Re: Denny's and Cracker Barrel cows milked dry, so --
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Tommy wrote
in message <158011485.3ueptqr9kl@FreeBSD>:
>NetCop wrote:
>> Why on Earth would a black person go to a restaurant?
>> Why don't they just stay home and save money, and
>> not go out and bother people all the time?
>I wish they would all stay home..Hell, you can't go to a freaking movie
>theater anymore..
>
>Why in the fuck can't they sit down and watch a movie like White people do
>is beyond me.
>Why must they act like apes in a zoo --> in public?
>Last movie I went tooo a group of 7-Nogs disrupted the whole movie. They
>eventually got thrown out about half way through the movie. This shit
>happens all the time, We should have on theater for Whites and another for
>blacks.
But ittle tommikins -- you *still* haven't shared with us a definition
of "white" that doesn't boil down to a subjective decorating
preference...
Mr.Extreme
CORNHOLING EACH OTHER IN THE FRONT ROW. WE WANT OUR MONEY BACK!!!!!!
spa...@nogood.com wrote:
> Yeah, maybe if he said "civilized" it would be more accurate. Don't go
> to the movies on a discount night and you won't see so many
> groids.
--
THe HNIC has posted, bitches!!
x-- 100 Proof News - http://www.100ProofNews.com
x-- 3,500+ Binary NewsGroups, and over 90,000 other groups
x-- Access to over 1 Terabyte per Day - $8.95/Month
x-- UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD
Way Back Jack
Oh, are you trying to determine if you're white or black?
Yes, whiggers do seem to suffer from racial identity disorder.
Bro
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message <41efae45...@news.newshosting.com>:
One notes that "jcak" can't define zir terms, either -- not that
anyone expected an intelligent resonse from zie.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message <41efae45...@news.newshosting.com>:
One notes that "jack" can't define zir terms, either -- not that
anyone expected an intelligent response from zie.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message <o3avu0herv0vookjk...@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:47:52 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>But ittle tommikins -- you *still* haven't shared with us a definition
>>of "white" that doesn't boil down to a subjective decorating
>>preference...
>Yeah, maybe if he said "civilized" it would be more accurate. Don't go
>to the movies on a discount night and you won't see so many
>groids.
One notes that not even *one* of you mighty whitey types has even
*attempted* to define the term in such a way as to enable an objective
test for "whiteness."
Funny, that.
Way Back Jack
If there is no such thing as race or perceived race (other than the
human race) tell it to the 13% of the American population that
considers itself negroid.
Tell it to those of that race who whine about racial discrimination
and demand continuance of perks and who celebrate Black History Month,
etc..
Duh.
Bro
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:02:35 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>> someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
>> in message <41efae45...@news.newshosting.com>:
>>>On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:47:52 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>>>But ittle tommikins -- you *still* haven't shared with us a definition
>>>>of "white" that doesn't boil down to a subjective decorating
>>>>preference...
>>>Oh, are you trying to determine if you're white or black?
>>>
>>>Yes, whiggers do seem to suffer from racial identity disorder.
>>One notes that "jack" can't define zir terms, either -- not that
>>anyone expected an intelligent response from zie.
>If there is no such thing as race or perceived race (other than the
>human race) tell it to the 13% of the American population that
>considers itself negroid.
If you can't answer the question, it's okay to say so, "jack."
>Tell it to those of that race who whine about racial discrimination
>and demand continuance of perks and who celebrate Black History Month,
>etc..
Nope. Not having a discussion with them. tommikins wants a white and
a non-white theater, an idea you apparently approve of.
All I'm exploring here is how you're going to objectively determine
who gets to see which movie...
Way Back Jack
>>If there is no such thing as race or perceived race (other than the
>>human race) tell it to the 13% of the American population that
>>considers itself negroid.
>>Tell it to those of that race who whine about racial discrimination
>>and demand continuance of perks and who celebrate Black History Month,
>>etc..
Not to mention those who demand reparations for slavery and 20 extra
points on college admission tests.
Bro
Jay Walker
Commie faggot pedophile.
NetCop
"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
news:nco0v01oj0e3vjd2g...@4ax.com...
By skin color, you illiterate impotent fuckwit. Lern hau two reed.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
in message
"jack" runs from offering an objective test for "whiteness" again.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message <ujc2v055jghokhvc7...@4ax.com>:
>On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 01:59:12 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>> someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
>> in message <41f05fe...@news.prodigy.net>:
>>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:02:35 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>>>In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>>>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>>>> someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
>>>> in message <41efae45...@news.newshosting.com>:
>>>>>On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:47:52 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>>>>>But ittle tommikins -- you *still* haven't shared with us a definition
>>>>>>of "white" that doesn't boil down to a subjective decorating
>>>>>>preference...
<snip unresponsive blather>
>>>>One notes that "jack" can't define zir terms, either -- not that
>>>>anyone expected an intelligent response from zie.
<snip unresponsive blather>
>>If you can't answer the question, it's okay to say so, "jack."
<snip unresponsive blather>
>>Nope. Not having a discussion with them. tommikins wants a white and
>>a non-white theater, an idea you apparently approve of.
>Not necessarily white or non-white.
Yes, necessarily. That's what tommikins specified and "jack"
supports.
>I never knew anyone that doesn't
>like someone because of their skin tint.
Meet tommikins and "jack".
>I *DO* know people (myself
>included) that don't like people who act like animals, most of which
>are groids.
And you can objectively justify this "most of which?"
Define "act like animals.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be spa...@nogood.com wrote
>Who needs a test?
Anyone interested in being fair about it. Of course, this rules out
irrational haters like tommikins and "jack" which was rather my
point...
>Either you act like a savage or you don't. The
>"culture", cRap in particular, is savage. I knew a white guy that went
>to Rikers Island, deservedly so. When he got out a month later, he was
>covered in bruises. The spics and niggers had a good time beating the
>crap out of him every day 'cause he's white. Fucking savages.
Yeah. Right. Something that supposedly happened to someone you
supposedly knew for reasons that you don't eve get into, none of which
can be verified is significant ... why?
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message <4v34v0dvq48apof25...@4ax.com>:
>Commie faggot pedophile.
And this is a shining light of the mighty whitey movement...
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message
<hkvId.13831$wZ2....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>:
>"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
>news:nco0v01oj0e3vjd2g...@4ax.com...
>> Nope. Not having a discussion with them. tommikins wants a white and
>> a non-white theater, an idea you apparently approve of.
>>
>> All I'm exploring here is how you're going to objectively determine
>> who gets to see which movie...
>
>By skin color, you illiterate impotent fuckwit. Lern hau two reed.
Ah, so an albino African American would be acceptable? Why then not a
very light skinned "black" person? At what point is light, light
enough? At what point is a Caucasian too tanned to qualify?
Tschnikov
Tell ya what. Walk up to a black-skinned guy who calls himself an
Arican-American.
Tell him that there's no race except the human race and you're going
to remove his racial preference perks.
See what happens.
jim treblehorn
If you're sincerely interested in meeting a negro, I can send you a
map showing how to travel to certain areas of large American cities.
I'm most familiar with Detroit, St. Louis,a nd Philly on the east
coast. Any of those convenient to you?
When you arrive, inquire about meeting a black person.
jim
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message
<1106432224.40ea503bfdf62281907f1cf802d72015@bubbanews>:
Not interested in make believe.
Have *you* an objective way to determine who is "white" and who is
not?
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message
<1106433713.a67aaaa464e8647c570439eab095b772@bubbanews>:
>>>Commie faggot pedophile.
So, you *can't* define your terms.
How are you going to go about making any difference at all on this
subject if you don't even know what it is you're talking about?
R. Steve Walz
That would be you, shit-mind.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
You stupid shit-mind, you're apparently unaware that most white
folks who aren't psychiopathic now have lots of black friends.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
BroJackOffShit, you got more sock puppets you beat off into than
anybody we know.
Steve
COL. RSJ
wrote:
WOW, after the asswhiping you suffered last time, I never thought
you'd be here again. Using drugs again are ya.
--
So I sit and write and ponder, while the house is deaf
and dumb. Seeing visions over yonder of the war I know
must come. In the corner-not a vision-but a sign of
coming days, stands a box of ammunition, and a rifle
in green baize. And in this, the living present, let
the word go through the land. Every tradesman, clerk
and peasant, should have these two things at hand. No,
no ranting song is needed, and no meeting, flag or
fuss-In the future, still unheeded, shall the Spirit
come to us. Without feathers, drum or riot, on the
day that is to be. We shall march down very quiet,
to our stations by the sea. While the bitter parties
stifle every voice that warns of war. Every man should
have a rifle. And cartridges in store. (Henry Lawson)
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Way Back Jack
>Have *you* an objective way to determine who is "white" and who is
>not?
Da gubamint do:
In its last complete National Criminal Victimization Survey (1994),
the Justice Department revealed blacks to have committed 1,600,951
violent crimes against whites. Only 15 percent of these had robbery as
a motive. We can safely infer that most of the rest had race as at
least a partial motive. Eighty-five percent of the attacks were
assaults and rapes. While blacks were committing these 1.6 million
crimes against whites, whites were reciprocating with 165,345 violent
offenses against blacks. Blacks, representing thirteen percent of the
nation, committed more than 90 percent of the violent interracial
crime. Fifty-seven percent of the violent crime committed by blacks
had white victims. Less than 3 percent of violence committed by whites
had black victims. In 1994, a black was 64 times more likely to attack
a white than vice versa. This is the real story of hate in America. It
is the media's well-kept secret.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message
>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:42:45 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>Have *you* an objective way to determine who is "white" and who is
>>not?
>Da gubamint do:
Answer the question "Jack" -- who is "white?"
Jay Walker
Not you, you whigger.
Way Back Jack
The folks with the higher numbers in these ratios:
Black/White Street Crime Ratios:
Murder/neg. msltr.: 5.39/1
Forcible Rape: 2.89/1
Robbery: 6.55/1
Aggravated assault: 2.88/1
Burglary: 2.45/1
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>>>Da gubamint do:
>Not you, you whigger.
LOL -- by your own childish name calling, you say that I am.
But I understand your frustration that coming up with such a
definition might involve thinking, something which manifestly you find
too much of a challenge...
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
in message
>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:56:32 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>> someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
>> in message
>><1106570406.9bf9c44e220a243d781fcb741e3e3685@bubbanews>:
>>>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:42:45 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>>>Have *you* an objective way to determine who is "white" and who is
>>>>not?
>>>Da gubamint do:
>>Answer the question "Jack" -- who is "white?"
>The folks with the higher numbers in these ratios:
Except this cannot be an objective test to determine if an
*individual* was white.
You really don't know yourself how such would be figured out, do you?
Way Back Jack
>Except this cannot be an objective test
Test? Did someone say test?
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/dst2003/2004459.pdf
2003 NAEP Public Schools Avg Reading Scores
Grade 4 Grade 8
White Black White Black
Nation 227 197 270 244
Large Cities 226 193 268 241
Atlanta 250 191 TS 237
Boston 225 202 273 245
Charlotte 237 205 278 247
Chicago 224 193 265 243
Cleveland 208 191 250 238
Dist Columbia 254 184 TS 236
Houston 235 201 270 244
Los Angeles 217 187 266 233
New York City 231 201 270 245
San Diego 231 196 269 236
TS - Sample size too small
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
in message
>On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:14:22 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>
>>Except this cannot be an objective test
>
>Test? Did someone say test?
No one said "dishonest hater," but there you are...
How does one determine if an individual is "black" or "white?"
Or, you can continue running -- your cowardice is moderately
amusing...
Way Back Jack
>How does one determine if an individual is "black" or "white?"
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/16/1105
EXCERPT FROM ABSTRACT: Results From 1988 to 1994, the seroprevalence
of HSV-2 in persons 12 years of age or older in the United States was
21.9 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 20.2 to 23.6 percent),
corresponding to 45 million infected people in the
noninstitutionalized civilian population. The seroprevalence was
higher among women (25.6 percent) than men (17.8 percent) and higher
among blacks (45.9 percent) than whites (17.6 percent).
daSnoopy
"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
news:ao3bv0p7cmc1bl64p...@4ax.com...
_______________________________________________________________________________
daSnoopy
How is that for a name?
"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
news:5l3bv0huq0r7mrq9g...@4ax.com...
_______________________________________________________________________________
daSnoopy
So we can all qualify for gubermint handout programs
"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
news:8g7bv09rk9q3qsd36...@4ax.com...
_______________________________________________________________________________
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
>On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:18:02 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>How does one determine if an individual is "black" or "white?"
>
>http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/16/1105
SO, who does this test apply to an individual, since no one is immune?
C'mon, "jack" == you're always harping on the topic: define your
terms.
Or admit you can't....
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message <3rgcv09bnslsi3r25...@4ax.com>:
><snip objective blather>
>>>I *DO* know people (myself
>>>included) that don't like people who act like animals, most of which
>>>are groids.
>>And you can objectively justify this "most of which?"
>OK, I have 37 years worth of personal experience being "objective".
And you can document this?
>>Define "act like animals.
>If you don't know then you have a problem.
It's not *my* term: define "act like animals?"
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message <95icv0l61fsmr5e8d...@4ax.com>:
>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:42:45 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>> someone claiming to be Tschnikov wrote
>> in message
>><1106432224.40ea503bfdf62281907f1cf802d72015@bubbanews>:
>>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:42:31 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>>>In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>>>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>>>> someone claiming to be NetCop wrote
>>>> in message
>>>><hkvId.13831$wZ2....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>:
>>>>>"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
>>>>>news:nco0v01oj0e3vjd2g...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> Nope. Not having a discussion with them. tommikins wants a white and
>>>>>> a non-white theater, an idea you apparently approve of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All I'm exploring here is how you're going to objectively determine
>>>>>> who gets to see which movie...
>>>>>By skin color, you illiterate impotent fuckwit. Lern hau two reed.
>>>>Ah, so an albino African American would be acceptable? Why then not a
>>>>very light skinned "black" person? At what point is light, light
>>>>enough? At what point is a Caucasian too tanned to qualify?
And *still* no one has responded to this point.
Funny, that...
>>>Tell ya what. Walk up to a black-skinned guy who calls himself an
>>>Arican-American.
>>>
>>>Tell him that there's no race except the human race and you're going
>>>to remove his racial preference perks.
>>>
>>>See what happens.
>>Not interested in make believe.
>>
>>Have *you* an objective way to determine who is "white" and who is
>>not?
>Dipshit, it's not a skin color issue. It's who has the propensity to
>act like a chimp. Statistically, and through experience, it turns out
>that it's the groids.
Define "act like a chimp."
And if it's not a skin colour issue, why use those terms?
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message <daicv0lfa1u5sviqk...@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:18:02 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>You *are* one stupid fuck. IMHO, there is no skin color involved. When
>people act normal (or act "white", as the militant groids like to
>say), the person's tint is not noticeable. When they act like animals,
>well, there you go. And we all know who it is that mostly acts that
>way.
Yes, but since you cannot define your terms, how does one determine
that another is "acting like an animal?"
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be spa...@nogood.com wrote
>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:40:18 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>> someone claiming to be spa...@nogood.com wrote
>> in message <vsc2v0phlfq94saa8...@4ax.com>:
>>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:02:19 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>>>In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>>>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>>>> someone claiming to be spa...@nogood.com wrote
>>>> in message <o3avu0herv0vookjk...@4ax.com>:
>>>>>On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:47:52 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>>>>>But ittle tommikins -- you *still* haven't shared with us a definition
>>>>>>of "white" that doesn't boil down to a subjective decorating
>>>>>>preference...
>>>>>Yeah, maybe if he said "civilized" it would be more accurate. Don't go
>>>>>to the movies on a discount night and you won't see so many
>>>>>groids.
>>>>One notes that not even *one* of you mighty whitey types has even
>>>>*attempted* to define the term in such a way as to enable an objective
>>>>test for "whiteness."
>>>>
>>>>Funny, that.
>>>Who needs a test?
>>Anyone interested in being fair about it. Of course, this rules out
>>irrational haters like tommikins and "jack" which was rather my
>>point...
And *still* no one has even tried...
>>>Either you act like a savage or you don't. The
>>>"culture", cRap in particular, is savage. I knew a white guy that went
>>>to Rikers Island, deservedly so. When he got out a month later, he was
>>>covered in bruises. The spics and niggers had a good time beating the
>>>crap out of him every day 'cause he's white. Fucking savages.
>>Yeah. Right. Something that supposedly happened to someone you
>>supposedly knew for reasons that you don't eve get into, none of which
>>can be verified is significant ... why?
>The POLICY, if you can call it that, was to beat up white people at
>Rikers. The blacks controlled part of it, the spics the other. Both
>ganged up on the common "enemy", the whites.
So you claim. Can you offer any *facts* in support of this?
>And what the fuck is a mighty whitey? Just because you don't like
>savages (not necessarily hate), you are a racist? You automatically
>think you are superior because you don't like someone? I don't think
>so.
Nope -- *I'm* not the one trying to lump people together on any basis
other than what each individual has said and done.
That would be the sole province of irrational haters such as tommikins
and "jack."
Now -- I'm still waiting for y'all to define your terms...
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message <41f68db3$1...@news6.uncensored-news.com>:
>"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
>news:5l3bv0huq0r7mrq9g...@4ax.com...
>> In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>> someone claiming to be Jay Walker wrote
>> in message <1iu9v05mb6ansceua...@4ax.com>:
>>>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:56:32 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>>>In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>>>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>>>> someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
>>>> in message
>>>><1106570406.9bf9c44e220a243d781fcb741e3e3685@bubbanews>:
>>>>>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:42:45 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>>>>>Have *you* an objective way to determine who is "white" and who is
>>>>>>not?
>>>>>Da gubamint do:
>>>>Answer the question "Jack" -- who is "white?"
>>>Not you, you whigger.
>> LOL -- by your own childish name calling, you say that I am.
>>
>> But I understand your frustration that coming up with such a
>> definition might involve thinking, something which manifestly you find
>> too much of a challenge...
>Nigger lover?
>
>How is that for a name?
But I understand your frustration that coming up with a definition of
white which can be objectively applied might involve thinking,
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message <41f68dd1$1...@news6.uncensored-news.com>:
>"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
>news:ao3bv0p7cmc1bl64p...@4ax.com...
>> In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>> someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
>> in message
>> <1106573447.df6aefdc54fac0b4e88b235f91d56410@bubbanews>:
>>>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:56:32 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>>>In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>>>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>>>> someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
>>>> in message
>>>><1106570406.9bf9c44e220a243d781fcb741e3e3685@bubbanews>:
>>>>>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:42:45 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>>>>>Have *you* an objective way to determine who is "white" and who is
>>>>>>not?
>>>>>Da gubamint do:
>>>>Answer the question "Jack" -- who is "white?"
>>>The folks with the higher numbers in these ratios:
>> Except this cannot be an objective test to determine if an
>> *individual* was white.
>>
>> You really don't know yourself how such would be figured out, do you?
>Ignoring the facts Nigger excuse maker?
What "facts" do you claim I am ignoring?
One notes that you don't offer such an objective way to determine
one's "whiteness," either...
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message <41f68...@news6.uncensored-news.com>:
>"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
>news:8g7bv09rk9q3qsd36...@4ax.com...
>> In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>> someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
>> in message
>> <1106614389.603d66970743a72130a070758efdaee0@bubbanews>:
>>>On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:14:22 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>>>Except this cannot be an objective test
>>>Test? Did someone say test?
>> No one said "dishonest hater," but there you are...
>>
>> How does one determine if an individual is "black" or "white?"
>>
>> Or, you can continue running -- your cowardice is moderately
>> amusing...
>Tell us almighty one,
>
>So we can all qualify for gubermint handout programs
*I'm* not the one proposing that we discriminate based on a term I
cannot define.
Can *you* tell us>?
Way Back Jack
>>>How does one determine if an individual is "black" or "white?"
Who was involved?
On the first day and night, there were mainly angry individuals, but
there were obvious local black leaders from the Black United Front, a
suit and tie organization, local New Black Panthers, in their black
military fatigues and berets, and some local select black ministers in
the crowd. It is important here to note that the New Black Panthers
broke with their tradition of bringing rifles and shotguns to
demonstrations. This time they brandished no weapons. They had
assessed the situation and determined that if they had pulled their
guns, the Cincinnati cops would call their bluff and open up on them.
The Black Panthers also openly displayed their military ranks on their
uniforms. The highest rank we saw was a four star general. The Black
Panthers were also the pallbearers at Thomas’ funeral.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
in message
>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:11:39 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>>>How does one determine if an individual is "black" or "white?"
>Who was involved?
In *what*?
Way Back Jack
>How does one determine if an individual is "black" or "white?"
By the second day, local Nation of Islam (NOI) coordinators were seen
at meetings and on the street. NOI has put over ten years into
organizing and propagandizing in the Cincinnati area. NOI maintains a
visible presence with well-dressed representatives selling their
newspaper Final Call every week on street corners during evening rush
hour. If one takes a moment to read their paper or examine their
website, under the heading of “What Do Muslims Want?” you will find
their list of demands—which includes a separate black homeland. The
NOI doesn’t want integration or inclusion they want separation and
exclusion. To them the riot wasn’t about righting wrongs; it was about
taking the next step toward Civil War II.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
in message
>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:51:17 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>How does one determine if an individual is "black" or "white?"
>
>By the second day, local Nation of Islam (NOI) coordinators were seen
>at meetings and on the street.
And this test would apply to an individual ... how, exactly?
Way Back Jack
>And this test would apply to an individual ... how, exactly?
http://www.rrstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050124/NEWS0107/50124007
ROCKFORD [IL] -- Police are investigating two strong-arm robberies,
one in which the suspect punched a 75-year-old woman. The woman was
treated by paramedics at the scene.
The incident occurred about 1 p.m. Saturday at the Sandwich Factory,
2203 Charles St. Witnesses told police a suspect, described as a black
male, walked into the shop and placed an order.
(...)
Way Back Jack
>How does one determine "black" or "white?"
http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cfm?news_id=26280
America’s academic elite lead in racism, intolerance
Commentary by Walter Williams
September 05, 2003
(...)
What about segregated graduation ceremonies? Vanderbilt University,
Stanford University, the University of California, the University of
Michigan and the University of Pennsylvania are among those that offer
separate graduation ceremonies and separate "celebratory events" for
black, Hispanic and Asian-American students. University administrators
not only condone segregated ceremonies but racially segregated student
housing, as well. What if white students demanded whites-only
graduation ceremonies and whites-only dorms?
(....)
Sara Salzman
You know, yesterday in Ohio, a man was sitting in his living room when
an adult male deer crashed through his window and attacked him.
I assume you think that deer was black, too?
Sara
--
I'm not a denier..Some Jews died of typhus and stuff, I will acknowledge
that..
--- Little Child Tommie
Mr.Extreme
HUSBAND HARRY THESE DAYS? IS HE STILL INTO CHILD PORN?
Sara (HARRY) Salzman wrote:
>
> You know, yesterday in Ohio, a man was sitting in his living room when
> an adult male deer crashed through his window and attacked him.
>
> I assume you think that deer was black, too?
>
> Sara
>
--
THe HNIC has posted, bitches!!
x-- 100 Proof News - http://www.100ProofNews.com
x-- 3,500+ Binary NewsGroups, and over 90,000 other groups
x-- Access to over 1 Terabyte per Day - $8.95/Month
x-- UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD
Way Back Jack
<cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
>In article <41f79c04...@news.newshosting.com>,
> nos...@nospam.org (Way Back Jack) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:32:08 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >And this test would apply to an individual ... how, exactly?
>>
>> http://www.rrstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050124/NEWS0107/50124007
>>
>> ROCKFORD [IL] -- Police are investigating two strong-arm robberies,
>> one in which the suspect punched a 75-year-old woman. The woman was
>> treated by paramedics at the scene.
>>
>> The incident occurred about 1 p.m. Saturday at the Sandwich Factory,
>> 2203 Charles St. Witnesses told police a suspect, described as a black
>> male, walked into the shop and placed an order.
>>
>> (...)
>
>You know, yesterday in Ohio, a man was sitting in his living room when
>an adult male deer crashed through his window and attacked him.
>
>I assume you think that deer was black, too?
>
>Sara
I'm merely responding to the other poster's questions. He wants to
know how to differentiate between black and white. Seems that all
other people: white, black, newspeople, victims, criminals, you, me
... and everyone else appreciate the concept of race.
Way Back Jack
<cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
>In article <41f79c04...@news.newshosting.com>,
> nos...@nospam.org (Way Back Jack) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:32:08 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >And this test would apply to an individual ... how, exactly?
>>
>> http://www.rrstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050124/NEWS0107/50124007
>>
>> ROCKFORD [IL] -- Police are investigating two strong-arm robberies,
>> one in which the suspect punched a 75-year-old woman. The woman was
>> treated by paramedics at the scene.
>>
>> The incident occurred about 1 p.m. Saturday at the Sandwich Factory,
>> 2203 Charles St. Witnesses told police a suspect, described as a black
>> male, walked into the shop and placed an order.
>>
>> (...)
>
>You know, yesterday in Ohio, a man was sitting in his living room when
>an adult male deer crashed through his window and attacked him.
>
>I assume you think that deer was black, too?
>
>Sara
I'm merely responding to the other poster's questions. He wants to
daSnoopy
That is good to know, now can you state that in simple English?
"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
news:51sdv05ctm72vg4uv...@4ax.com...
_______________________________________________________________________________
daSnoopy
"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
news:btrdv0h8epqgf4i20...@4ax.com...
_______________________________________________________________________________
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be spa...@nogood.com wrote
>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:12:28 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>> someone claiming to be spa...@nogood.com wrote
>> in message <3rgcv09bnslsi3r25...@4ax.com>:
>>><snip objective blather>
>>>>>I *DO* know people (myself
>>>>>included) that don't like people who act like animals, most of which
>>>>>are groids.
>>>>And you can objectively justify this "most of which?"
>>>OK, I have 37 years worth of personal experience being "objective".
>>And you can document this?
>Oh,my claim is not *valid* because I didn't take notes since I was 10?
No, just not objective if all we have to go on is your word that your
memories accurately reflect what actually happened...
>I have to document every instance of a nigger robbing me, punching me,
>chasing me, calling me names, disrupting my life? Even if I did
>document everything, YOU would say "Did a notary sign it?"
>Stupid fuck.
Nope -- it was *your* claim that you had personal experience being
"objective."
Your response above indicates that either you're a liar, or ignorant
of the meaning of that word.
>>>>Define "act like animals.
>>>If you don't know then you have a problem.
>>It's not *my* term: define "act like animals?"
>Who are you, fucking Data from Star Trek? Are you that stupid that you
>can't comprehend the concept of "acting like an animal"?
Are you so stupid that you cannot define your own terms?
No, wait -- you claimed to be "objective" and then bitched about
needing to demonstrate that you were, so you *obviously* are in the
habit of using words you don't understand.
Like "black," apparently.
>Put on MTV
>and you'll see many examples. If you don't see a problem with that
>cRap then you, too, must be a nigger and/or just plain stupid.
I'm not asking for examples, I'm asking for objective definitions.
I understand that you cannot supply them and use words without knowing
their meanings.
That, to me, is rather more stupid than anything you have been able to
point out.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:32:08 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>And this test would apply to an individual ... how, exactly?
>http://www.rrstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050124/NEWS0107/50124007
You *do* understand the question, don't you?
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:32:08 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>How does one determine "black" or "white?"
Can't actually answer, huh?
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
in message
>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 07:35:52 -0700, Sara Salzman
><cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>In article <41f79c04...@news.newshosting.com>,
>> nos...@nospam.org (Way Back Jack) wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:32:08 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>> >And this test would apply to an individual ... how, exactly?
>>> http://www.rrstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050124/NEWS0107/50124007
>>>
>>> ROCKFORD [IL] -- Police are investigating two strong-arm robberies,
>>> one in which the suspect punched a 75-year-old woman. The woman was
>>> treated by paramedics at the scene.
>>>
>>> The incident occurred about 1 p.m. Saturday at the Sandwich Factory,
>>> 2203 Charles St. Witnesses told police a suspect, described as a black
>>> male, walked into the shop and placed an order.
>>> (...)
>>You know, yesterday in Ohio, a man was sitting in his living room when
>>an adult male deer crashed through his window and attacked him.
>>
>>I assume you think that deer was black, too?
>I'm merely responding to the other poster's questions.
Without actually answering the question.
>He wants to
>know how to differentiate between black and white. Seems that all
>other people: white, black, newspeople, victims, criminals, you, me
>... and everyone else appreciate the concept of race.
I never said I didn't understand the concept of race -- I asked how
you and tommikins are going to objectively determine ho gets into your
theater and how has to go to the other one.
But the concept would appear to be entirely beyond you...
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be daSnoopy wrote
>"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
>news:btrdv0h8epqgf4i20...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>Have *you* an objective way to determine who is "white" and who is
>>>>>>>>not?
>>>>>>>Da gubamint do:
>>>>>>Answer the question "Jack" -- who is "white?"
>>>>>Not you, you whigger.
>>>> LOL -- by your own childish name calling, you say that I am.
>>>>
>>>> But I understand your frustration that coming up with such a
>>>> definition might involve thinking, something which manifestly you find
>>>> too much of a challenge...
>>>Nigger lover?
>>>
>>>How is that for a name?
>> But I understand your frustration that coming up with a definition of
>> white which can be objectively applied might involve thinking,
>> something which manifestly you find too much of a challenge...
>excuse maker ? Is that more politically correct?
I don't know about "politically," but it's not correct that I am
apologizing for anyone.
If you can't define the term, why don't you just *say* so?
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be daSnoopy wrote
>"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
>news:51sdv05ctm72vg4uv...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>Except this cannot be an objective test
>>>>>Test? Did someone say test?
>>>> No one said "dishonest hater," but there you are...
>>>>
>>>> How does one determine if an individual is "black" or "white?"
>>>>
>>>> Or, you can continue running -- your cowardice is moderately
>>>> amusing...
>>>Tell us almighty one,
>>>
>>>So we can all qualify for gubermint handout programs
>> *I'm* not the one proposing that we discriminate based on a term I
>> cannot define.
>>
>> Can *you* tell us>?
>Well then you do not support Affirmative action programs do you?
Irrelevant to the question I have been trying to get one of you mighty
whiteys to answer for coming up on a week now.
>That is good to know, now can you state that in simple English?
As soon as you state, in simple English, how you determine who gets
into tommikins & "jack's" theater and who has to go to another.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message <g2mfv0lgvdg6urur9...@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:36:34 GMT, I...@home.org (Way Back Jack) wrote:
>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:11:39 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>>>>How does one determine if an individual is "black" or "white?"
>>Who was involved?
>>
>>On the first day and night, there were mainly angry individuals, but
>>there were obvious local black leaders from the Black United Front, a
>>suit and tie organization, local New Black Panthers, in their black
>>military fatigues and berets, and some local select black ministers in
>>the crowd. It is important here to note that the New Black Panthers
>>broke with their tradition of bringing rifles and shotguns to
>>demonstrations.
>Ooooh, look Roger! They usually "act like animals"!
Ah, so carrying firearms is acting like an animal?
How do you reconcile that with the Second Amendment?
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be spa...@nogood.com wrote
>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:15:01 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>In one age, called the Second Age by some,
>> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
>> someone claiming to be spa...@nogood.com wrote
>> in message <daicv0lfa1u5sviqk...@4ax.com>:
>>>>>>Except this cannot be an objective test
>>>>>Test? Did someone say test?
>>>>No one said "dishonest hater," but there you are...
>>>>
>>>>How does one determine if an individual is "black" or "white?"
>>>>
>>>>Or, you can continue running -- your cowardice is moderately
>>>>amusing...
>>>You *are* one stupid fuck. IMHO, there is no skin color involved. When
>>>people act normal (or act "white", as the militant groids like to
>>>say), the person's tint is not noticeable. When they act like animals,
>>>well, there you go. And we all know who it is that mostly acts that
>>>way.
>>Yes, but since you cannot define your terms, how does one determine
>>that another is "acting like an animal?"
>Oh, I can define my terms alright.
.. all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding...
><Would you like me to define "is"
>for you as well? Do you need more examples of "acting like an animal"?
No, just the definition you **just* claimed to be able to give me.
I'll wait right here...
>Dey sho be enuf examples posted in dis here newsgroup.
Examples are not definitions -- you might want to stop using words you
apparently don't understand...
Steve Cipoletti
<cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
>You know, yesterday in Ohio, a man was sitting in his living room when
>an adult male deer crashed through his window and attacked him.
>
>I assume you think that deer was black, too?
Naaa, the deer was white and the victim was a nigger. Hopefully a
nigger-jew? IMAGINE THAT!!!
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:52:02 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Tschnikov wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:42:31 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In one age, called the Second Age by some,
> >> > (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
> >> > in message
> >> ><hkvId.13831$wZ2....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>:
> >> >
> >> >>"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> >>> Nope. Not having a discussion with them. tommikins wants a white and
> >> >>> a non-white theater, an idea you apparently approve of.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> All I'm exploring here is how you're going to objectively determine
> >> >>> who gets to see which movie...
> >> >>
> >> >>By skin color, you illiterate impotent fuckwit. Lern hau two reed.
> >> >
> >> >Ah, so an albino African American would be acceptable? Why then not a
> >> >very light skinned "black" person? At what point is light, light
> >> >enough? At what point is a Caucasian too tanned to qualify?
> >>
> >> Tell ya what. Walk up to a black-skinned guy who calls himself an
> >> Arican-American.
> >>
> >> Tell him that there's no race except the human race and you're going
> >> to remove his racial preference perks.
> >>
> >> See what happens.
> >--------------------
> >BroJackOffShit, you got more sock puppets you beat off into than
> >anybody we know.
> >Steve
>
> WOW, after the asswhiping you suffered last time, I never thought
> you'd be here again.
-----------------------
You mean after you ran away.
> Using drugs again are ya.
-----------------------
You're just a shit-minded liar, BroJackOff sockpuppet!
Steve
Way Back Jack
>How does one determine "black" or "white?"
EXCERPT: The black illegitimacy rate is close to 70 percent. Less
than 40 percent of black children live in two-parent families. This
produces devastating socioeconomic consequences, but is it caused by
racial discrimination? Or, might it be a legacy of slavery? In the
early 1900s, black illegitimacy was a tiny fraction of today's rate.
Roughly 75 percent, and in New York City 85 percent, of black children
lived in two-parent households. The fact of lower illegitimacy and
more intact families, at a time when blacks were much closer to
slavery and faced greater discrimination, suggests that today's
unprecedented illegitimacy and weak family structure has nothing to do
with discrimination and slavery. It's explained better by promiscuity
and irresponsibility, and as such it's not a civil rights problem.
___________
http://washtimes.com/commentary/20021124-75776032.htm
Family secrets
Walter Williams
Way Back Jack
> And this test would apply to an individual ... how, exactly?
They booted-out the white guy who didn't have the credentials but you
can bet the liberal, cheek-spreading Minnny-soda sissies will pass the
sistah. And the dumbed-down continues. America's educational system
collapses in the name of bleeding-heart social engineering.
Bro
____________
http://startribune.com/stories/1592/5199361.html
Peebles is short of credentials
Steve Brandt, Star Tribune
January 22, 2005 PEEBLES0122
African-American Superintendent Thandiwe Peebles may have to go back
to school to continue leading Minneapolis schools.
A state official said Friday that an initial review of her credentials
concluded that she doesn't meet the threshold for licensure as a
superintendent.
Peebles said she plans to pursue several options, including seeking a
variance from license requirements, or making an appeal.
She has not met a district requirement in her contract that she obtain
state certification by Jan. 1. She and school board members had
attributed that earlier to a lag in gathering the paperwork necessary
to prove her credentials for a state superintendent license.
But Marc Boehlke, executive director of the Minnesota Board of School
Administrators, said he was notified late Thursday that a state review
of Peebles' credentials found that she didn't meet the state's
threshold. Generally, prospective superintendents must show a master's
degree and additional credits in education administration, and also
show competency in an array of areas.
Thandiwe PeeblesJudy GriesedieckStar TribuneBill Walsh, spokesman for
the state Department of Education, said data privacy law prohibits the
department from disclosing where Peebles fell short.
School board Chairman Joseph Erickson said that even experienced
teachers moving from other states typically encounter such problems.
"Minnesota has a very idiosyncratic way in which they evaluate
licensure from other states," he said. "There's no chance she's not
going to be licensed."
Peebles similarly expressed confidence that she has more than
sufficient credentials. One option would be for the district to seek a
licensing variance on her behalf. A variance typically requires the
completion of courses or the demonstration of competencies under a
plan devised with a college or university. State regulations also
allow an appeal to Education Commissioner Alice Seagren, with whom
Peebles has had cordial relations, but Peebles expressed reluctance to
put Seagren in that position.
Peebles is six months into her superintendency. St. Paul
Superintendent Patricia Harvey obtained her license about four months
after starting her job, according to state records and Walsh. She also
moved to Minnesota from out of state.
Licensing also was an issue when the Minneapolis board named
noneducator David Jennings as its superintendent in September, 2003. A
group of black community members argued in a lawsuit attempting to
overturn the appointment that he did not meet the state licensing
requirements. Jennings, who had been the district's chief operating
officer, announced two days later that he would bow out. That created
the opening filled by Peebles in July.
Jennings had only a bachelor's degree, while Peebles' résumé lists a
doctorate in school leadership and education from Nova Southeastern
University in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. University officials said privacy
law prevents them from verifying that credential.
District spokeswoman Sarah Snapp said it appears that the courses
Peebles took for her doctorate may not meet Minnesota requirements.
That problem sometimes causes delays for superintendents arriving from
other states, according to Charlie Kyte, executive director of the
Minnesota Association of School Administrators. He said they sometimes
need added training in areas such as the state's requirement for human
relations training.
He said he advises incoming superintendents to check upfront with the
state board.
The University of Minnesota is one of several higher-education
institutions that work with school administrators on meeting licensing
requirements. Ann Werner, a program director for licensing there, said
that typically a plan is developed and that someone seeking a license
will take courses or do project-based learning. A panel of university
personnel and licensed professionals reviews those activities. But the
state board decides whether to grant a license.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
in message
>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:56:17 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>How does one determine "black" or "white?"
is it you keep posting things that *don't* answer the question?
Do you not understand what it is?
How can one objectively determine whether a given individual is black
or white?
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
in message
>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:56:17 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>How does one determine "black" or "white?"
is it you keep posting things that *don't* answer the question?
Do you not understand what it is?
How can one objectively determine whether a given individual is black
or white?
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
in message
>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:58:04 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>> And this test would apply to an individual ... how, exactly?
>They booted-out the white guy who didn't have the credentials but you
>can bet the liberal, cheek-spreading Minnny-soda sissies will pass the
>sistah. And the dumbed-down continues. America's educational system
>collapses in the name of bleeding-heart social engineering.
And this answers how a given individual can objectively be determined
to be black or white ... how, exactly?
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be spa...@nogood.com wrote
>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:50:55 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>>>>>>I *DO* know people (myself
>>>>>>>included) that don't like people who act like animals, most of which
>>>>>>>are groids.
>>>>>>And you can objectively justify this "most of which?"
>>>>>OK, I have 37 years worth of personal experience being "objective".
>>>>And you can document this?
>>>Oh,my claim is not *valid* because I didn't take notes since I was 10?
>>No, just not objective if all we have to go on is your word that your
>>memories accurately reflect what actually happened...
>>>I have to document every instance of a nigger robbing me, punching me,
>>>chasing me, calling me names, disrupting my life? Even if I did\
>>>document everything, YOU would say "Did a notary sign it?"
>>>Stupid fuck.
>>Nope -- it was *your* claim that you had personal experience being
>>"objective."
>>
>>Your response above indicates that either you're a liar, or ignorant
>>of the meaning of that word.
So, which was it?
>>>>>>Define "act like animals.
>>>>>If you don't know then you have a problem.
>>>>It's not *my* term: define "act like animals?"
>>>Who are you, fucking Data from Star Trek? Are you that stupid that you
>>>can't comprehend the concept of "acting like an animal"?
>>Are you so stupid that you cannot define your own terms?
>>
>>No, wait -- you claimed to be "objective" and then bitched about
>>needing to demonstrate that you were, so you *obviously* are in the
>>habit of using words you don't understand.
>>
>>Like "black," apparently.
>>>Put on MTV
>>>and you'll see many examples. If you don't see a problem with that
>>>cRap then you, too, must be a nigger and/or just plain stupid.
>>I'm not asking for examples, I'm asking for objective definitions.
>>
>>I understand that you cannot supply them and use words without knowing
>>their meanings.
>>
>>That, to me, is rather more stupid than anything you have been able to
>>point out.
>"act like animals"- uncivilized behavior,
You mean like the Holocaust?
>uncontrollable sexual urges,
Like Catholic priests?
>violent activity because of antisocial behavior,
Like torturing prisoners?
>disruptiive behavior at social events,
Like football games?
>disruption of educational environments,
Like shooting students at Kent State?
>violent attitudes towards women,
Like claiming they are incapable of dealing with science and math?
>glorification of violence,
Like the "die Hard" series?
>putting plates in your fucking lips,
Which animal does any of these things, BTW?
>etc.
Well, since none of these would appear to be the exclusive province of
people with dark skins, one has to wonder why you use the term "black"
to refer to those that engage in this behaviour?
Or did you not understand that if a word already exists, it also
already has a meaning which you don't get to completely disregard?
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be spa...@nogood.com wrote
>Carrying a firearm for protection (against mostly niggers) is one
>thing. People carrying firearms and posturing with them to intimidate
>is another.
Really? Where is this difference spelled out in the amendment?
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be spa...@nogood.com wrote
We're still waiting for this definition...
>>><Would you like me to define "is"
>>>for you as well? Do you need more examples of "acting like an animal"?
>>No, just the definition you **just* claimed to be able to give me.
>>
>>I'll wait right here...
And wasting...
>>>Dey sho be enuf examples posted in dis here newsgroup.
>>Examples are not definitions -- you might want to stop using words you
>>apparently don't understand...
>Tell me why you feel that defining "acting like animals" is so
>important to you.
Because you have offered it as an objective test which could be
applied to determine whether a given individual is allowed to attend
tommikins' and "jack's" theater, and who would be denied admittance.
If you're going to pretend that this is rational, you should be able
to define the terms used.
>Examples and stats are not good enough for you so it
>seems that you are attempting to play logic games.
Nope. Simply pointing out that if you cannot define the term, you
shouldn't infringe someone elses' rights because of those terms.
And no one has offered stats to justify this "whites only" theater.
>"Acting like
>animals" can be defined the same way "love" can be defined.
Acting like animals is an emotion?
>Everyone
>knows what love is but ask the average person to define it.
Of course, this ignores that no one is suggesting that we discriminate
on the basis of love...
>Everybody knows what acting like an animal is all about.
And yet (and despite your apparent lie about it) you cannot define the
term.
Your other post indicates that you define it in such terms as to
directly contradict any rational definition of "black" or "white."
>And everybody knows
>which groups of people tend to act like animals.
Nazis? Skinheads? Republicans?
Way Back Jack
>>> And this test would apply to an individual ... how, exactly?
For blacks for the year 2000 OOW was 68.5%
For whites 24%
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf
______________
Way Back Jack
>How does one determine "black" or "white?"
News Media Use of White Faces:
Most everyone outside the Cincinnati area was treated to tightly
edited footage of what appeared to be integrated crowds of blacks and
whites. What actually happened was that a few local white Socialist
and Communist activists joined in the rioting and later were
reinforced by white leftist activists from outside the city and even
the region. The national media then set to work editing the footage to
make it look very much unlike what it really was—a RACE RIOT.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
So (assuming you aren't forging these numbers,) this *some* blacks and
*some* whites have babies, but not all of either.
So how does this determine whether a given individual is black or
white?
Which part of this question aren't you getting?
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:50:33 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>How does one determine "black" or "white?"
>News Media Use of White Faces:
So, if someone is on TV, they are white?
Way Back Jack
>So how does this determine whether a given individual is black or
>white?
Family secrets
Walter Williams
Airing the "family's" dirty laundry in public can qualify one for
less-than-flattering descriptions. That's particularly applicable to a
black person, and even more so when he questions the civil rights
gospel that the problems black people encounter are rooted in racial
discrimination and a legacy of slavery.
To argue that most of the problems black people confront today
have little or nothing to do with racial discrimination risks being
labeled everything but a child of God, not to mention accusations of
having "sold out" and "letting white people off the hook." One need
not deny the existence of racial discrimination to ask the
policy-relevant question: How much of what we see can be explained by
discrimination?
The black illegitimacy rate is close to 70 percent. Less than 40
percent of black children live in two-parent families. This produces
devastating socioeconomic consequences, but is it caused by racial
discrimination? Or, might it be a legacy of slavery? In the early
1900s, black illegitimacy was a tiny fraction of today's rate. Roughly
75 percent, and in New York City 85 percent, of black children lived
in two-parent households. The fact of lower illegitimacy and more
intact families, at a time when blacks were much closer to slavery and
faced greater discrimination, suggests that today's unprecedented
illegitimacy and weak family structure has nothing to do with
discrimination and slavery. It's explained better by promiscuity and
irresponsibility, and as such it's not a civil rights problem.
To point out that black people are the primary victims of violent
crimes is OK. Some of the statistics are staggering. FBI reports on
arrest data show that blacks committed half of all homicides, nearly
half of rapes, 59 percent of robberies and 38 percent of aggravated
assaults. Suggestions about causes and solutions can get you into to
trouble.
It's clear sailing if you argue that the high crime rate is
caused by poverty and discrimination, and the way to get rid of crime
is to eliminate these root causes. But there's a problem with that
theory. It doesn't explain why black communities were far safer in
earlier times, such as in the '20s, '30s and '40s, at a time of far
greater poverty and discrimination, and fewer opportunities. Crime
imposes devastating economic and personal costs on many black
neighborhoods, but it's not a civil rights problem. The high crime
rate represents political choices made by black politicians, civil
rights organizations and many black citizens to tolerate criminals.
Another family secret is that black academic achievement is a
national disgrace. Many youngsters who manage to complete high school
do so not being able to perform at the eighth- and ninth-grade levels.
Standards others have to meet for employment or college admittance
that many blacks cannot meet are labeled racist. Demands are made to
lower standards using face-saving euphemisms such as affirmative
action, diversity and multiculturalism.
The standard civil rights vision of the solution to these
problems for blacks is to vote more Democrats into federal, state and
local offices, and to elect more blacks to city mayorships and city
councils. That theory suggests that cities run by Democrats and black
politicians must be the very cities where illegitimacy and violent
crimes are the lowest and black academic achievement is the highest —
cities such as Washington, D.C., Detroit, Philadelphia, Newark and
East St. Louis. In these cities, blacks hold mayorships and have
representation on city councils. That's a nice theory, but the result
is the exact opposite.
In medicine, misdiagnosis leading to mistreatment and further
injury can lead to malpractice suits. Unfortunately, in politics,
misdiagnosis, mistreatment and further injury lead to re-election.
Way Back Jack
>How does one determine "black" or "white?"
Tillery, you see, was white, and his three killers – Darrell Gilbert,
Blake Little, and Anthony Holmes – were black. Thus his death had no
political currency for those whose reputations depend upon their
ability to portray themselves as crusaders for justice, ever guarding
against white racism. Even though black-on-white killings far
outnumber the white-on-black variety in this country, unfortunate
people like Ken Tillery die in complete anonymity – as opposed to
unfortunate people like James Byrd, whose deaths are spotlighted in
the national media. Should a murder victim’s skin color determine the
significance of his or her death? It’s a serious question, well worth
pondering.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
in message
>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 02:04:58 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>So how does this determine whether a given individual is black or
>>white?
>Family secrets
>
>Walter Williams
Ah, so you are incapable of understanding the question.
So noted.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
in message
>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 02:19:57 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>How does one determine "black" or "white?"
Saying "I don't know" would save a *lot* of bandwidth, "jack."
But then, so would refraining from your forgeries.
Way Back Jack
>How does one determine "black" or "white?"
Crime............ White Black Ratio
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............: 4,968 10,681 2.15
Murder/neg. msltr.: 3.32 17.9 5.39
Forcible Rape.....: 8.9 25.7 2.89
Robbery..........: 25.1 164.3 6.55
Aggravated assault: 157.6 454.1 2.88
Burglary..........: 408 1000 2.45
Way Back Jack
>So how does this determine whether a given individual is black or
>white?
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/issues/2003-05-21/feature.html/1/index.html
Rich, Black, Flunking
Cal Professor John Ogbu thinks he knows why rich black kids are
failing in school. Nobody wants to hear it.
BY SUSAN GOLDSMITH
susan.g...@eastbayexpress.com
Chris Duffey
John Ogbu has been compared to Clarence Thomas, denounced by the Urban
League, and criticized in The New York Times.
News Category: Education
The black parents wanted an explanation. Doctors, lawyers, judges, and
insurance brokers, many had come to the upscale Cleveland suburb of
Shaker Heights specifically because of its stellar school district.
They expected their children to succeed academically, but most were
performing poorly. African-American students were lagging far behind
their white classmates in every measure of academic success:
grade-point average, standardized test scores, and enrollment in
advanced-placement courses. On average, black students earned a 1.9
GPA while their white counterparts held down an average of 3.45. Other
indicators were equally dismal. It made no sense.
When these depressing statistics were published in a high school
newspaper in mid-1997, black parents were troubled by the news and
upset that the newspaper had exposed the problem in such a public way.
(...)
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
in message
>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:11:51 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>So how does this determine whether a given individual is black or
>>white?
SO, your point is that a white person is too stupid to understand
simple questions?
No, that doesn't work -- *I* do.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Way Back Jack wrote
in message
>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:12:42 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>How does one determine "black" or "white?"
>
>
>Crime............ White Black Ratio
So, once again, your "test" would fail whites as well as blacks.
What is it you find so hard about the question?
Way Back Jack
>So how does this determine whether a given individual is black or
>white?
One of the most unusual effects of the discord was that it kept on
going, seemingly without end. There were new rioters stepping into the
fray, almost as fast as the police could snatch them off the street.
The emotional charge of the riots was unchanged from beginning to end.
The depth of rage in most of the rioters was beyond measure. Report
after report came through local media of white people, when screaming
for a reason they were being stomped by their black attackers, were
told, “It’s because you’re white.” And, “This is a race thing.” These
reports were seen and heard by hundreds of thousands of people on
local news channels.