one exception, has started off with "Liar" or Scumbag". To even
|reach the level of my posting, he would need to rise.
|
|BTW, in case you are curious, the proof that sent Avi off onto his foamin
|at the mouth stage was a failure to provide evidence of a "hate crime"
|activity not covered by current laws - when I say that all such crimes are
|covered by existing legislation.
|
|When you understand that twisted logic, you will understand why few, if
|any, posters here take him seriously.
|
|
|
|
|--
|Certainly there are things in life that money can't buy, but it's very
funny--
| Did you ever try buying them without money?
| -- Ogden Nash
Aviator
Bill <wmcc...@206.165.6.206> wrote in message
news:7ngt32$imr$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com...
> In article <379BE09F...@world1.net>,
> ^saphire <poetin...@world1.net> posted, then thought about:
>
> >
> >
> >Aviator wrote:
> >
> >> It would seem that the lying scumbag who calls himself Bill,
finds
> >> it necessary to resort to spite, to cover for the numerous
lies he
> >> has posted
> >>
> >> As he cannot prove any of the crap he posts, he has now
turned to
> >> schoolkid spite in a pathetic attempt to discredit me
> >>
> >> I guess it shows us just how dumb this uneducated moron
really is
> >>
> >
> >Avi, it would appear that you are being baited. Rise above it,
they
> >aren't worth your time.
>
> Close on the baited part. However, it required little effort -
as Avi has
> responded to every post I've made in this group in the past
week. And
> with one exception, has started off with "Liar" or Scumbag". To
even
> reach the level of my posting, he would need to rise.
Hehehehehehe In your DREAMS, drop-out!!!!
>
> BTW, in case you are curious, the proof that sent Avi off onto
his foamin
> at the mouth stage was a failure to provide evidence of a "hate
crime"
> activity not covered by current laws - when I say that all such
crimes are
> covered by existing legislation.
ROFL!!!!! The idiot makes a claim, then says "prove me wrong"
>
> When you understand that twisted logic, you will understand why
few, if
> any, posters here take him seriously.
Speak for yourself, you uneducated, lyimg sack of shit!!
Aviator
> An empty (paranoid) gourd rattles the most.
And common crooks belong in prison Danny!! You are a common
crook
>
>
>
>
>
> Aviator <S...@tter.com> wrote in message
> news:7ngkun$j1l$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Aviator
Miguel O'Pastel <heresl...@you.kid> wrote in message
news:uGmN32y1#GA.109@cpmsnbbsa03...
> Plenty of evidence was supplied as to the inadequacy of present
law to deal
> with hate crimes against humanity. War crimes a considered more
serious
> than just crimes. So are hate crimes. Aviator made a fool of
you more than
> once, of course you helped a lot.
Especially expecting me to prove HIS claim!!!!!
ROFL!!!!!!!
> M
>
> Bill wrote in message <7ngt32$imr$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com>...
> |In article <379BE09F...@world1.net>,
> |^saphire <poetin...@world1.net> posted, then thought about:
> |
> |>
> |>
> |>Aviator wrote:
> |>
> |>> It would seem that the lying scumbag who calls himself Bill,
finds
> |>> it necessary to resort to spite, to cover for the numerous
lies he
> |>> has posted
> |>>
> |>> As he cannot prove any of the crap he posts, he has now
turned to
> |>> schoolkid spite in a pathetic attempt to discredit me
> |>>
> |>> I guess it shows us just how dumb this uneducated moron
really is
> |>>
> |>
> |>Avi, it would appear that you are being baited. Rise above
it, they
> |>aren't worth your time.
> |
> |Close on the baited part. However, it required little effort -
as Avi has
> |responded to every post I've made in this group in the past
week. And
> |with one exception, has started off with "Liar" or Scumbag".
To even
> |reach the level of my posting, he would need to rise.
> |
> |BTW, in case you are curious, the proof that sent Avi off onto
his foamin
> |at the mouth stage was a failure to provide evidence of a "hate
crime"
> |activity not covered by current laws - when I say that all such
crimes are
> |covered by existing legislation.
> |
> |When you understand that twisted logic, you will understand why
few, if
> |any, posters here take him seriously.
> |
> |
> |
> |
rrcrumb
Aren't you afraid of getting shocked if you spill some of
that vodka on the keyboard?
Aviator <S...@tter.com> wrote in message
rrcrumb
Aviator <S...@tter.com> wrote in message
news:7ngkun$j1l$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
ipm
> You and Jafo try to debate him in good faith and
> Aviator nearly always comes up short.
>
> As for myself, I engage him but would never call it
> debate or argument. He did something a few months
> back that convinced me it was a waste of time.
Aviator is such an complete idiot that I kill-filed him long ago. I don't even
want my newsreader to be clogged with his worthless trash. Hell, he even makes
O'Pastel look semi-coherent in comparison - and that's a real accomplishment!
--
For White Unity,
ipm
Western Imperative Network http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/
National Alliance http://www.natvan.com
White Nationalist Women http://www.sigrdrifa.com/
Natural Socialist Reading Room http://members.xoom.com/natural_soc/
History of the White Race http://www4.stormfront.org/whitehistory/
Yggdrasil's Library http://www.ddc.net/ygg/
David Duke http://www.duke.org/
R. P. Oliver Website http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/america/
ipm
> Making up shit about drink now? Is there ANYTHING you psychos tell the
> truth about. Every time you open your moths, someone sticks afoot in it.
> Are y'all masochists?
This kook really has a lot of nerve calling other people psychos!
ipm
> Plenty of evidence was supplied as to the inadequacy of present law to deal
> with hate crimes against humanity.
Ok, but explain how any hate crime laws would have stopped either the Jasper
murder, Shepard's death, or Ben Smith's shooting spree? All the perps are either
already dead, will get life, or be executed. What do you want to do kill them
twice?
I still want you to give me a rational explaination why killing someone because
you don't like their race is any worse than any other reason?
Jafo
>It would seem that the lying scumbag who calls himself Bill, finds
>it necessary to resort to spite, to cover for the numerous lies he
>has posted
>
>As he cannot prove any of the crap he posts, he has now turned to
>schoolkid spite in a pathetic attempt to discredit me
No. He turns to verifiable statistics in order to prove a point.
You've accomplished the discrediting all by yourself.
>I guess it shows us just how dumb this uneducated moron really is
>
>Bill <wmcc...@206.165.6.201> wrote...
>> Well, out of curiosity, I decided to see what Avi has actually
>> posted in the past week. 1603 articles for alt.califonia on the
>> server. 305 of them from Avi. Thats just under 20%, or one fifth
>> of the artciles.
>the "artciles"??? Well done FOOL!!!!
A typo flame! Heavy. :-D
>> The posts were of the following type:
>>
>> Empty posts - no new material
>> "Me Too" posts when someone posted something that would make the
>> US a place Avi might want to live (gun control, hate crimes,
>> welfare, etc.) Childish insults in responce to everyone he
>> doesn't like on this group.
>>
>> Not one thoughtful responce to any issue.
>> Not one attempt to debate any issue that he disagred with
>> Not one attempt to even respond coherantly to someone he
>> dislikes
>> (i.e. me, Jafo, Anglemoon, rccrumb)
>>
>> And he wonders why nobody will respond to his cries for proof.
--
~ Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo/
Jafo
>I still want you to give me a rational explaination why killing
>someone because you don't like their race is any worse than any
>other reason?
A simple question, well put. Now, let's see how many respond in
knee-jerk fashion because they don't like the author and must
therefore read all sorts of biases into the question.
rrcrumb
equivalent to a *war crime*?
Bwahahhahahhahahhahahhahahahhahhah !!!!!
How about when a Mexican assaults someone ?
What is that equivalent to ?
______________________________________
Miguel O'Pastel <heresl...@you.kid> wrote in message
news:uGmN32y1#GA.109@cpmsnbbsa03...
> Plenty of evidence was supplied as to the inadequacy of present law to deal
> with hate crimes against humanity. War crimes a considered more serious
> than just crimes. So are hate crimes. Aviator made a fool of you more
than
> once, of course you helped a lot.
> M
>
rrcrumb
He periodically ends up in the kill-file then is let
out. He does have a certain entertainment value.
ipm <i...@usaor.net> wrote in message news:379C2D9E...@usaor.net...
> rrcrumb wrote:
>
> > You and Jafo try to debate him in good faith and
> > Aviator nearly always comes up short.
> >
> > As for myself, I engage him but would never call it
> > debate or argument. He did something a few months
> > back that convinced me it was a waste of time.
>
> Aviator is such an complete idiot that I kill-filed him long ago. I don't
even
> want my newsreader to be clogged with his worthless trash. Hell, he even
makes
> O'Pastel look semi-coherent in comparison - and that's a real
accomplishment!
>
ipm
> On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 05:54:12 -0400, ipm <i...@usaor.net>'s laid this
> one on us:
>
> >I still want you to give me a rational explaination why killing someone because
> >you don't like their race is any worse than any other reason?
>
> One cannot alter their race but one can modify their behavior. If
> there is an environment where a race of people are targeted by a
> group, there is really nowhere that the prey can run to or hide
> without being easily identified.
That's a ridiculous premise. But, if I acceted it just for the sake of argument, I
presume then you would approve of rape being changed to a hate crime? That's
targeting women for crime.
> On the other hand, someone with a
> political idealogy or possessing wealth in some form, could conceal
> their identity or hide their assets. To target people for their race
> leaves them less able to take measures to protect themselves than to
> target them for other reasons, therefor government steps in and offers
> additional protection by increasing the penalty for crimes committed
> where the motive is race.
Why are homosexuals covered then? A homosexual can change his behavior.
Besides, how is a homosexual identified unless he admits to it or is witnessed
engaged in homo activity?
ipm
> On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 05:54:12 -0400, ipm <i...@usaor.net>'s laid this
> one on us:
>
> >I still want you to give me a rational explaination why killing someone because
> >you don't like their race is any worse than any other reason?
>
> One cannot alter their race but one can modify their behavior.
Why is it that the only time liberals start demanding more hate laws is when a
non-white is attacked by a White. When the races of the persons involved are
reversed, the libs are stone silent. They were quiet when Colin Furgeson went on his
murder rampage. And we didn't hear a peep out of them on the anti-White Yaweh Ben
Yaweh cult murders and subsequent arrests and trials.
The fact is these hypocrites don't give a damn about crimes based on race per se,
only those that involve Whites as perpetrators and non-whites as victims. Since
Whites commit so few crimes against non-whites anyway, whereas non-whites commit
crimes against Whites constantly, this whole hate crime issue is completely absurd.
Blacks commit one million crimes against Whites annually. Do you actually believe
that NONE are based on hatred of Whites? When's the last time you heard any hoopla
over a Black-on-White hate crime? You almost never do, because the media
deliberately suppresses such news.
The Pervert
>
> Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
> > Plenty of evidence was supplied as to the inadequacy of present
> > law to deal with hate crimes against humanity. War crimes a considered more
> serious
> > than just crimes. So are hate crimes. Aviator made a fool of
> you more than
> > once, of course you helped a lot.
>
I took your stats (unchallenged) and asked a legitimate question.
Typical of your style, you went on one of your usual tirades attacking
the questioner (me, in this particular case) rather than addressing the
question. (Maybe the simple math presented was too complicated.)
Like many here, I generally don't bother trying to have a legitimate
dialogue with you any more.
I don't know who ^saphire is, and it doesn't surprise me that the only
other support you've gotten is from Miguel. Considering your strong
stance against racism, it is interesting in that Miguel is such a
blatant (and offensive) anti-white racist.
I also find it interesting that you seem compelled to do little more
than call anybody who disagrees with you names. It really sounds
juvenile and makes it seem that you and your arguments have little
actual substance. (Gee, might there be a corollary?)
I mean, it's difficult (pointless?) to talk with you like an adult when
you call Angelmoon such childish names as Anus Moron, Angel Liar and
Angel Coward, and Bill gets a variety of the usual Liar, Scumbag and
Hypocrite, ah and I just noticed the uneducated moron thing as well.
And now your latest self-righteous huff-and-puff about talking to your
lawyer about Bill's posts?
C'mon, Avi. Do you really thing anybody takes you seriously anymore?
Don't you get how few people even bother trying to make sense with you
anymore? Certainly you're not stupid in spite of the way you respond to
people and avoid answering direct challenges. Nobody (that I am aware
of) is in a conspiracy to discredit you. You do that job quite
effectively yourself.
> > Bill wrote in message <7ngt32$imr$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com>...
> > |
> > |...Avi has responded to every post I've made in this group in the
> > |past week. And with one exception, has started off with
> > |"Liar" or Scumbag".
> > |When you understand that twisted logic, you will understand why
> > |few, if any, posters here take him seriously.
Oops! It seems I'm being redundant here. Oh well.
Sad that the level of vitriol gets in the way of any meaningful dialogue
with certain people.
Miguel O'Pastel
M
ipm wrote in message <379C2D9E...@usaor.net>...
|rrcrumb wrote:
|
|> You and Jafo try to debate him in good faith and
|> Aviator nearly always comes up short.
|>
|> As for myself, I engage him but would never call it
|> debate or argument. He did something a few months
|> back that convinced me it was a waste of time.
|
|Aviator is such an complete idiot that I kill-filed him long ago. I don't
even
|want my newsreader to be clogged with his worthless trash. Hell, he even
makes
|O'Pastel look semi-coherent in comparison - and that's a real
accomplishment!
|
Miguel O'Pastel
M
rrcrumb wrote in message ...
|I've also done it.
|He periodically ends up in the kill-file then is let
|out. He does have a certain entertainment value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|ipm <i...@usaor.net> wrote in message news:379C2D9E...@usaor.net...
Miguel O'Pastel
argument for hate crime laws. The gentlemen involved in Jasper should be
hung from lamp poles as a warning to other racist wannabes.
M
ipm wrote in message <379C3044...@usaor.net>...
|Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
|
|> Plenty of evidence was supplied as to the inadequacy of present law to
deal
|> with hate crimes against humanity.
|
|Ok, but explain how any hate crime laws would have stopped either the
Jasper
|murder, Shepard's death, or Ben Smith's shooting spree? All the perps are
either
|already dead, will get life, or be executed. What do you want to do kill
them
|twice?
|
|I still want you to give me a rational explaination why killing someone
because
|you don't like their race is any worse than any other reason?
|
Miguel O'Pastel
M
Jafo wrote in message <37ab62cc...@news1.cheetah.net>...
|On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 05:54:12 -0400, ipm wrote:
|
|>I still want you to give me a rational explaination why killing
|>someone because you don't like their race is any worse than any
|>other reason?
|
Miguel O'Pastel
M
ipm wrote in message <379C9D7B...@usaor.net>...
|mik...@mindspring.com wrote:
|
|> On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 05:54:12 -0400, ipm <i...@usaor.net>'s laid this
|> one on us:
|>
|> >I still want you to give me a rational explaination why killing someone
because
|> >you don't like their race is any worse than any other reason?
|>
|> One cannot alter their race but one can modify their behavior.
|
|Why is it that the only time liberals start demanding more hate laws is
when a
|non-white is attacked by a White. When the races of the persons involved
are
|reversed, the libs are stone silent. They were quiet when Colin Furgeson
went on his
|murder rampage. And we didn't hear a peep out of them on the anti-White
Yaweh Ben
|Yaweh cult murders and subsequent arrests and trials.
|
|The fact is these hypocrites don't give a damn about crimes based on race
per se,
|only those that involve Whites as perpetrators and non-whites as victims.
Since
|Whites commit so few crimes against non-whites anyway, whereas non-whites
commit
|crimes against Whites constantly, this whole hate crime issue is completely
absurd.
|
|Blacks commit one million crimes against Whites annually. Do you actually
believe
|that NONE are based on hatred of Whites? When's the last time you heard any
hoopla
|over a Black-on-White hate crime? You almost never do, because the media
|deliberately suppresses such news.
|
Miguel O'Pastel
is more serious. They are going to put you out of business. That is the
real message here.
M
ipm wrote in message <379C9B46...@usaor.net>...
|mik...@mindspring.com wrote:
|
|> On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 05:54:12 -0400, ipm <i...@usaor.net>'s laid this
|> one on us:
|>
|> >I still want you to give me a rational explaination why killing someone
because
|> >you don't like their race is any worse than any other reason?
|>
|> One cannot alter their race but one can modify their behavior. If
|> there is an environment where a race of people are targeted by a
|> group, there is really nowhere that the prey can run to or hide
|> without being easily identified.
|
|That's a ridiculous premise. But, if I acceted it just for the sake of
argument, I
|presume then you would approve of rape being changed to a hate crime?
That's
|targeting women for crime.
|
|
|> On the other hand, someone with a
|> political idealogy or possessing wealth in some form, could conceal
|> their identity or hide their assets. To target people for their race
|> leaves them less able to take measures to protect themselves than to
|> target them for other reasons, therefor government steps in and offers
|> additional protection by increasing the penalty for crimes committed
|> where the motive is race.
|
|Why are homosexuals covered then? A homosexual can change his behavior.
|
|Besides, how is a homosexual identified unless he admits to it or is
witnessed
|engaged in homo activity?
|
Miguel O'Pastel
M
rrcrumb wrote in message ...
|So now bopping a Mexican on the head is
|equivalent to a *war crime*?
|
|Bwahahhahahhahahhahahhahahahhahhah !!!!!
|
|How about when a Mexican assaults someone ?
|What is that equivalent to ?
|
|
|______________________________________
|
|
|
|Miguel O'Pastel <heresl...@you.kid> wrote in message
|news:uGmN32y1#GA.109@cpmsnbbsa03...
|> Plenty of evidence was supplied as to the inadequacy of present law to
deal
|> with hate crimes against humanity. War crimes a considered more serious
|> than just crimes. So are hate crimes. Aviator made a fool of you more
|than
|> once, of course you helped a lot.
|> M
|>
|
|
|
|
|
Miguel O'Pastel
middle-class to be morally bankrupt and disgusting. Perhaps that is what you
misinterpreted on purpose.
I do not seek approval, son.
M
The Pervert wrote in message <379CA6...@spambad.yahooo.com>...
|Aviator wrote:
|>
|> Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
|> > Plenty of evidence was supplied as to the inadequacy of present
|> > law to deal with hate crimes against humanity. War crimes a considered
more
|> serious
|> > than just crimes. So are hate crimes. Aviator made a fool of
|> you more than
|> > once, of course you helped a lot.
|>
Jafo
>Laws only stop those who are afraid to violate them. You are the best
>argument for hate crime laws.
The fact that "laws only stop those who are afraid to violate them"
makes all the flap about the need for gun control look pretty foolish,
eh?
>The gentlemen involved in Jasper should be hung from lamp poles as a
>warning to other racist wannabes.
If they're murderers, then hang 'em and leave the bodies to swing for
24 hours as a warning to others.
Miguel O'Pastel
violence rather than attacking the root causes; basically a corrupt
oligarchical system.
M
Jafo wrote in message <379fcc1b...@news1.cheetah.net>...
ipm
> A hate crime is an attempt to terrorize and entire population of people and
> is more serious. They are going to put you out of business. That is the
> real message here.
If more laws suppressing White people did what you claim, the National Alliance
would have folded years ago. The fact is more oppressive laws only proves to
more and more people that we are right. Your kind are self-destructing. The
more political correctness you pile on, the more resistance there is. You
people are desparate.
Face it, your kind are morally bankrupt. You are getting weaker and we are
getting stronger. In the six years in which I have been a supporter of White
Nationalism, I have never seen the movement stronger, better organized, and
more on the offensive. It seems everytime I turn on my computer there's new and
better racialist websites popping up.
Aviator
ipm <i...@usaor.net> wrote in message
news:379C2D9E...@usaor.net...
> rrcrumb wrote:
>
> > You and Jafo try to debate him in good faith and
> > Aviator nearly always comes up short.
> >
> > As for myself, I engage him but would never call it
> > debate or argument. He did something a few months
> > back that convinced me it was a waste of time.
>
> Aviator is such an complete idiot that I kill-filed him long
ago. I don't even
> want my newsreader to be clogged with his worthless trash. Hell,
he even makes
> O'Pastel look semi-coherent in comparison - and that's a real
accomplishment!
Poor William. He has been so thoroughly trashed, and shown how
hypocritical and immoral he is, that he just cant stand it any
more. I bet he still reads every word I post in response to his
unsubstantiated claims, blatant distortions of statistics and
outright and blatant lies
Aviator
Jafo <jafo@_cheetah.net> wrote in message
news:37a1583...@news1.cheetah.net...
> On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 17:59:21 -0700, Aviator wrote:
>
> >It would seem that the lying scumbag who calls himself Bill,
finds
> >it necessary to resort to spite, to cover for the numerous lies
he
> >has posted
> >
> >As he cannot prove any of the crap he posts, he has now turned
to
> >schoolkid spite in a pathetic attempt to discredit me
>
> No. He turns to verifiable statistics in order to prove a
point.
ROFL!!!!!! He finds "verifiable statistics" to attack me, but he
cant seem to find any to support his bogus claims. (For that
matter neither can you!!!)
> You've accomplished the discrediting all by yourself.
If you say so. I reckon posting usubstantiated crap as you two do
does more to discredit you than proving I posted a lot of items
>
> >I guess it shows us just how dumb this uneducated moron really
is
> >
> >Bill <wmcc...@206.165.6.201> wrote...
> >> Well, out of curiosity, I decided to see what Avi has
actually
> >> posted in the past week. 1603 articles for alt.califonia on
the
> >> server. 305 of them from Avi. Thats just under 20%, or one
fifth
> >> of the artciles.
>
> >the "artciles"??? Well done FOOL!!!!
>
> A typo flame! Heavy. :-D
Bills whole post is a flame with no substance, apart from the
numbers.
>
> >> The posts were of the following type:
> >>
> >> Empty posts - no new material
> >> "Me Too" posts when someone posted something that would make
the
> >> US a place Avi might want to live (gun control, hate crimes,
> >> welfare, etc.) Childish insults in responce to everyone he
> >> doesn't like on this group.
> >>
> >> Not one thoughtful responce to any issue.
> >> Not one attempt to debate any issue that he disagred with
> >> Not one attempt to even respond coherantly to someone he
> >> dislikes
> >> (i.e. me, Jafo, Anglemoon, rccrumb)
> >>
> >> And he wonders why nobody will respond to his cries for
proof.
>
Aviator
> On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 05:54:12 -0400, ipm wrote:
>
> >I still want you to give me a rational explaination why killing
> >someone because you don't like their race is any worse than any
> >other reason?
>
> knee-jerk fashion because they don't like the author and must
> therefore read all sorts of biases into the question.
As is evidenced in the FBI Hate Crime Statistics, 12 out of some
7000 hate crimes were murder. Approximately 0.17% or one fifth of
one percent. I have said it before, and I will say it again,
murder is seldom considered as a hate crime when prosecuted.
Although the media labelled certain murders this year as hate
crimes, they were not prosecuted as such, as enhanced punishment
is clearly not applicable
Maybe Roger Racist would like to ask the same question regarding
aggravated assaults, and we can discuss the tenet of "several
harms" applied to crimes where physical injury was not the only
consequence of an assault
"Several individual guidelines provide special instructions for
increasing punishment when the conduct that is the subject of that
count involves multiple occurrences or has caused several harms."
(This legal tenet has been in place for a substantaial time
before the advent of Hate Crime legislation)
http://www.ussc.gov/1998guid/98chap1.htm
Oh, and by the way, you are right. I despise Roger.
> ~ Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo/
>
Aviator
> On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 13:35:43 -0700, Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
>
> >Laws only stop those who are afraid to violate them. You are
the best
> >argument for hate crime laws.
>
> The fact that "laws only stop those who are afraid to violate
them"
> makes all the flap about the need for gun control look pretty
foolish,
> eh?
>
> >The gentlemen involved in Jasper should be hung from lamp poles
as a
> >warning to other racist wannabes.
>
> If they're murderers, then hang 'em and leave the bodies to
swing for
> 24 hours as a warning to others.
Jafo, dont allow your emotionalism to influence you. Murder is not
the major issue in hate crimes, but aggravated assaults and
property damage with their "several harms" ( Yup. I did my
research and came up with a new phrase!!) which make up the
majority of hate crimes recorded , are.
Aviator
The Pervert <perv...@spambad.yahooo.com> wrote in message
news:379CA6...@spambad.yahooo.com...
> Aviator wrote:
> And now your latest self-righteous huff-and-puff about talking
to your
> lawyer about Bill's posts?
There is nothing self-righteous about it. It is about
self-preservation. A simple allusion to child abuse, as baseless
as it is, could bring INS, and other authorities down around my
head, to investigate it. An immigrant convicted of a felony or
repeated criminal conduct will have citizenship revoked and be
deported. As remote as the possibility of this might be, I am
ensuring that it is repoted to the FBI as a precautionary measure.
I will not have my security or integrity compromised by an idiot.
My lawyers have been briefed to include Bill with Judy Baca for
lawsuits should I suffer any financial or other damage as a result
>
> C'mon, Avi. Do you really thing anybody takes you seriously
anymore?
> Don't you get how few people even bother trying to make sense
with you
> anymore?
It doesn't concern me particularly. You are one of the few people
I could debate, as when you make a claim, you generally do not
make a it without substantiation. (Frequent reference to FARs is
testimony to that!!) Pseudo-intellectuals like Jafo and Bill,
never provide a source or proof of their blatantly false claims,
so their opinions aren't worth the bandwidth they waste. Should I
be concerned about the opinion of Elizabeth who killfiles 95% of
those who take an opposing view, and offers sanctimonious
condemnation of innocent people?? I wont go into the list of
racists, as any opinion they offer is worth squat anyway
>Certainly you're not stupid in spite of the way you respond to
> people and avoid answering direct challenges.
Such as??
Nobody (that I am aware
> of) is in a conspiracy to discredit you. You do that job quite
> effectively yourself.
Then maybe you can enlighten me as to the point of Bills post??
His and Jafos own words have indicted them as liars and
hypocrites. Would you prefer that I conform with their attribution
of political correctness??
I see a lie, I call it. I see hypocrisy, I call it, and if people
don't like it, well then its just hard cheese. Let Bill post his
malicious revenge. He isn't the sharpest tack in the box so you
can bet his own words will come back and bite him in the ass
I do however take your criticism to heart, as one of the EXTREMELY
few people who practises what they preach. Although not all your
points are valid, those I think are will be taken under
consideration
>
>
> > > Bill wrote in message <7ngt32$imr$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com>...
> > > |
> > > |...Avi has responded to every post I've made in this group
in the
> > > |past week. And with one exception, has started off with
> > > |"Liar" or Scumbag".
>
> > > |When you understand that twisted logic, you will understand
why
> > > |few, if any, posters here take him seriously.
>
>
> Oops! It seems I'm being redundant here. Oh well.
>
> Sad that the level of vitriol gets in the way of any meaningful
dialogue
> with certain people.
Way too many. Myself included
Jafo
>Jafo wrote...
>> Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
>> >The gentlemen involved in Jasper should be hung from lamp poles
>> >as a warning to other racist wannabes.
>> If they're murderers, then hang 'em and leave the bodies to
>> swing for 24 hours as a warning to others.
>Jafo, dont allow your emotionalism to influence you. Murder is not
>the major issue in hate crimes,
Murder is most assuredly the "major issue" to:
A) the victim
B) the victim's family and other loved ones
>but aggravated assaults and property damage with their "several harms"
>( Yup. I did my research and came up with a new phrase!!) which make
>up the majority of hate crimes recorded , are.
So what? They were crimes before the concept of "hate crimes"
and they'll be crimes well after the concept slides into
unConstitutionality (to coin a phrase.. :-) ). Suddenly, the idea
of whom the crime was committed against outweighs the thought of
the crime itself.
But I do like your new PC phrase... "several harms"... has a
certain panache, a certain bogus ring to it, doncha think? :)
Aviator
> mik...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 05:54:12 -0400, ipm <i...@usaor.net>'s
laid this
> > one on us:
> >
killing someone because
> > >you don't like their race is any worse than any other reason?
> >
>
laws is when a
> non-white is attacked by a White.
Typical racist lie. See Wisconsin vs Mitchell
When the races of the persons involved are
> reversed, the libs are stone silent. They were quiet when Colin
Furgeson went on his
> murder rampage. And we didn't hear a peep out of them on the
anti-White Yaweh Ben
> Yaweh cult murders and subsequent arrests and trials.
FACT: Of 7000 hate crimes in 1997, 3900 were white on black and
1300 were black on white.
http:/fbi.gov
>
> The fact is these hypocrites don't give a damn about crimes
based on race per se,
> only those that involve Whites as perpetrators and non-whites as
victims.
Another racist lie. See above statistics. White bigots commit more
hate crimes than blacks at a rate of 3:1
Since
> Whites commit so few crimes against non-whites anyway, whereas
non-whites commit
> crimes against Whites constantly, this whole hate crime issue is
completely absurd.
Because it limits the ability or racists of all colors to commit
their violent acts with relative impunity
>
> Blacks commit one million crimes against Whites annually. Do you
actually believe
> that NONE are based on hatred of Whites?
Roger loves to twist things around
When's the last time you heard any hoopla
> over a Black-on-White hate crime? You almost never do, because
the media
> deliberately suppresses such news.
Nope. Because only clueless racists are concerned about the race
of criminals in general. Most of us just consider them criminals
Aviator
> Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
>
> > A hate crime is an attempt to terrorize and entire population
of people and
> > is more serious. They are going to put you out of business.
That is the
> > real message here.
>
> If more laws suppressing White people did what you claim, the
National Alliance
> would have folded years ago. The fact is more oppressive laws
only proves to
> more and more people that we are right.
Roger of course thinks that all politicians will support a bill
their constituents dont want. It is only oppressive to violent
bigoted criminals
Your kind are self-destructing. The
> more political correctness you pile on, the more resistance
there is. You
> people are desparate.
Roger has displayed his political correctness on many occasions
>
> Face it, your kind are morally bankrupt. You are getting weaker
and we are
> getting stronger.
Yeah, RIGHT. Lessee, we have ALL the representives in the house
and senate and you have...........wait, I need to count
'em.............NONE!!!!
In the six years in which I have been a supporter of White
> Nationalism, I have never seen the movement stronger,
Stonger than Limburger maybe
better organized, and
> more on the offensive. It seems everytime I turn on my computer
there's new and
> better racialist websites popping up.
And that is your strength???
ROFL!!!!!!
^saphire
Bill wrote:
>
> >Avi, it would appear that you are being baited. Rise above it, they
> >aren't worth your time.
>
> Close on the baited part. However, it required little effort - as Avi has
> responded to every post I've made in this group in the past week. And
> with one exception, has started off with "Liar" or Scumbag". To even
> reach the level of my posting, he would need to rise.
>
> BTW, in case you are curious, the proof that sent Avi off onto his foamin
> at the mouth stage was a failure to provide evidence of a "hate crime"
> activity not covered by current laws - when I say that all such crimes are
> covered by existing legislation.
>
> When you understand that twisted logic, you will understand why few, if
> any, posters here take him seriously.
>
And, in case you are curious, I read this ng regularly. As far as "rising" to
your posts, I don't personally feel that it is "rising" to respond to racist crap
and unsubstantiated claims.
Twisted logic is not something I need to understand. It would appear that you
asked Aviator... to prove a negative. Would it not be much simpler to
substantiate what you claim?
Jafo
>Jafo wrote...
>> Aviator wrote:
>> >It would seem that the lying scumbag who calls himself Bill,
>> >finds it necessary to resort to spite, to cover for the numerous
>> >lies he has posted
>> >
>> >As he cannot prove any of the crap he posts, he has now turned
>> >to schoolkid spite in a pathetic attempt to discredit me
>> No. He turns to verifiable statistics in order to prove a
>> point.
>ROFL!!!!!! He finds "verifiable statistics" to attack me, but he
>cant seem to find any to support his bogus claims. (For that
>matter neither can you!!!)
>> You've accomplished the discrediting all by yourself.
>If you say so.
No, Avi; the evidence of the posts says so.
>I reckon posting usubstantiated crap as you two do does more to
>discredit you than proving I posted a lot of items
"Unsubstantiated crap", like stating that good laws properly and
impartially enforced are all the protection we need.
Jafo
>The Pervert wrote...
>> And now your latest self-righteous huff-and-puff about talking
>> to your lawyer about Bill's posts?
>There is nothing self-righteous about it. It is about
>self-preservation. A simple allusion to child abuse, as baseless
>as it is, could bring INS, and other authorities down around my
>head, to investigate it. An immigrant convicted of a felony or
>repeated criminal conduct will have citizenship revoked and be
>deported. As remote as the possibility of this might be, I am
>ensuring that it is repoted to the FBI as a precautionary measure.
>I will not have my security or integrity compromised by an idiot.
>My lawyers have been briefed to include Bill with Judy Baca for
>lawsuits should I suffer any financial or other damage as a result
Okay, that does it. Your asinine crybaby childishness has finally
reached the point where I refuse to read it any longer. In my three
and a half years in alt.california, yours is the first name that I've
ever killfiled, but this childish petulant bullshit is just too much.
You rant and you rant and when somebody calls you on it, you pull a
sickening crybaby act like this. Just maybe, if you exhibited the
slightest sense of maturity you wouldn't *feel* that you had to resort
to crap like this. Take your lawyers and shove them up your ass.
You will not have your "security or integrity compromised by an
idiot", but it's never occurred to you that anyone as fundamentally
anti-American as you are might just deserve to be shown the door
that leads back home. Citizenship is granted too easily, and
integrity and respect aren't granted at all - they're earned.
AMF.
*PLONK*
Jafo
>Oh, and by the way, you are right. I despise Roger.
Obviously.
So what?
Miguel O'Pastel
UFO abductees than you guys.
M
ipm wrote in message <379CDA55...@usaor.net>...
|Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
|
|> A hate crime is an attempt to terrorize and entire population of people
and
|> is more serious. They are going to put you out of business. That is the
|> real message here.
|
|If more laws suppressing White people did what you claim, the National
Alliance
|would have folded years ago. The fact is more oppressive laws only proves
to
|more and more people that we are right. Your kind are self-destructing. The
|more political correctness you pile on, the more resistance there is. You
|people are desparate.
|
|Face it, your kind are morally bankrupt. You are getting weaker and we are
|getting stronger. In the six years in which I have been a supporter of
White
|Nationalism, I have never seen the movement stronger, better organized, and
|more on the offensive. It seems everytime I turn on my computer there's new
and
|better racialist websites popping up.
|
|
Miguel O'Pastel
M
mik...@mindspring.com wrote in message
<379dd67...@news.mindspring.com>...
|On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 14:09:10 -0700, "Miguel O'Pastel"
|<heresl...@you.kid>'s laid this one on us:
|
|>I have never express anti-white sentiments. I do find the white
|>middle-class to be morally bankrupt and disgusting.
|
|So do the National Socialists.
|
|
| o | | o
| _ _ _ | | _ _ _ _
|/ |/ |/ | | |/_) |/ | / |/ |/ |
| | | |_/ |_/ | \_/ |__/ |/ | | |_/ ©
| /|
| \|
|Today or Tomorrow??TOMATO/TOMOTTO!!
Miguel O'Pastel
Jafo wrote in message <37b122bf...@news1.cheetah.net>...
Aviator
Nope. Unsubstantiated claims like the following:
Avi:
">As far as i am concerned, dumbass morons of any race who decide
to force
>their will on others by illegal and violent means, deserve an
extended
> >stay in jail"
Jafo:
" And guess what! We have existing laws that already provide for
this."
Maybe you would like to take the opportunity to provide us with
the law that covers these crimes of intimidation and terrorism
which is basically what "to force their will on others by illegal
and violent means" is)
Or maybe you just want to delete it again
Aviator
> On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 14:49:07 -0700, Aviator wrote:
>
> >Jafo wrote...
Not half as bogus as your unsubstantiated claims
Aviator
> Aviator wrote:
>
> > "Several individual guidelines provide special instructions
for
> > increasing punishment when the conduct that is the subject of
that
> > count involves multiple occurrences or has caused several
harms."
> > (This legal tenet has been in place for a substantaial time
> > before the advent of Hate Crime legislation)
>
phase of
> a criminal trial. Might one ask, then, what is the necessity
for
> special hate crime legislation if the increased punishment
guidelines
> have "been in place for a substantial time before the advent of
Hate
> Crimes legislation?"
The first sensible question anyone has asked on the issue.
> In your view, does that or does that not seem like an
unnecessary
> duplication of efforts/legislation for the sole purpose of
making a show
> of righteous indignation without really creating any substantive
benefit
> or effect?
In my opinion it identifies a specific type of crime that has
until recently been under enforced and under prosecuted. To get a
clearer picture check out
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/txt/pgthc.txt. "The policymakers
guide to hate crimes" from which this extract comes.
I would suggest reading the whole document
"What Makes Hate Crimes Different From Other Crimes?
The number of hate crimes may seem small when compared with the
incidence of other types of crimes in the United States. In 1993,
for example, 11 of the 24,526 murders reported in the United
States were classified as hate crimes, as were 13 of the 104,806
reported rapes. But the simple truth about hate crimes is that
each offense victimizes not one victim but many. A hate crime
victimizes not only the immediate target but every member of the
group that the immediate target represents. A bias-motivated
offense can cause a broad ripple of discomfiture among members of
a targeted group, and a violent hate crime can act like a virus,
quickly spreading feelings of terror and loathing across an entire
community. Apart from their psychological impacts, violent hate
crimes can create tides of retaliation and counterretaliation.
Therefore, criminal acts motivated by bias may carry far more
weight than other types of criminal acts. "
(Not that Congress ever pulls that kind of stunt, regardless
> of political affiliation.) And yes, I will easily concede that
I
> believe hate crime hoopla is just a bad, needless, dog and pony
show.
Your'e entitled
>
> > Oh, and by the way, you are right. I despise Roger.
>
> If that's ipm, knock yourself out. He accidently asked a
legitimate
> question in this thread (it was bound to happen sooner or
later), but
> I'll agree that he is primarily useful only as an object lesson
as to
> what a person never wants to become, and a strong argument for
> post-natal abortions.
Bingo
Aviator
Another one crumbles under the weight of his own lies. No loss
Thomas Mohr
> Face it, your kind are morally bankrupt. You are getting weaker and we are
> getting stronger. In the six years in which I have been a supporter of White
> Nationalism, I have never seen the movement stronger, better organized, and
> more on the offensive. It seems everytime I turn on my computer there's new and
> better racialist websites popping up.
McKinney, who is morally bankrupt ? Those advocating humanity to others
or those who
a) Lie and slander that steel beams bend (remeber your more than 13
atrocious lies post ?)
b) Who are genetically so defective that even the strongest human
instinct, taht to find babies cute - doesn#t work
c) Who behave badly to others just because of the colour of the skin.
d) Those who can not forgive
Let me lecture you, little postman and college dropout: Especially
concerning the last point: Forgiveing and mercy takes real bravery,
honour, manhood and morality. But these are absolutely alien concepts
for you. You rely on liey, slandering, libels, cowardice and genetic
defectiveness.
The Pervert
> "Several individual guidelines provide special instructions for
> increasing punishment when the conduct that is the subject of that
> count involves multiple occurrences or has caused several harms."
> (This legal tenet has been in place for a substantaial time
> before the advent of Hate Crime legislation)
You have stated that hate crime legislation is for the penalty phase of
a criminal trial. Might one ask, then, what is the necessity for
special hate crime legislation if the increased punishment guidelines
have "been in place for a substantial time before the advent of Hate
Crimes legislation?"
In your view, does that or does that not seem like an unnecessary
duplication of efforts/legislation for the sole purpose of making a show
of righteous indignation without really creating any substantive benefit
or effect? (Not that Congress ever pulls that kind of stunt, regardless
of political affiliation.) And yes, I will easily concede that I
believe hate crime hoopla is just a bad, needless, dog and pony show.
> Oh, and by the way, you are right. I despise Roger.
The Pervert
>
> The Pervert <perv...@spambad.yahooo.com> wrote in message
> news:379D2D...@spambad.yahooo.com...
> >
> > > "Several individual guidelines provide special instructions
> for
> > > increasing punishment when the conduct that is the subject of
> that
> > > count involves multiple occurrences or has caused several
> harms."
> > > (This legal tenet has been in place for a substantaial time
> > > before the advent of Hate Crime legislation)
> >
> > You have stated that hate crime legislation is for the penalty
> phase of
> > a criminal trial. Might one ask, then, what is the necessity
> for
> > special hate crime legislation if the increased punishment
> guidelines
> > have "been in place for a substantial time before the advent of
> Hate
> > Crimes legislation?"
>
Thank You. I'll disagree, but thank you anyway.
> > In your view, does that or does that not seem like an
> unnecessary
> > duplication of efforts/legislation for the sole purpose of
> making a show
> > of righteous indignation without really creating any substantive
> benefit
> > or effect?
>
> In my opinion it identifies a specific type of crime that has
> until recently been under enforced and under prosecuted. To get a
> clearer picture check out
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/txt/pgthc.txt. "The policymakers
> guide to hate crimes" from which this extract comes.
Okay, so the crime is "identified." The question was, is it a
duplication of efforts and legislation purely for show?
I believe it is. And I think I'd accept it more easily if there were
more honesty in admitting that it was a charade designed to shut up the
usual parade of minority protests. But that will understandably never
happen. I'd also accept it more if comparable (read: any) media
attention were given to hate crimes perpetrated against whites by
minorities. That will understandably never happen, either.
Let's set aside murder for the moment in this discussion since you
believe it to be so small in number as to cloud the larger issue. Okay,
point considered. The next logical question might be, so what? As has
been brought out by others, if legislation is extant, would not the same
benefit be derived by *properly* enforcing and *properly* prosecuting
assaults, rapes and robberies with the existing latitude in sentencing
guidelines that have been in place for a substantial amount of time? It
still seems (to me) that calling certain crimes "Hate Crimes" per se is
more for show than for substance.
> I would suggest reading the whole document
>
> "What Makes Hate Crimes Different From Other Crimes?
>
> The number of hate crimes may seem small when compared with the
> incidence of other types of crimes in the United States. In 1993,
> for example, 11 of the 24,526 murders reported in the United
> States were classified as hate crimes, as were 13 of the 104,806
> reported rapes. But the simple truth about hate crimes is that
> each offense victimizes not one victim but many. A hate crime
> victimizes not only the immediate target but every member of the
> group that the immediate target represents. A bias-motivated
> offense can cause a broad ripple of discomfiture among members of
> a targeted group, and a violent hate crime can act like a virus,
> quickly spreading feelings of terror and loathing across an entire
> community. Apart from their psychological impacts, violent hate
> crimes can create tides of retaliation and counterretaliation.
> Therefore, criminal acts motivated by bias may carry far more
> weight than other types of criminal acts. "
I suggest that any crime creates a ripple effect on the victim's family,
not just the victim as the paragraph suggests. Further, bias-motivated
crimes have the ripple effect whether they get a special title or not.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if a group of skinheads
beats a couple of black students that there's some measure of
bias-motivated stupidity/animosity going on. It doesn't take that same
rocket scientist to know that Damien Williams didn't slam a cinder block
on Reginald Denny's without regard to Mr. Denny's race. You don't think
the whites remember that and the deafening LACK of racial outrage by
black leaders?
That incident was even more tragic in that the media seemed to have an
unspoken fear-based agreement to not mention the race biased motivation
invloved. Certainly none of the traditional black so-called "leaders"
would ever (then or now) own up to the fact that Denny was attacked for
no other reason than that he was white without going into the usual
excuse about rage in young black males. As has been pointed out, the
term hate crime was not in vogue then, and certainly would not be used
for a crime perped by a black man against a white man, especially
considering the circumstances of the time. (It should be noted that the
incredibly brave intervention of two blacks prevented even more serious
injury to Mr. Denny.)
That may be one reason why some whites, including myself, are fed up
with negative racial motivations only ascribed to whites against
minorities, especially by police. The Taisha Miller case gets national
notoriety. But where were Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and Rita Waters
when Michael Arnold was shot 106 times by police last year (See article
in yesterday's L.A. Times, Section B1) in Hawthorne while brandishing
what was later discovered to be a BB gun? Hell, I didn't even hear
about it in the media last year when it happened!
I'll bet you've guessed by now that Mr. Arnold was white. No news value
in that.
And I'll maintain my cynicism about the true value and ethics of the
whole "hate crime" frenzy. To me it's pandering and insulting.
> Your'e entitled
The Pervert
>
> I have never express anti-white sentiments. I do find the white
> misinterpreted on purpose.
I don't believe you, based on what you have written; to wit, renouncing
your white heritage.
> I do not seek approval, son.
> M
I don't believe that load of crap either, dad.
We now await your idiotic reference to my bombing civilans.
rrcrumb
> idiot", but it's never occurred to you that anyone as fundamentally
> anti-American as you are might just deserve to be shown the door
> that leads back home. Citizenship is granted too easily, and
> integrity and respect aren't granted at all - they're earned.
> AMF.
>
> *PLONK*
I'll be plonking 'im too.
To me it's amazing how he could get your dander up
to the point that you feel he would not make a good
American citizen. I have obviously felt that way for quite
a while.
One has to do a lot to push Jafo to this point because Jafo
is the middle of the middle of the road reasonable/sane
conservative. He will slap down extreme nonsense from
right or left........ He's done it to me.
</suckup mode>
________________________________________________
rrcrumb
of the *aggrieved* will be covered. And the government will
do the lawyering for them free of charge.
Easier than suing, eh? That might cost you some money.
Incrementalism is standard M.O. with the liberals.
---------------------------
ipm <i...@usaor.net> wrote in message news:379C9B46...@usaor.net...
> mik...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 05:54:12 -0400, ipm <i...@usaor.net>'s laid this
> > one on us:
> >
> > >I still want you to give me a rational explaination why killing someone
because
> > >you don't like their race is any worse than any other reason?
> >
> > One cannot alter their race but one can modify their behavior. If
> > there is an environment where a race of people are targeted by a
> > group, there is really nowhere that the prey can run to or hide
> > without being easily identified.
>
> That's a ridiculous premise. But, if I acceted it just for the sake of
argument, I
> presume then you would approve of rape being changed to a hate crime?
That's
> targeting women for crime.
>
>
> > On the other hand, someone with a
> > political idealogy or possessing wealth in some form, could conceal
> > their identity or hide their assets. To target people for their race
> > leaves them less able to take measures to protect themselves than to
> > target them for other reasons, therefor government steps in and offers
> > additional protection by increasing the penalty for crimes committed
> > where the motive is race.
>
> Why are homosexuals covered then? A homosexual can change his behavior.
>
> Besides, how is a homosexual identified unless he admits to it or is
witnessed
> engaged in homo activity?
Miguel O'Pastel
aggression and atrocities. I don't see why I shouldn't. This does not mean
I consider you to be of good character.
It is the right of anyone to identify with any group or none. I have not
renounced my working class heritage. Color is irrelevant to anyone except
racists.
M
M
The Pervert wrote in message <379D8D...@spambad.yahooo.com>...
Miguel O'Pastel
M
rrcrumb wrote in message ...
Miguel O'Pastel
M
rrcrumb wrote in message ...
Jafo
>Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels
Thanks for the hackneyed quote. And your point is... ?
>rrcrumb wrote in message ...
>|One has to do a lot to push Jafo to this point because Jafo
>|is the middle of the middle of the road reasonable/sane
>|conservative. He will slap down extreme nonsense from
>|right or left........ He's done it to me.
--
~ Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo/
Aviator
<mik...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:379d882b...@news.mindspring.com...
> On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:38:15 GMT, The Pervert
> <perv...@spambad.yahooo.com>'s laid this one on us:
>
>
> >I suggest that any crime creates a ripple effect on the
victim's family,
> >not just the victim as the paragraph suggests. Further,
bias-motivated
> >crimes have the ripple effect whether they get a special title
or not.
> >It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if a group of
skinheads
> >beats a couple of black students that there's some measure of
> >bias-motivated stupidity/animosity going on. It doesn't take
that same
> >rocket scientist to know that Damien Williams didn't slam a
cinder block
> >on Reginald Denny's without regard to Mr. Denny's race. You
don't think
> >the whites remember that and the deafening LACK of racial
outrage by
> >black leaders?
>
light
> sentence, for his racist attack. There were hundreds of other
simiar
> attacks all throughout the city, against random White people,
Williams
> was practically the only one who got caught, so why just pick on
him?
>
>
> Damien Williams is the reason that many White's now own guns,
and hate
> the government.
You might as well call it a conspiracy. You forget that the riots
started as a result of the Rodney King beating. So riots triggered
by bad white cops are in fact the reason for so many whites buying
guns if one were to accept youre statement as valid
msomme...@my-deja.com
of new threaded message areas to discuss hiking the Eastern Sierras of
California. There is a Mt. Whitney area, an Inyo/Mono Hiking area and a
section devoted to climbing the peaks over 14,000 feet. The boards were
just created so there is not much there yet, but this is a free area
and is just waiting for your comments and notes.
All of the pleasant images that come to mind when you hear the word
Eastern High Sierra have been captured in the words, maps and pictures
in Sierra Outdoor Guides. This information will help you plan that
future backpacking, camping and fishing adventure.
http://www.sierraguides.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
ipm
> Let me lecture you, little postman and college dropout: Especially
> concerning the last point: Forgiveing and mercy takes real bravery,
> honour, manhood and morality.
I've heard that from many liberal Christians, and guess what? Its bullshit just like
every damn near everything else liberals preach. White people in this country have
been far too forgiving and merciful to an intractible enemy who wants to destroy us
and it hasn't gotten us anything except to embolden our opponents. In that situation,
granting forgiveness and mercy is suicidal and degenerate. What we need to do is
stand up and fight for our rights.
It takes bravery and manhood to stand against a numerically more powerful enemy.
Knowing one is right can give that courage. That's something you can't know, because
you're just a quivering punk who takes only the safe, Bill Clinton-approved,
politically correct path. You don't have the guts to defy these bastards.
ipm
> Yeah, but there are only four guys creating the websites. There are more
> UFO abductees than you guys.
Yeah right, you just keep believing that.
ipm
> I would define a hate crime as
>
> An act of aggression against a person, or against a persons property,
> motivated by a hatred of the persons
> race, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, economic
> status, or some other factor that defines that person as being a
> member of a group, or having an individuality that sets a person apart
> from a group, for the purpose of instilling terror, or accomplishing
> the extermination of, or limiting the normal expectations of the
> liberty of that person or the group to which the person has been
> identified with,by the perpetrator of the said
> aggression.
Ok, so if I'm walking down the street and someone says: "Hey, there's the Nazi, IPM.
Lets get him" and a crowd of Blacks attack me, then that would be a hate crime? It fits
your definition.
Thomas Mohr
> It takes bravery and manhood to stand against a numerically more powerful enemy.
> Knowing one is right can give that courage. That's something you can't know, because
> you're just a quivering punk who takes only the safe, Bill Clinton-approved,
> politically correct path. You don't have the guts to defy these bastards.
McKinney, for somebody who doesn't even have the bravery to use his real
name, you have your mouth damned full with terms like "bravery" and
"manhood". Anyway, your writing again proves that you do not understand
the concept of forgiving. How could you ? Your whole world consists only
of black and white and tit for tat. How pathetic.
Concerning you being right. If I apply your ideology to my surrounding,
I get hate, animousity destruction and misery. If I do not, I do not. So
guess who is right. The one whose ideology causes destruction or the
other ?
McKinney,if I see what you lie around (I mean, thirteen lies in a post
and NO apology), how you slander people, how you claim things that are
not proven at least and simply lies at worst - then I know that such
pathetic people CAN NOT be right, because if you#re right, you don't
need to lie like you do.
protocol13
the killer to the death penalty or land that person in jail for more years than
killing a non police officer. Yet, I still read about police being killed. May
be, it is time to eliminate the preference for police officers' lives and have them
be equal to all other human beings lives.
ipm wrote:
> Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
>
> > Plenty of evidence was supplied as to the inadequacy of present law to deal
> > with hate crimes against humanity.
>
> Ok, but explain how any hate crime laws would have stopped either the Jasper
> murder, Shepard's death, or Ben Smith's shooting spree? All the perps are either
> already dead, will get life, or be executed. What do you want to do kill them
> twice?
>
> I still want you to give me a rational explaination why killing someone because
> you don't like their race is any worse than any other reason?
>
ipm
> ipm wrote:
>
> > It takes bravery and manhood to stand against a numerically more powerful enemy.
> > Knowing one is right can give that courage. That's something you can't know, because
> > you're just a quivering punk who takes only the safe, Bill Clinton-approved,
> > politically correct path. You don't have the guts to defy these bastards.
>
> McKinney, for somebody who doesn't even have the bravery to use his real
> name, you have your mouth damned full with terms like "bravery" and
> "manhood".
You clowns presumably have a full dossier on me, remember?
> Concerning you being right. If I apply your ideology to my surrounding,
> I get hate, animousity destruction and misery. If I do not, I do not. So
> guess who is right. The one whose ideology causes destruction or the
> other ?
That's a ridiculous claim, since it has only been since the elevation of liberalism from
an assortment of crank ideas which no serious person believed to the state religion that
all kinds of problems and destructive pathologies have plagued us. We continue to spiral
downward in morals, attitudes, and behavior, not because more people think like I do, no,
because we have more people thinking like YOU, Mohr!
Miguel O'Pastel
M
ipm wrote in message <379EFD50...@usaor.net>...
|mik...@mindspring.com wrote:
|
|> I would define a hate crime as
|>
|> An act of aggression against a person, or against a persons property,
|> motivated by a hatred of the persons
|> race, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, economic
|> status, or some other factor that defines that person as being a
|> member of a group, or having an individuality that sets a person apart
|> from a group, for the purpose of instilling terror, or accomplishing
|> the extermination of, or limiting the normal expectations of the
|> liberty of that person or the group to which the person has been
|> identified with,by the perpetrator of the said
|> aggression.
|
|Ok, so if I'm walking down the street and someone says: "Hey, there's the
Nazi, IPM.
|Lets get him" and a crowd of Blacks attack me, then that would be a hate
crime? It fits
|your definition.
|
Thomas Mohr
> You clowns presumably have a full dossier on me, remember?
Then why hide if everything is known already ?
> > Concerning you being right. If I apply your ideology to my surrounding,
> > I get hate, animousity destruction and misery. If I do not, I do not. So
> > guess who is right. The one whose ideology causes destruction or the
> > other ?
>
> That's a ridiculous claim, since it has only been since the elevation of liberalism from
> an assortment of crank ideas which no serious person believed to the state religion that
> all kinds of problems and destructive pathologies have plagued us. We continue to spiral
> downward in morals, attitudes, and behavior, not because more people think like I do, no,
> because we have more people thinking like YOU, Mohr!
McKinney, you are already on the bottom of morals. If I'd cite your lies
here, I'd sit all night. McKinney, *nobody* but you managed to post a
post with over 30 statements and 13 out of 13 randomly seleced proved to
be lies or gross misrepresentations. ONLY you and your ilk managed to do
that. mcKinney, you and your guys are convicted liars and slanderers.
Certain babies make you nauseate. You are nasty to people just because
of their skin-colour. You are egoistic. You would deny your own flesh
and blood. You are not of high moral. in fact, you and your ilks are the
lowest of the lowest.
One question: How can you think you have a high morality if you do such
things ?
Jafo
Miguel O'Pastel wrote in reply to ipm:
>A case could be made that your mere presence is a hate crime.
And one day I'm sure it will be. Freedom of speech is on its deathbed already,
why not drive the final nail into its coffin by lying in wait for those whose
speech we don't like?
--
~ Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo/
When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
Now they've taken the first amendment, and I can say nothing about it.
Aviator
> mik...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> > I would define a hate crime as
> >
> > An act of aggression against a person, or against a persons
property,
> > motivated by a hatred of the persons
> > race, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation,
economic
> > status, or some other factor that defines that person as being
a
> > member of a group, or having an individuality that sets a
person apart
> > from a group, for the purpose of instilling terror, or
accomplishing
> > the extermination of, or limiting the normal expectations of
the
> > liberty of that person or the group to which the person has
been
> > identified with,by the perpetrator of the said
> > aggression.
>
> Ok, so if I'm walking down the street and someone says: "Hey,
there's the Nazi, IPM.
> Lets get him" and a crowd of Blacks attack me, then that would
be a hate crime? It fits
> your definition.
If it can be proved in court that you were specifically targeted
because of your race, then yes, it is
Aviator
Miguel O'Pastel <heresl...@you.kid> wrote in message
news:uudJm2S2#GA.280@cpmsnbbsa05...
> A case could be made that your mere presence is a hate crime.
Not a great response, Miguel. For once in his life, Roger has a
point
> M
>
> ipm wrote in message <379EFD50...@usaor.net>...
Aviator
> On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:10:24 -0700,
> Miguel O'Pastel wrote in reply to ipm:
>
>
deathbed already,
> why not drive the final nail into its coffin by lying in wait
for those whose
> speech we don't like?
>
> --
> ~ Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo/
>
> When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I
didn't deal drugs.
> When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was
innocent.
> When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I
didn't own a gun.
> Now they've taken the first amendment, and I can say nothing
about it.
"Article. V.
Section. 1.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on
the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several
States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in
either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part
of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three
fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths
thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be
proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be
made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall
in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth
Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its
Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. "
Like it or not, it's constitutional
>
Aviator
<mik...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:37a07a4d...@news.mindspring.com...
> On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 07:53:41 -0400, "rrcrumb"
<zen...@yahoo.com>'s
> laid this one on us:
>
> > of the *aggrieved* will be covered.
>
>
society
> and that race was not the single determinant factor in the worth
of a
> human being. If you read my definition, of how an HC bill should
> appear (assuming you accept the premise that such a law is
necessary)
> then *all* people would be protected the same.
There are those who apparently do not believe that all people be
allowed to have the reasonable expectation of life and liberty,
free of terrorism and intimidation.
Jafo
>>>Ok, so if I'm walking down the street and someone says: "Hey,
>>>there's the Nazi, IPM. Lets get him" and a crowd of Blacks
>>>attack me, then that would be a hate crime? It fits your definition.
To which Aviator replied:
>>If it can be proved in court that you were specifically targeted
>>because of your race, then yes, it is
mik...@mindspring.com offered correction:
>Bzzzzt! Wrong.
>
>If it can be shown that he was beaten up for being a Nazi prick,
>then he has been a victim of a hate crime as well.
Why, certainly. These asinine "hate crimes" statutes can be defined
in such a manner as to focus on any particular difference du jour; it
needn't be limited to a matter of race.
Miguel O'Pastel
nazis. Personally, open season from WWII was never called off as I recall.
M
Aviator wrote in message <7nobl9$hc$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
|
|Miguel O'Pastel <heresl...@you.kid> wrote in message
|news:uudJm2S2#GA.280@cpmsnbbsa05...
|> A case could be made that your mere presence is a hate crime.
|
|Not a great response, Miguel. For once in his life, Roger has a
|point
|
|> M
|>
|> ipm wrote in message <379EFD50...@usaor.net>...
|> |mik...@mindspring.com wrote:
|> |
|> |> I would define a hate crime as
|> |>
|> |> An act of aggression against a person, or against a persons
|property,
|> |> motivated by a hatred of the persons
|> |> race, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation,
|economic
|> |> status, or some other factor that defines that person as
|being a
|> |> member of a group, or having an individuality that sets a
|person apart
|> |> from a group, for the purpose of instilling terror, or
|accomplishing
|> |> the extermination of, or limiting the normal expectations of
|the
|> |> liberty of that person or the group to which the person has
|been
|> |> identified with,by the perpetrator of the said
|> |> aggression.
|> |
|> |Ok, so if I'm walking down the street and someone says: "Hey,
|there's the
|> Nazi, IPM.
|> |Lets get him" and a crowd of Blacks attack me, then that would
|be a hate
|> crime? It fits
|> |your definition.
|> |
ipm
> Since the Vietnamese have pretty much forgiven the US for its wartime
> aggression and atrocities. I don't see why I shouldn't.
You're a joke. As a self-admitted former Maoist, your sympathies were obviously
with the Vietnamese. Therefore, I presume you only want to forgive them for not
killing MORE Americans!
> Color is irrelevant to anyone except racists.
What a hypocrite! Color is very relevent to YOU. How else do you explain your
perfect record of always taking the side of non-whites against Whites? Even on
the rare occasion when you acknowledge bad behavior on the part of non-whites,
you always include a slam against Whites.
You may be able to pass this kind of bullshit to your dopey friends, but don't
waste your time here.
protocol13
rrcrumb wrote:
Bwahahhahahhahahhahahhahahahhahhah !!!!! Is this, the sound sheep make when they are hungry or when they have nothing else to do?
H______________________________________
Miguel O'Pastel <heresl...@you.kid> wrote in message
> Plenty of evidence was supplied as to the inadequacy of present law to deal
> with hate crimes against humanity. War crimes a considered more serious
> than just crimes. So are hate crimes. Aviator made a fool of you more
than
> once, of course you helped a lot.
> M
>
Thomas Mohr
> What a hypocrite! Color is very relevent to YOU. How else do you explain your
> perfect record of always taking the side of non-whites against Whites? Even on
> the rare occasion when you acknowledge bad behavior on the part of non-whites,
> you always include a slam against Whites.
>
> You may be able to pass this kind of bullshit to your dopey friends, but don't
> waste your time here.
McKinney, he is not taking side of non-whites against whites, he is
taking side of non-whites and whites alike against you racist ilk and
that is a big difference. That he doesn't say much against black racists
is very understandable. First, it doesn't make much sense for whites to
speak against black racists, second, he shows that not all whites are as
morally corrupt liars and slanderers as you and your ilk. But all this
is too much for your postal-worker and college dropout brain. For you,
only black and white (or better white and non-white) exists.
The Pervert
> McKinney, he is not taking side of non-whites against whites, he is
> taking side of non-whites and whites alike against you racist ilk and
> that is a big difference.
Agreed that ipm is as close to a complete asshole as one can expect, but
I have to disagree with you about Miguel. He routinely DOES take an
decidedly anti-white stance.
> That he doesn't say much against black racists is very understandable.
Then explain it to me because I don't understand it. A racist is bad
news regardless of what color they are. But maybe that's just me.
Attacking only one race's racism seems racist and hypocritical in and of
itself.
> First, it doesn't make much sense for whites to speak against black racists
Why not? Is one form of vile and disgusting racism more acceptable than
another? That's what doesn't make much sense to me.
> second, he shows that not all whites are as
> morally corrupt liars and slanderers as you and your ilk.
Well, c'mon! Who is!
hc23hc
>
> ipm had written:
> >>>Ok, so if I'm walking down the street and someone says: "Hey,
> >>>there's the Nazi, IPM. Lets get him" and a crowd of Blacks
> >>>attack me, then that would be a hate crime? It fits your definition.
>
> >>If it can be proved in court that you were specifically targeted
> >>because of your race, then yes, it is
>
> mik...@mindspring.com offered correction:
> >Bzzzzt! Wrong.
> >
> >If it can be shown that he was beaten up for being a Nazi prick,
> >then he has been a victim of a hate crime as well.
>
> Why, certainly. These asinine "hate crimes" statutes can be defined
> in such a manner as to focus on any particular difference du jour; it
> needn't be limited to a matter of race.
OK, Jafo - I'll let all those WWII veterans know you're coming after them.
.
.
.
hc23hc
>
> Thomas Mohr wrote:
>
> > McKinney, he is not taking side of non-whites against whites, he is
> > taking side of non-whites and whites alike against you racist ilk and
> > that is a big difference.
>
> Agreed that ipm is as close to a complete asshole as one can expect, but
> I have to disagree with you about Miguel. He routinely DOES take an
> decidedly anti-white stance.
Perv and Bill have tried this one before.
They were wrong then, and you, Pervert, sure as hell are wrong again.
.
.
.
Miguel O'Pastel
whites who want nothing to do with your lunacy.
I did support the Vietnamese in the war. They were right.
M
ipm wrote in message <37A013E2...@usaor.net>...
|Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
|
|> Since the Vietnamese have pretty much forgiven the US for its wartime
|> aggression and atrocities. I don't see why I shouldn't.
|
|You're a joke. As a self-admitted former Maoist, your sympathies were
obviously
|with the Vietnamese. Therefore, I presume you only want to forgive them for
not
|killing MORE Americans!
|
|
|
|> Color is irrelevant to anyone except racists.
|
|What a hypocrite! Color is very relevent to YOU. How else do you explain
your
|perfect record of always taking the side of non-whites against Whites? Even
on
|the rare occasion when you acknowledge bad behavior on the part of
non-whites,
|you always include a slam against Whites.
|
|You may be able to pass this kind of bullshit to your dopey friends, but
don't
|waste your time here.
|
Miguel O'Pastel
M
protocol13 wrote in message <37A01529...@concentric.net>...
Miguel O'Pastel
little uniform in Toronto. The nazis threatened to sue and the Toronto gave
them the use of a park. In the Ukrainian section of Toronto. Severe ass
whipping ensued as the nazis were not aware of who lived in the district.
Sic Semper Tryannis.
M
hc23hc wrote in message <37A0901B...@artlink.ne>...
Miguel O'Pastel
M
Thomas Mohr wrote in message <37A0275E...@magnet.at>...
|ipm wrote:
|
|> What a hypocrite! Color is very relevent to YOU. How else do you explain
your
|> perfect record of always taking the side of non-whites against Whites?
Even on
|> the rare occasion when you acknowledge bad behavior on the part of
non-whites,
|> you always include a slam against Whites.
|>
|> You may be able to pass this kind of bullshit to your dopey friends, but
don't
|> waste your time here.
|
|McKinney, he is not taking side of non-whites against whites, he is
|taking side of non-whites and whites alike against you racist ilk and
Jafo
>The Pervert wrote:
>> Thomas Mohr wrote:
>> > McKinney, he is not taking side of non-whites against whites, he is
>> > taking side of non-whites and whites alike against you racist ilk and
>> > that is a big difference.
>> Agreed that ipm is as close to a complete asshole as one can expect, but
>> I have to disagree with you about Miguel. He routinely DOES take an
>> decidedly anti-white stance.
>Perv and Bill have tried this one before.
>
>They were wrong then, and you, Pervert, sure as hell are wrong again.
As usual, you're wrong.
The Pervert
>
> The Pervert wrote:
> >
> > Thomas Mohr wrote:
> >
> > > McKinney, he is not taking side of non-whites against whites, he is
> > > taking side of non-whites and whites alike against you racist ilk and
> > > that is a big difference.
> >
> > Agreed that ipm is as close to a complete asshole as one can expect, but
> > I have to disagree with you about Miguel. He routinely DOES take an
> > decidedly anti-white stance.
>
> Perv and Bill have tried this one before.
>
> They were wrong then, and you, Pervert, sure as hell are wrong again.
I was right then and I sure as hell am right now.
If you are willing and able to read, you know it. If you aren't, you
don't.
Miguel O'Pastel
Jafo
Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
>The Pervert wrote...
>Far right.
Miguel, everything that comes out of your keyboard is cribbed from old
socialist manifestos.
hc23hc
>
> hc23hc wrote:
> >
> > The Pervert wrote:
> > >
> > > Thomas Mohr wrote:
> > >
> > > > McKinney, he is not taking side of non-whites against whites, he is
> > > > taking side of non-whites and whites alike against you racist ilk and
> > > > that is a big difference.
> > >
> > > Agreed that ipm is as close to a complete asshole as one can expect, but
> > > I have to disagree with you about Miguel. He routinely DOES take an
> > > decidedly anti-white stance.
> >
> > Perv and Bill have tried this one before.
> >
> > They were wrong then, and you, Pervert, sure as hell are wrong again.
>
> I was right then and I sure as hell am right now.
>
> If you are willing and able to read, you know it. If you aren't, you
> don't.
Perv and Jafo: Twin Fools. Two wrongs who can't seem to make a right.
The best you guys can deliver right now is "No we're not wrong, you are!"
Whereas, all this time you two clammy pooves have been yelping away about
the plight of the white male as his though endangerment were actual, which
always was and still is a gigantic distortion both of history and topical
conditions.
Miguel has given your paranoia very little to work with, but your absence
of self-restraint enables you to allege racism on his part as blandly as
though you were conversing about the weather. Coming from the Stealth
Racist clique over by the VCT latrines, your fake dismay's a joke as stale
as the aroma of Jafo's underwear, whose dorsal seams bear the skid marks of
many a close encounter with dyed in the wool racism's unhappy trails and brown
nose-dives. Having consorted with Jafo, Bill and Moo for as long as you have,
you should by now know exactly what racism actually looks like. I understand
you'd prefer not to face up to it, but as time passes, your range of options
is continuing to diminish, as even you have only so many sides to your mouth
to talk out of.
So why not take a break from posting weak-kneed "poor, misunderstood white male"
bovine excrement and come back when you've had a chance to think up something a
little more original and, possibly, truthful than your drab, standard issue Bill
imitations? For now, you're doing your peer group a major disservice by talking
with your mouth full of Jafo.
Also, it makes your breath smell.
.
.
.
Miguel O'Pastel
Panthers helped.
M
mik...@mindspring.com wrote in message
<37a3b944...@news.mindspring.com>...
|On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 12:15:31 -0700, "Miguel O'Pastel"
|<heresl...@you.kid>'s laid this one on us:
|
|
|>I did support the Vietnamese in the war. They were right.
|>M
|
|Just an observation, if you said that in some of the Black working
|class neighborhoods I've lived in, you'd be shunned.
Miguel O'Pastel
M
ipm wrote in message <37A12CE1...@usaor.net>...
|Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
|
|> You do not represent whites in any way, so opposing you is not opposing
|> whites who want nothing to do with your lunacy.
|> I did support the Vietnamese in the war. They were right.
|
|I didn't support the war either, but I damn sure didn't support the
Vietnamese.
|Of course, I knew that a treasonous Marxist scumbag like you would be
supporting
|the enemy. My only concern was that Americans were being killed. I didn't
care
|how many Viet Cong bit the dust.
|
|If I had my way, we would have stayed out of that situation in the first
place.
|
|America hasn't fought a war that actually helped the White race, except the
war
|against the Indians.
|
|I oppose all these money wars.
Miguel O'Pastel
Black neighborhoods have always had a significantly greater percentage of
Marxist than white ones. Wonder why that is? And don't say Da Jooz.
ipm wrote in message <37A12D78...@usaor.net>...
|mik...@mindspring.com wrote:
|
|> On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 12:15:31 -0700, "Miguel O'Pastel"
|> <heresl...@you.kid>'s laid this one on us:
|>
|> >I did support the Vietnamese in the war. They were right.
|> >M
|>
|> Just an observation, if you said that in some of the Black working
|> class neighborhoods I've lived in, you'd be shunned.
|
|He might be more than shunned considering there's many Black vets
|around. I'm sure they don't have much use for Marxists and Viet Cong
|supporters like O'Pastel.