LA RIOTS: CAUSES

257 views
Skip to first unread message

ONLY THE MESSENGER

unread,
Aug 3, 1993, 12:39:40 PM8/3/93
to
LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM

The Los Angeles and related riots mark a new era in American cultural,
political, and economic life. We now know that we are under assault from
thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization and
everything it stands for: private property, material success for those who
earn it, and Christian morality.

Ten thousand stores and other buildings looted and burned, thousands
beaten and otherwise seriously injured, 52 people dead. That was the toll
of the Los Angeles riots in which we saw white men pulled from their cars
and trucks and shot or brutally beaten. (In every case, the mob was not too
enraged to pick the victim's pocket.) We saw Korean and white stores
targeted by the mob because they "exploited the community," i.e., sold
products people wanted at prices they were willing to pay. Worst of all,
we saw the total breakdown of law enforcement, as black and white liberal
public officials had the cops and troops disarmed in the face of criminal
anarchy.

In San Francisco and perhaps other cities, says expert Burt Blumert,
the rioting was led by red-flag carrying members of the Revolutionary
Communist Party and the Workers World Party, both Trotskyite-Maoist. The
police were allowed to intervene only when the rioters assaulted the famous
Fairmont and Mark Hopkins hotels atop Nob Hill. A friend of Burt's, a
jewelry store owner, had his store on Union Square looted by blacks, and
when the police arrived in response to his frantic calls, their orders were
to protect his life, but not to interfere with the rioting.

Even though the riots were aimed at whites (in L.A. at Koreans who had
committed the crime of working hard and being successful, and at Cambodians
in Long Beach), and even though anti-white and anti-Asian epithets filled
the air, this is not considered a series of hate crimes, nor a violation of
the civil rights of whites or Asians.

The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every
non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are.
As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white
oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to
steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is
justified against "The Man." And "The Woman.' A lady I know recently saw a
black couple in the supermarket with a cute little girl, three years old or
so. My friend waved to the tiny child, who scowled, stuck out her tongue,
and said (somewhat tautologically): "I hate you, white honkey." And the
parents were indulgent. Is any white child taught to hate in this way? I've
never heard of it. If a white child made such a remark to a black woman,
the parents would stop it with a reprimand or a spank.

But this is normal, and in fact benign, compared to much of the
anti-white ideology in the thoroughly racist black community. The black
leadership indoctrinates its followers with phony history and phony theory
to bolster its claims of victimology. Like the communists who renounced all
that was bourgeois, the blacks reject all that is "Eurocentric." They
demand their own kind of thinking, and deny the possibility of non-blacks
understanding it.

The insurrectionist and revolutionaries intended to destroy large
sections of Los Angeles. Why did the ghetto youths so furiously rage
together? Was it because they have been neglected? Hardly. Welfare has
transferred $2.5 trillion from white middle class taxpayers to welfare
programs in the last 30 years. And if we adjust that figure for 1992
dollars, the total is more like $7 trillion. Are blacks being denied
economic opportunity? The cities could have freer markets, but so could the
rest of the country, where there is no rioting and little streetcrime. Are
black killers and looters responding to racism? Japanese Americans were
treated far worse in California than blacks. They were even put in
concentration camps by Earl Warren, John J. McCloy, and Franklin D.
Roosevelt, yet Japanese-Americans have never rioted. Korean-Americans,
hated by blacks, never riot, and in fact are some of the most productive
people in America (the reason for black hatred).

The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot
loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the
welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to
terrorism. Trouble is, few seem willing to do anything to stop them. The
cops have been handcuffed. And property owners are not allowed to defend
themselves. The mayor of Los Angeles, for example, ordered the Korean
storekeepers who defended themselves arrested for "discharging a firearm
within city limits." Perhaps the most scandalous aspect of the Los Angeles
riots was the response by the mayors, the media, and the Washington
politicians. They all came together as one to excuse the violence and to
tell white America that it is guilty, although the guilt can be assuaged by
handing over more cash. It would be reactionary, racist, and fascist, said
the media, to have less welfare or tougher law enf orcement. America's
number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass
blacks.

Rather than helping, all this will ensure that guerrilla violence will
escalate. There will be more occasional eruptions such as we saw in Los
Angeles, but just as terrifying are the daily muggings, robberies,
burglaries, rapes, and killings that make our cities terror zones.

The rioters said they were acting out their frustration over the
acquittal of four L.A. policemen accused of using excessive force when
arresting Rodney G. King, but in fact, they were looking for an excuse to
kill, burn, and loot. Nonetheless, it is important to understand why the
jury decided not to convict, whether or not we agree with their verdict.

The California highway patrol began chasing drunk driver Rodney King,
a black man with a long arrest record, and his two passengers on the night
of March 3, 1991. He was recklessly driving at speeds up to 115 mph for
almost eight miles. They raced on the highway until King turned off to
drive through traffic lights and stop signs on residential streets
(families could have been killed). The L.A. police department came to
assist in the high-speed chase with lights and sirens on. One of King's
passenger s asked him to pull over. King initially refused, driving
faster, but he finally complied. When the cops approached the car,
suspecting armed criminals, the two black passengers immediately stepped
out of the car and fell flat on their stomachs with arms stretched out, as
instructed. They were handcuffed. King could have done the same. But he
chose a different route. He refused to get out of the car. He stalled for
a minute, and several times, stepped out of the car and then back into it.
The police wo ndered if he was searching the car for a gun. Once King
stopped this game, he was told by cops with guns pointing at him to put his
belly down on the ground with arms outstretched. Instead, King began to do
a crazy dance and laugh freakishly. He taunted the police and even the
helicopter buzzing above him. This is why the police thought he was on PCP.

Despite police orders, King continued to dance, grabbing his buttocks
to make lewd gestures at a female cop. Sgt. Koon approached him and warned
that he would be stung with a Taser gun. King got down on his hands and
knees, but refused to lay flat. He was again warned, but King refused.
Officer Powell put his knee on King's back to get him down on the ground so
he could be handcuffed. King went down to the ground, but bounced back up,
shaking off all the police who were trying to get hold of him. Fina lly,
Koon stung him with the gun, delivering 50,000 volts of electricity, and
King fell to the ground again. But again he bounced up, prompting Koon to
deliver another 50,000 volts. King fell again, this time into the proper
position. Not a single baton blow had been delivered and the cops thought
everything was over.

At this point, the video camera started to tape the action. Officer
Powell approached King to put handcuffs on him, but King, weighing 250
pounds and standing 6'4" tall, shocked everyone by springing into action
again from his flat position. Like a professional linebacker, he charged
Powell, who thought King was going for his gun. That's when Powell started
using the baton. At one point, Powell thought King was subdued, put away
the baton and reached for the cuffs. But King started to stand up again.
Remembering how King rushed him before, he put away his cuffs and brought
out the baton again. One officer even tried to put his foot on King's neck
to prevent him from getting up again so he could be cuffed.

In all, he was hit 56 times, and even in the end he refused to comply.
He had to be cuffed in an odd position that risked the lives of the cops.
The hospital reported that King had suffered an injury on the face from
when he fell to the ground and minor injuries to his leg. He was never hit
on the spine or the head, which would have violated regulations. And he was
not beaten nearly to death, as some have claimed. The jury concluded that
at every point of that night's action, King was in control. He could have
complied at any time and stopped the beating. Whether we agree or disagree
with the juries verdict--that the cops did not use exxcessive force--it is
instructive to know what they saw and what the media still refuses to tell
us or show us. None of the major networks showed the video scene when King
rushed Officer Powell after the first Taser jolt. Only CNN showed it, one
time. And no major paper even mentioned it. Neither did any major paper or
network tell of the two passengers who complied and were peacefully
arrested. Why? We were shown the section of tape where the cops hit King
as a metaphor for white racism. Shown it again and again, we were supposed
to feel guilty.

Not long after this incident, King was found trying to pick up a
transvestite prostitute, and when caught, tried to run over the cops who
intervened. He was not arrested. This was not reported outside of L.A. He
was also not jailed for violating his parole (for armed robbery) or for
drunk and reckless driving or for violently resisting arrest. The verdict
was handed down at 3:15pm on April 29. For weeks we had heard threats that
the blacks would riot if the officers were not convicted. Taking that into
account, did the media or politicians defer to the jury (as they do when a
liberal-approved criminal is released)? Not at all. At 5:10 pm, liberal
black L.A. Mayor Tom Bradley said he was shocked and outraged at the
verdict. He denounced the jurors for approving "the senseless and brutal
beating of a helpless man." As an afterthought, he asked the ci ty to
"remain calm." With those words, he might as well have thrown a match into
a pool of gasoline. It was permission for the blacks to "express their
rage."

Ten minutes later, the police got their first report of trouble.
Blacks were throwing beer cans at passing cars. When the police showed up,
the crowds had gotten much bigger. Cops tried to control them, but realized
they were outnumbered. Realizing that they could not use their guns or even
look cross-eyed at a black, a video recorded a policeman saying: "It's not
worth it. Let's go." Indeed it wasn't worth it. The cops could only have
put themselves on trial and had their lives ruined too.

Ironically, they were being filmed and are now denounced. But it was
the Establishment's reaction to the Rodney King verdict that set the
precedent that black criminals always have the benefit of the doubt over
white police. At 5:45, the field commander in the area where the riots
began ordered that no police go into the area. "I want everybody out of
here. Get out. Now." He wanted to protect his police force, which could
take no action without media criticism and legal action, from rioters who
vastly outnumbered them and were sometimes better armed. The blacks
started to attack cars driven by whites and light-skinned Hispanics with
crowbars, rocks, bottles, and even a metal traffic sign. At the last
minute, some police officers rescued a woman abandoned in her car and were
pelted by rocks as they left.

At 6:45, a white man was dragged from a delivery truck and thrown to
the ground and beaten, as black assailants yelled, "That's how Rodney King
felt, white boy!" Another white truck driver, Reginald O. Denny, pulled
into the area and five blacks beat him nearly to death. One threw a fire
extinguisher at his head as he lay unconscious, breaking nearly every bone
in his face. A white boy was pulled from his motorcycle and shot in the
head. All this happened less than an hour and a half after the mayor had
denounced the verdict. Rather than call for even minimal standards of
justice, the Establishment coalesced into its excusemaking mode, justifying
black terrorism in various ways. It was caused by poverty, frustration, "12
years of neglect," etc., but never evil. The fires burned out of control as
firemen were attacked by the rioters as well, in one case with an axe.

All banks within the vicinity of rioting, meaning nearly all of
central L.A., were immediately shut down. People who wanted to cash checks
or make deposits were shocked to find them closed. They were also stunned
to find city transit not running. Taxicabs were nowhere in sight. White
people found themselves walking alone many blocks to get home, running the
minefield of black gangs out for their blood.

Many people tried to buy guns to protect themselves. But, whoops,
California has a 14-day waiting period. And then, just to make sure honest
Californians could not get ammunition for the firearms they already owned
(poor ragefilled youth might be shot), Mayor Tom Bradley ordered all gun
and ammo shops closed, a great help to criminals who had stocked up
earlier, or who could simply break in and loot.

Another group that had stocked up were Korean merchants, many of whom
defended their places with guns, and later were arrested for illegal use of
firearms. As one told the L.A. Times, "Two looters entered my store; one
left." These Korean immigrants were the only people to act like real
Americans, mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our
liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back
and think of England. White reporters and photographers who entered the
riot zone were dragged from their cars and beaten. A freelance reporter for
the Boston Globe was shot five times. The anti-white hate crimes
accumulated.

In the midst of the rioting, Jesse Jackson and Congresswoman Maxine
Waters (D-CA) spouted the pro-terrorist line that it was all justified
because blacks "can't get no justice." The newsmen of the major networks
interviewed them and lovingly bemoaned the "plight of the inner-city
youth."
Liberal statist Jack Kemp weighed in with a victimological line similar to
Jackson's, saying we need more federal programs for the cities. As the
Establishment promised to spread more white taxpayers' money around the
inner city, the killers and looters spread their violence to Hollywood,
Beverly Hills, Fairfax, and Westwood. A mall in Compton burned.

The Violence wasn't limited to the L.A. area. It extended to Long
Beach, Cal. (where more than 500 Cambodian-owned businesses were torched);
Seattle, Wash.; Eugene, Ore.; San Francisco, Cal.; San Jose, Cal.; Las
Vegas, Nev. (where it still lingers); Madison, Wis.; Birmingham, Ala.; and
Atlanta, Ga. Terrorism swept America. In Las Vegas, for example, a white
man was pulled out of his car and severely beaten by blacks breaking up
from an anti-white rally at l0:30 pm. The blacks shouted racial insults as
the police carted him away to the hospital. The crowd then pelted SWAT
teams in armored vehicles with rocks and bottles. Someone in the crowd of
blacks shot a gun and the police responded with tear gas. I'm sure that
there were many more incidents of looting, fires, and violence that we
haven't heard about for the simple fact that the media doesn't want us to
know about them. Newsmen and editors are protecting us from the truth.

Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to
pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. The "poor"
lined up at the post office to get their handouts (since there were no
deliveries)--and then complained about slow service. What if the checks
had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the
welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the
violence subsided.

Several days after the violence ended, we learned that there would
have been blacks on the King jury--if the NAACP hadn't engaged in jury
tampering by telling potential black jurors that it was their racial duty
to convict the cops. The blacks admitted this to defense lawyers, and were
rightly excluded from jury. This is a serious crime, but the NAACP will not
be prosecuted.

Imagine the irony. Blacks have whined endlessly that letting the cops
off was "all white" (even though the jury included an Hispanic and an
Asian). But it was the leading "civil rights" organization that is at fault
for this.

What did Bush say about the riots? First he promised to have the Justice
Department see if it could retry the cops for violating Rodney King's
"civil rights." But what about the constitutional prohibition of double
jeopardy? No one cares. Then Bush promised an immediate payoff of $600
million to L.A. gangsters. When the liberals called this a "token", he
raised the amount to $1.2 billion. He has vacillated between pretending to
be a tough guy and condemning the rioters, and taking up the Jack Kemp line
that inner-city "despair" can be fixed through more federal programs. But
this is capitulation to terrorist demands. The advice some libertarians
give---"don't vote, it only encourages them" applies here. We must not
kowtow to the street hoodlums and their sanctimonious leaders.

At a Washington, D.C., rally two weeks after the L.A. attempt at
revolution, many poured out to lobby for more money to be given to the
cities. The most commonly held sign was: "Justice for Rodney King. Free all
the L.A. prisoners." Now, consider for a moment what this slogan implies.
Were they upset by the murders, the burned buildings, and the $1 billion in
property damage? Not at all, except to use it as an excuse to get more
cash. They wanted the cops jailed and the murderers, arsonists, and thieves
set free. This came not from the underclass, but from middle-class
blacks and black political activists, who hold opinions not markedly
different from the Crips and the Bloods. But the Crips and the Bloods, it
turns out, have been "misunderstood," according to Ted Koppel who
interviewed two of these animals. After spending several hours with them,
he decided he liked them. Unfortunately, they didn't pull him out of his
stretch limousine.

Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not
going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities
across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good
sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly
avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of
actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color
of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for
many, entirely unavoidable.

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among
blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5%
of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market,
individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know
many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as
representatives of a racial group, but as decent people. They are,
however, outnumbered. Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages
of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence,
reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center
also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before
they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their
lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal
justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males
in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who
doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that
it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black
men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of
proportion to their numbers.

Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots,
burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial
politics. The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting
booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you
are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the
streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their
Congressmen to arrange the transfer.

Blacks have "civil riqhts," preferences, set-asides for government
contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black
mayors, black curricula in schools, black beauty contests, black tv shows,
black tv anchors, black scholorships and colleges, hate crime laws, and
public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.

Two years ago, in a series of predictions for the 1990s, I said that
race riots would erupt in our large cities. I'm now predicting this will be
the major problem of the 1990s.

Taken from the Ron Paul Political Report, 1120 NASA Blvd., Suite 104,
Houston, TX 77058 for $50 per year. Call 1-800-766-7285.

Stephen A Chaney

unread,
Aug 4, 1993, 7:10:14 AM8/4/93
to
In article <-030893...@UH.EDU> @UH.EDU (ONLY THE MESSENGER) writes:
>LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM

>
> Ten thousand stores and other buildings looted and burned, thousands
>beaten and otherwise seriously injured, 52 people dead. That was the toll
>of the Los Angeles riots in which we saw white men pulled from their cars
>and trucks and shot or brutally beaten. (In every case, the mob was not too
>enraged to pick the victim's pocket.) We saw Korean and white stores
>targeted by the mob because they "exploited the community," i.e., sold
>products people wanted at prices they were willing to pay. Worst of all,
>we saw the total breakdown of law enforcement, as black and white liberal
>public officials had the cops and troops disarmed in the face of criminal
>anarchy.

D'OHHHH come on now this is the african american channel!
You can't say this kind of stuff here! Number one, they'll tell you
it didn't happen, and number two, if they admitted it did happen,
they'll tell you that the innocent people who lost businesses, or even
their lives, should have died because this is a racist society, blah
blah blah.


> In San Francisco and perhaps other cities, says expert Burt Blumert,
>the rioting was led by red-flag carrying members of the Revolutionary
>Communist Party and the Workers World Party, both Trotskyite-Maoist. The
>police were allowed to intervene only when the rioters assaulted the famous
>Fairmont and Mark Hopkins hotels atop Nob Hill. A friend of Burt's, a
>jewelry store owner, had his store on Union Square looted by blacks, and
>when the police arrived in response to his frantic calls, their orders were
>to protect his life, but not to interfere with the rioting.

It is the agenda of the "black liberation" movements to dismantle
capitalism and bring Communism here.


> Even though the riots were aimed at whites (in L.A. at Koreans who had
>committed the crime of working hard and being successful, and at Cambodians
>in Long Beach), and even though anti-white and anti-Asian epithets filled
>the air, this is not considered a series of hate crimes, nor a violation of
>the civil rights of whites or Asians.

Of course not!
Only whites can be racist! You forget, this is the african american
channel, where no crime on Earth is too horrible as long as White
AmeriKKKa can be put on the opposite end of the scale. You'll die an
old man waiting for a black liberal to decry the actions of the
rioters in LA. And your kids and grandkids will die of old age also,
before they see such a thing.


> The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every
>non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are.
>As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white
>oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to
>steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is
>justified against "The Man." And "The Woman.' A lady I know recently saw a
>black couple in the supermarket with a cute little girl, three years old or
>so. My friend waved to the tiny child, who scowled, stuck out her tongue,
>and said (somewhat tautologically): "I hate you, white honkey." And the
>parents were indulgent. Is any white child taught to hate in this way? I've
>never heard of it. If a white child made such a remark to a black woman,
>the parents would stop it with a reprimand or a spank.

Remember: hatred is only hatred when it comes from a White man. When
it comes from a black man, it's "expressing his/her anger towards
White AmeriKKKa."


> But this is normal, and in fact benign, compared to much of the
>anti-white ideology in the thoroughly racist black community. The black
>leadership indoctrinates its followers with phony history and phony theory
>to bolster its claims of victimology. Like the communists who renounced all
>that was bourgeois, the blacks reject all that is "Eurocentric." They
>demand their own kind of thinking, and deny the possibility of non-blacks
>understanding it.

Who needs to understand this "black community" ? As an african
american myself, I think it needs to be shipped to another planet.
They are hatefully, in fact VIRULENTLY intolerant, and as proven by
the LA Riots, they are willing to KILL everything in sight, if they
can. There's a black man out there somewhere thinking of killing YOU
for saying all this, right now. So much for watching my back against
white hatemongers.. Now I have to look both ways.


> The insurrectionist and revolutionaries intended to destroy large
>sections of Los Angeles. Why did the ghetto youths so furiously rage
>together? Was it because they have been neglected? Hardly. Welfare has
>transferred $2.5 trillion from white middle class taxpayers to welfare
>programs in the last 30 years. And if we adjust that figure for 1992
>dollars, the total is more like $7 trillion. Are blacks being denied
>economic opportunity? The cities could have freer markets, but so could the
>rest of the country, where there is no rioting and little streetcrime. Are
>black killers and looters responding to racism? Japanese Americans were
>treated far worse in California than blacks. They were even put in
>concentration camps by Earl Warren, John J. McCloy, and Franklin D.
>Roosevelt, yet Japanese-Americans have never rioted. Korean-Americans,
>hated by blacks, never riot, and in fact are some of the most productive
>people in America (the reason for black hatred).

Can we say "Rushdie"?


> The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot
>loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the
>welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to
>terrorism. Trouble is, few seem willing to do anything to stop them. The
>cops have been handcuffed. And property owners are not allowed to defend
>themselves. The mayor of Los Angeles, for example, ordered the Korean
>storekeepers who defended themselves arrested for "discharging a firearm
>within city limits." Perhaps the most scandalous aspect of the Los Angeles
>riots was the response by the mayors, the media, and the Washington
>politicians. They all came together as one to excuse the violence and to
>tell white America that it is guilty, although the guilt can be assuaged by
>handing over more cash. It would be reactionary, racist, and fascist, said
>the media, to have less welfare or tougher law enf orcement. America's
>number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass
>blacks.

I'd spit in the face of these bastards, but the election of a
Republican mayor in Los Angeles, will suffice. :^)


> Rather than helping, all this will ensure that guerrilla violence will
>escalate. There will be more occasional eruptions such as we saw in Los
>Angeles, but just as terrifying are the daily muggings, robberies,
>burglaries, rapes, and killings that make our cities terror zones.

I say we get a mob next time these riots occur, and start shooting
BACK at the rioters. We outnumber them and, with guns, we outgun them
also. How CAN they win, over and over again, like this?

My hat goes off to those valiant Koreans. They fought back like true,
brave Americans, to defend what they worked HARD to build.


> The rioters said they were acting out their frustration over the
>acquittal of four L.A. policemen accused of using excessive force when
>arresting Rodney G. King, but in fact, they were looking for an excuse to
>kill, burn, and loot. Nonetheless, it is important to understand why the
>jury decided not to convict, whether or not we agree with their verdict.

UUUGGGHH it makes me so sick just to look at another member of my own
race now, seeing what they did in LA.


> At this point, the video camera started to tape the action. Officer
>Powell approached King to put handcuffs on him, but King, weighing 250
>pounds and standing 6'4" tall, shocked everyone by springing into action
>again from his flat position. Like a professional linebacker, he charged
>Powell, who thought King was going for his gun. That's when Powell started
>using the baton. At one point, Powell thought King was subdued, put away
>the baton and reached for the cuffs. But King started to stand up again.
>Remembering how King rushed him before, he put away his cuffs and brought
>out the baton again. One officer even tried to put his foot on King's neck
>to prevent him from getting up again so he could be cuffed.

Watch these fascists on this newsgroup, delete this from their
responses. It's the only way to give them a valid argument. Mark my
words, this will be deleted or ignored.

Liberals did this..
Oh, man.. God help us all.
I honestly did not get this thorough an account of the events that
took place..

Man, this newsgroup is downright HEINOUS. All this, to them, is right
and just and merely a powerful expression of "no justice, no peace."
What can we do? I say the next time they do this, we send attack
choppers in and just LEVEL the place. A direct hit from a HELLFIRE
missile, or 36mm chain guns, will stop any riot.


> Another group that had stocked up were Korean merchants, many of whom
>defended their places with guns, and later were arrested for illegal use of
>firearms. As one told the L.A. Times, "Two looters entered my store; one
>left." These Korean immigrants were the only people to act like real
>Americans, mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our
>liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back
>and think of England. White reporters and photographers who entered the
>riot zone were dragged from their cars and beaten. A freelance reporter for
>the Boston Globe was shot five times. The anti-white hate crimes
>accumulated.
>
> In the midst of the rioting, Jesse Jackson and Congresswoman Maxine
>Waters (D-CA) spouted the pro-terrorist line that it was all justified
>because blacks "can't get no justice." The newsmen of the major networks
>interviewed them and lovingly bemoaned the "plight of the inner-city
>youth."
>Liberal statist Jack Kemp weighed in with a victimological line similar to
>Jackson's, saying we need more federal programs for the cities. As the
>Establishment promised to spread more white taxpayers' money around the
>inner city, the killers and looters spread their violence to Hollywood,
>Beverly Hills, Fairfax, and Westwood. A mall in Compton burned.

KEMP SAID THIS?

I will need to send him a letter.
Of ALL people, Jack Kemp..

I see the Hammer and Sickle rising over LA.. thank God a Republican
came to stuff it back down.

Doubleplusungood. They have to go back and rewrite the facts so that we
can call you a racist.


> Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots,
>burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial
>politics. The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting
>booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you
>are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the
>streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their
>Congressmen to arrange the transfer.
>
> Blacks have "civil riqhts," preferences, set-asides for government
>contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black
>mayors, black curricula in schools, black beauty contests, black tv shows,
>black tv anchors, black scholorships and colleges, hate crime laws, and
>public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.

Well let them try to humiliate me because this Black american will
enlist any and all people to try and figure out a way to beat an
agenda and pattern of action that is absolutely parallel to the way
the Bolsheviks conquered Russia and created the most bloodthirsty
nation in the history of the human race, the USSR. We are on our way
to that era once again, if we stand by and do not mount a fierce,
unrelenting, and fearless resistance against the African American
movement. They have proven they will KILL those who oppose them, by
actually DOING so.


> Two years ago, in a series of predictions for the 1990s, I said that
>race riots would erupt in our large cities. I'm now predicting this will be
>the major problem of the 1990s.

And the riots aren't being inflicted by whites anymore. They're being
inflicted by blacks. Except now it's not a riot.. it's an expression
of outrage at injustice.

>Taken from the Ron Paul Political Report, 1120 NASA Blvd., Suite 104,
>Houston, TX 77058 for $50 per year. Call 1-800-766-7285.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_| _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _| _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _| _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _|_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _| _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/
Blame it on Steve Chaney <chan...@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu>
Not on California State University, Sacramento :^)

Monee C. Kidd

unread,
Aug 5, 1993, 11:41:26 AM8/5/93
to

Yum. Someone forgot their ;) key.


In a previous article, @UH.EDU (ONLY THE MESSENGER) says:


> In San Francisco and perhaps other cities, says expert Burt Blumert,
>the rioting was led by red-flag carrying members of the Revolutionary
>Communist Party and the Workers World Party, both Trotskyite-Maoist.


>

> The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every
>non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are.
>As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white
>oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to
>steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is
>justified against "The Man." And "The Woman.' A lady I know recently saw a
>black couple in the supermarket with a cute little girl, three years old or
>so. My friend waved to the tiny child, who scowled, stuck out her tongue,
>and said (somewhat tautologically): "I hate you, white honkey." And the
>parents were indulgent. Is any white child taught to hate in this way? I've
>never heard of it. If a white child made such a remark to a black woman,
>the parents would stop it with a reprimand or a spank.
>

> The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot
>loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the
>welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to
>terrorism.

>

> Not long after this incident, King was found trying to pick up a
>transvestite prostitute, and when caught, tried to run over the cops who
>intervened.


>

> Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among
>blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5%
>of blacks have sensible political opinions

>Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal

--

... mc ... ...sigless.

Andrew Rogers

unread,
Aug 5, 1993, 11:09:23 AM8/5/93
to
In article <-030893...@UH.EDU> @UH.EDU (ONLY THE MESSENGER) writes:
> Several days after the violence ended, we learned that there would
>have been blacks on the King jury--if the NAACP hadn't engaged in jury
>tampering by telling potential black jurors that it was their racial duty
>to convict the cops. The blacks admitted this to defense lawyers, and were
>rightly excluded from jury. This is a serious crime, but the NAACP will not
>be prosecuted.

Because there's nothing to prosecute them for. What happened was that
someone *claiming* to be from the NAACP did make such remarks to prospective
Black jurors, but this person was in fact not even a current NAACP member -
let alone an offical or spokesman.

Andrew

Angela Shelby

unread,
Aug 6, 1993, 12:50:32 PM8/6/93
to
The article posted by Stephen A. Chaney would have been more appropriately
placed in a soc.culture.white supremacy, soc.culture.war (white aryan
resistance) or soc.culture.kkk news group instead of here. That way, I would
not have seen it, since I am not interested in any type of white-backlash
dialogue.

Wonder why he bothers to read this particular news group. He and others of
like mind should form their own news group (hint, hint).

...in the ways of Maat,

a.

Stephen A Chaney

unread,
Aug 8, 1993, 5:33:05 AM8/8/93
to
In article <CBCK4...@sybase.com> ash...@kailas.sybase.com (Angela Shelby) writes:
>The article posted by Stephen A. Chaney would have been more appropriately
>placed in a soc.culture.white supremacy, soc.culture.war (white aryan
>resistance) or soc.culture.kkk news group instead of here. That way, I would
>not have seen it, since I am not interested in any type of white-backlash
>dialogue.

Yeah and your comments need to go to soc.culture.black.nazi or
soc.culture.communism. You have no evidence that anything I said,
supported white supremacy. None. I make a living out of challenging
the power of liberalism, and you just made yourself a juicy target.
You're a liar, or you are an utter blockhead. Repost what I said and
show SPECIFICALLY where I supported white supremacism.

You have been challenged, and I know darned well you don't have the
guts to back up what you said. I've never been wrong when I attack
liberals.


>Wonder why he bothers to read this particular news group. He and others of
>like mind should form their own news group (hint, hint).

Nope, I like to come here and say things that aren't approved by the
Black Communist Party. Komrad.


"Tell you one thing I do believe.. shit happens." - PREDATOR 2

Stephen A Chaney

unread,
Aug 8, 1993, 6:01:23 AM8/8/93
to

Is that all you people can do? When I place my opinions on here and
then add some facts to back it up, all you can do is whine and call me
a white supremacist (by suggesting I take it to "soc.culture.war",
etc.) ?

You can't even post facts. You did exactly as I said you would -
delete EVERYTHING and then call me a white supremacist and suggest I
take my "white backlash" elsewhere. I swear to God the average logic
on this channel couldn't get one out of kindergarten without a
government handout. And when one of you DOES try and jump off with
some "media bias and PC are the dreams of the Right Wing," I have to
truncate the contradicting evidence just to save bandwidth.

With people like Angela Shelby around, it's easy to prove how
monolithic this movement is, and how fiercely it enforces that
condition. I hope she goes on welfare groaning "Reagan did this,
Reagan did this" like the rest of her liberal left wing
I-hate-capitalism-and-whites-and-America mongering zombies.

Grow up, kids, and start using some logic instead of grabbing a post,
stamping "NAZI" on it, and hoping everyone else will cringe at the
power of your dogma.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ash...@kailas.sybase.com (Angela Shelby)
Subject: RE: LA RIOTS: CAUSES
Message-ID: <CBCK4...@sybase.com>
Sender: ashelby@kailas (Angela Shelby)
Organization: Sybase, Inc.
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 16:50:32 GMT
Lines: 12

The article posted by Stephen A. Chaney would have been more appropriately
placed in a soc.culture.white supremacy, soc.culture.war (white aryan
resistance) or soc.culture.kkk news group instead of here. That way, I would
not have seen it, since I am not interested in any type of white-backlash
dialogue.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

All I gotta say is, it's here in this newsgroup and every time one of
you pops off with your racial hate masked as equal rights advocacy,
etc., there's a chance I or someone better will be around to call you
up on it. Now what are your plans? Maybe you can talk to Avalon on
alt.irc and get his advice on getting me banned from the newsgroup :^)
(shhh don't tell him you can't ban people off a newsgroup.. he might
look at you in shock as it was his ingenious invention of an idea..)

RALPH RICHARD THOMPSON

unread,
Aug 9, 1993, 9:18:23 AM8/9/93
to
In article <CBCK4...@sybase.com> ash...@kailas.sybase.com (Angela Shelby) writes:
>From: ash...@kailas.sybase.com (Angela Shelby)
>Subject: RE: LA RIOTS: CAUSES
>Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 16:50:32 GMT

>The article posted by Stephen A. Chaney would have been more appropriately


>placed in a soc.culture.white supremacy, soc.culture.war (white aryan
>resistance) or soc.culture.kkk news group instead of here. That way, I would
>not have seen it, since I am not interested in any type of white-backlash
>dialogue.

Chaney talks a lot about Black conservatives, and I assumed he was Black. I
think he is and if this is true, he is one messed up cat and proves that
stupid, like ugly knows no color. I agree, he really needs a place of his
own. Nice rubber walls, plastic utensils....

THE ASIATIC

unread,
Aug 13, 1993, 6:39:38 AM8/13/93
to
@UH.EDU (ONLY THE MESSENGER) writes:

>We saw Korean and white stores

>targeted by the mob because they "exploited the community"...

There were black owned businesses that were
destroyed as well. Even ones that had signs
that said, "This business is Black owned"
got looted.

The riot wasn't anti-white, nor was it pro-
black. And I wouldn't say it was a
"rebellion," either.

> The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every
>non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are.
>As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white
>oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to
>steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible.

This is ridiculous. Have you ever been to
the South? Not that things are a whole lot
better in the North, but in the South,
"nigger" is such a common word, you'd think
that every black person's name was "nigger"
if you didn't know any better! Who is
teaching who hatred?

>The black
>leadership indoctrinates its followers with phony history and phony theory

>...

Sounds like the phony history and theory
kind of tricknology we ALL learn in
K-12, and even in college!

>Korean-Americans,
>hated by blacks, never riot, and in fact are some of the most productive
>people in America (the reason for black hatred).

Regarding Japanese Americans during WWII,
they were fooled into believing that if
they acted white, served Uncle Sam, they
would be treated like true Americans.
You live and learn.

Although there are parallels to the Asian
American and African American experience,
you cannot say why does X act this way,
yet Y doesn't? Different experiences
breed different attitudes.

Korean Americans don't riot for the same
reason. However, Koreans back in the
motherland have been known to get a
little uppity. We're not docile people,
you know.

And I wouldn't say that black people hate
Koreans. The whole B-K situation is a
lot more complex than that.

> The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot
>loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the
>welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to
>terrorism.

Terrorism? Isn't police brutality
terrorism? I've had more than my fair
share of racist police beating my ass...
The KKK, neo-Nazis, and so on. This is
by far more insidious terrorism, if you
stop to consider that no organization
of color has ever made an attempt to
terrorize white communities in an
organized, methodical manner in which
white supremacists have.

>It would be reactionary, racist, and fascist, said

>the media, to have less welfare or tougher law enf orcement...

No, the media shares the most burden
of responsibility in the eruption of
Los Angeles and other cities.
Irresponsible journalism, racial
polarization, and so on.

>He was recklessly driving at speeds up to 115 mph for
>almost eight miles.

You've obviously never driven a Hyundai.
One hundred and fifeteen miles per hour?
Go ahead and try it.

> Another group that had stocked up were Korean merchants, many of whom
>defended their places with guns, and later were arrested for illegal use of
>firearms. As one told the L.A. Times, "Two looters entered my store; one
>left." These Korean immigrants were the only people to act like real
>Americans, mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our

>liberal culture...

First generation Korean Americans
defended their stores, not because


they have "not yet been assimilated

into our liberal culture," but
because they worked years and years
to build their lives. Their stores
were their lives, and any man or
woman would defend themselves if they
saw that their life was on the line.
This is not a question of
assimilation, but of livelihood.

>...the killers and looters spread their violence to Hollywood,
>Beverly Hills, Fairfax, and Westwood...

Where it got stopped REAL quick.
"Destroy yourselves and the Koreans,
just don't bring it over to the white
parts of L.A."...

>Blacks have whined endlessly that letting the cops
>off was "all white" (even though the jury included an Hispanic and an
>Asian).

Just because you have an Asian and a
Hispanic on the jury doesn't mean
they didn't buy into the mainstream
lie.


Darryl Hamilton

unread,
Aug 11, 1993, 2:06:56 PM8/11/93
to
In article <1993Aug8.0...@csus.edu> chan...@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>Nope, I like to come here and say things that aren't approved by the
>Black Communist Party. Komrad.

Whats up with you *BROTHER*? You sound like a typical Rush limbaugh Righteinger
(thats winger). I notice you stated that people in this group are cowards
for not challenging you. You stated they would rather call names. But it is you
who seems to be doing most of the name calling. Whats up with this Black
Communist party crap? that sounds like some label that was used during the
sixties against the NAACP and the SCLC. As far as a challenge you have not
answered my challenge about why you feel the republican party is better for
blacks than the democratic party. Since you insited on lambasting black
democrats in an earlier post then tell me what the republican party would
have to offer a young college educated black man as myself. If all you want
to rant and rave about blacks,liberals etc.. then try alt.rush-limbaugh.
You will have lots of company there. I usually frequent that group to keep
a check on the racist and bigoted statements these *conservatives* seem
to make in the name of conservatism. Maybe as a black male you and others
should also frequent the group just to keep them honest. But in the mean time
I'm waiting to hear about all of the virtues of being a black republican.

--
The Political Correctness (tm) movment and the
Liberal Media (tm)
Are figments of a rightwingers imagination.

Stephen A Chaney

unread,
Aug 14, 1993, 7:08:36 PM8/14/93
to

The Republican Party is better for EVERYONE because:
1) They don't encourage people to live off of handouts.
2) They defend capitalism rather than tax it to death.
3) They consider people's rights over those of cats, dogs, rare
beetles, trees and dolphins.
4) They have values which say
a) Drugs are dangerous and wrong.
b) It is the fault of the criminal who steals and kills,
not Twelve Years of Neglect (tm)
c) Stop using drugs and having unsafe sex and you'll avoid
AIDS.
5) If you have an education and your resume is competitive, then
regardless of race or religion or gender, you have a better access to
the job market. (Liberalism doesn't write laws like that - they use
reverse discrimina- er um affirmative action.)

Democrats oppose all five points (except 4a, if you leave out
President Clinton), and their values system is the direct cause of why
Black Americans are in so much hot shit.

I frequent alt.fan.rush-limbaugh quite a bit, and do not see the
"nigger" words or anti-black stereotypes you seem to be so paranoid
of.


Now that I've met your challenge, do you want to defend your stupid
.sig?


>The Political Correctness (tm) movment and the
>Liberal Media (tm)
>Are figments of a rightwingers imagination.


Right wing and proud of it! Why shouldn't I be? There is only Right,
and Wrong. Which would YOU take? :^)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_| _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _| _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _| _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _|_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _| _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/
Blame it on Steve Chaney <chan...@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu>

or <gun...@netcom.netcom.com>
and no one else.

Darryl Hamilton

unread,
Aug 16, 1993, 10:26:39 AM8/16/93
to
In article <1993Aug14.2...@csus.edu> chan...@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <18...@news.duke.edu> d...@duke.edu (Darryl Hamilton) writes:
>>In article <1993Aug8.0...@csus.edu> chan...@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>
>
>The Republican Party is better for EVERYONE because:
>1) They don't encourage people to live off of handouts

I'm a Democrat and I surely don't encourage people to live off of handouts(tm .

>2) They defend capitalism rather than tax it to death
defending capitalism or the status quo?.

>3) They consider people's rights over those of cats, dogs, rare
>beetles, trees and dolphins
As a pet owner stay away from my dog or I bust a cap in your ass :)

.
>4) They have values which say
> a) Drugs are dangerous and wrong.
> b) It is the fault of the criminal who steals and kills,
> not Twelve Years of Neglect (tm)
> c) Stop using drugs and having unsafe sex and you'll avoid
> AIDS
To act as if Rebublican have a corner on values and morality is pure
horseshit. I think you would have learned that Americans are going for
that line of baloney anymore. If you insist on using these tired old
sterotypes of liberals and democrats in 1996 you will be right where you
are now..on the sideline with your damn lips stuck out and your faces all
frowned up.

.
>5) If you have an education and your resume is competitive, then
>regardless of race or religion or gender, you have a better access to
>the job market. (Liberalism doesn't write laws like that - they use
>reverse discrimina- er um affirmative action.)

Well I'm no real big fan of AA either,primarily becauses White backlash
and resentment. And some whites us AA as an excuse for not succeding the
same way some blacks use Racism as an excuse. The term reverse discriminaton
in itself acknowledges that some discriminaton is/has taken place. Or else
it would simply be called discrimination.

>
>Democrats oppose all five points (except 4a, if you leave out

horseshit! you are sterotyping. I guess anybody who is not conservative
hates the military too right?


>
>I frequent alt.fan.rush-limbaugh quite a bit, and do not see the
>"nigger" words or anti-black stereotypes you seem to be so paranoid
>of.

Well I don't know how much you frequent that group but I frequent
quite a bit myself. If you look there you will see where I've been doing
battle with the right wingers over the rebel flag issue. ANd while none
of them have come right out and said nigger go home or something like
that I have noticed a few racial insults and sterotyping in some of the
post. And finally you've got some nerve calling somebody Paranoid, with your
"the liberals are out to destroy America attitude" you can hardly talk.
I seem to remember a pot calling a kettle black.


>
>
>Now that I've met your challenge, do you want to defend your stupid
>.sig?

If you bring some ass then maybe you can kick some ass. name calling
will get you nowhere son. I look for facts and substance
.


>Blame it on Steve Chaney <chan...@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu>

I couldn't think of anybody better to blame it on :)

--

Glen Raphael

unread,
Aug 17, 1993, 10:36:02 PM8/17/93
to
chan...@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>There is no difference between medicine and poison... it is only the difference
>>in dosages that separate them. e.g. a poisonous snake bite can kill you, but a
>>small dose of the snakes poison can cure many ailments. So what is a drug?

>Cocaine only does one thing: it kills your brain, or large portions of
>it, on first contact.

The above statement is absolutely ridiculous. In moderate doses, cocaine has
a very similar effect to caffeine. That is, it produces an increased level
of physical and mental alertness with a corresponding decrease after it wears
off.

Source: _Licit and Illicit Drugs_, by the editors of Consumer Reports.

Glen Raphael
rap...@fx.com

Stephen A Chaney

unread,
Aug 18, 1993, 1:36:36 AM8/18/93
to
Geez, almost done..

Hey they used them on us. At the same time the Democrats were
decrying the intolerance of the right wing, Bill Clinton was telling
pro-life Democrats, in his Convention speech, to plain get the hell
out of the Democratic Party.

If liberals claim to have any proficiency in tolerance, they are
committing outright fraud. Ask the adult film industry how much
shit they've been getting from one wing of the liberal movement,
Feminism.

America has quickly found out what life without the GOP is like.
They see it talking like a used car salesman on long road trips
across the USA, while inflicting tax hikes they prayed to God would
not happen. (And, of course, matching budget cuts did not occur
alongside these taxes.) That is why his (President Clinton's)
approval ratings are the lowest among any US President in history,
and why none of his particular ideas have better than 50% approval
in any given poll. This is a CONSISTENT, no-matter-where-you-go
poll result, not just a poll in GOP strongholds like Orange County,
California. He flopped on the Haitians. He failed to do what he
planned to do for gays in the military. His tax increases begin way
below the $200,000 line he promised during the campaign. And none
of this came about within the 100 days he said it would. That's
just a TINY portion of his failures. There was that racist
accusation he made against Rush Limbaugh, and the accusation that
Kansas Republican Senator Bob Dole, had pork barrel programs (which
he did not and which Clinton faced off with him and had to apologize
to Senator Dole)...

The way his approval ratings and his performance are freefalling,
and the way Rush's popularity is increasing.. one can easily see
there is due a conservative backlash that will make its second
approach in 1996. When it hits then, Democrats had better get their
butt pads ready because there will be a mass punt involving the feet
of a lot of American voters going right up a lot of Democratic
assholes.

BTW, Democrats HAVE no values. To them, nothing is wrong, people
are not responsible for the crimes they commit (they blame it on
Twelve Years of Neglect(tm) ), or the actions they take (such as
sex). To them, being homosexual is more honorable to abstinence;
Chancellor Joe Fernandez of the NYC school district, took out ALL
references to abstinence in their sex education, because, in his
words, "it interfered with the AIDS education agenda." So, whereas
before, we had one paragraph about abstinence (actually one
sentence), and a bookload of how to fuck (yes, how to say no can
take up equal volumes, but they do not put this in in NYC's
schools), now, New York City has "Heather has 2 mommies." And
there's your sex ed. In Modesto, the people - the voters -
overwhelmingly supported abstinence legislation, and some fringe
Planned Parenthood group achieved rule of the minority and convinced
the City Council to turn down the bill, which had far more support
than opposition. And what other party would pardon thousands of
people who dodged the Draft (President Jimmy Carter), which is an
ILLEGAL ACT!, then whine because ex-President Bush pardoned less than
a dozen people accused - ACCUSED - in the Iran Contra scandal? What
other ideology but Democratic Party Liberalism, would not view Jane
Fonda as having committed TREASON, after sitting on the guns of the
enemy Viet Cong, protesting the Vietnam War? Indeed, what other
ideology, would inflict mass riots across America, destroying
millions of dollars in campus or government property, in protesting
a war? What other ideology would have people spitting on the vets
who returned from the war? What other ideology would send one of
these draft dodgers, drug users, and war-protestors-on-a-foreign-soil,
up to the White House? What other ideology would justify such a man
even showing his FACE at the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial?

Thank God America is waking up and Clinton no longer has much
support left. We'll see you on our way up. Try to slow your
freefall so we can at least wave at you.

>>Democrats oppose all five points (except 4a, if you leave out
>
> horseshit! you are sterotyping. I guess anybody who is not conservative
>hates the military too right?

They put a draft dodger and war protestor in the White House. Let
their actions speak for them.


>>I frequent alt.fan.rush-limbaugh quite a bit, and do not see the
>>"nigger" words or anti-black stereotypes you seem to be so paranoid
>>of.
> Well I don't know how much you frequent that group but I frequent
>quite a bit myself. If you look there you will see where I've been doing
>battle with the right wingers over the rebel flag issue. ANd while none
>of them have come right out and said nigger go home or something like
>that I have noticed a few racial insults and sterotyping in some of the
>post. And finally you've got some nerve calling somebody Paranoid, with your
>"the liberals are out to destroy America attitude" you can hardly talk.
>I seem to remember a pot calling a kettle black.

It's a FLAG, man! Liberals can BURN the US Flag and it's called
Free Speech, but the presence of the Confederate Flag? God forbid!

And about Liberals destroying America.. When did I say that was
their intent? I said it was their intent to destroy that which they
do not agree with. They dislike Western Culture. It was they who
went marching in UCLA with Jesse Jackson, chanting "Hey hey, ho ho,
Western Culture's got to go!", not me.

Again, let their actions speak for them.


>>Now that I've met your challenge, do you want to defend your stupid
>>.sig?
> If you bring some ass then maybe you can kick some ass. name calling
>will get you nowhere son. I look for facts and substance

How can I bring you when you arrive voluntarily?


R.I.P. this .sig :^)

>--
>The Political Correctness (tm) movment and the
>Liberal Media (tm)
>Are figments of a rightwingers imagination.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_| _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _| _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _| _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _|_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _| _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/

Blame it on Steve Chaney <chan...@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu>

Anthony E. Sterrett

unread,
Aug 28, 1993, 3:38:12 PM8/28/93
to
In article <1993Aug14.2...@csus.edu> chan...@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <18...@news.duke.edu> d...@duke.edu (Darryl Hamilton) writes:
>>In article <1993Aug8.0...@csus.edu> chan...@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>
>>>Nope, I like to come here and say things that aren't approved by the
>>>Black Communist Party. Komrad.
stuff deleted

>>
>>I'm waiting to hear about all of the virtues of being a black republican.
I was a Black republican until Lee Atwater
admitted the GOP used hatered of Blacks to
win an election. What do you BRs think of
that?

>
>The Republican Party is better for EVERYONE because:


>1) They don't encourage people to live off of handouts.

Good. How ever that does not include farm subsidies,
upper middle class welfare. people like Dole, Helems
ALWAYS vote for subsidies.

>2) They defend capitalism rather than tax it to death.

Is this a defence of the war for oil?
In Japan they have higher taxes yet their
capitalism doesn't seem "taxed to death". I think
maybe the GOP is trying to put one over.

>3) They consider people's rights over those of cats, dogs, rare
>beetles, trees and dolphins.

Yes but all life is connnected. We only have one earth.
Its a little funny that older White people like
Bush and Reagan don't care about the environment,
yet these are the same guys who are always
getting tumors and polyps removed from their face.
Poeples rights above animals rigths but there is
no need for unnecessary violence.

Are the rights of poor people the same as
rich people?

>4) They have values which say
> a) Drugs are dangerous and wrong.

Some very conservative people like Willian F. Buckey
are for legalizing Drug and people like Jesse Jackson
are not for it. I`ve seen Buckey and Jackson debate this.

> b) It is the fault of the criminal who steals and kills,
> not Twelve Years of Neglect (tm)

Yes but a responsible moral society treats the weaker
members of that society with more kindness than does
the republican. Bush even admitted it when he promised
a "kinder gentiler" nation.

> c) Stop using drugs and having unsafe sex and you'll avoid
> AIDS.

This would be true if these were the only
causes but that not true so saying it
is just another republican no brainer.

The Republican party doesn't repeat DOES NOT own the
right to all that is moral and good.



>5) If you have an education and your resume is competitive, then
>regardless of race or religion or gender, you have a better access to
>the job market. (Liberalism doesn't write laws like that - they use
>reverse discrimina- er um affirmative action.)

That's only a little true in American there is
still a lot of whites only club were the big deals
are cut. And affirmative action is not quotas as
it refers to fairness in the hiring pool not
who you hire. Another republican no brainer.


>
>Democrats oppose all five points (except 4a, if you leave out
>President Clinton), and their values system is the direct cause of why
>Black Americans are in so much hot shit.

We have had a Republican in for the last 12 year and
we're still a "hot shit" even worst so I guess
the republicans can talk the talk but they can't walk
the walk. Do you agree?


>
>I frequent alt.fan.rush-limbaugh quite a bit, and do not see the
>"nigger" words or anti-black stereotypes you seem to be so paranoid
>of.

Neither does David Duke maybe he's a nice guy too.
>

------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony"The Tiger" Sterrett NRaD This is my opinion and only mine
Reply to:ster...@nosc.mil

Commanding Officer
NCCOSC RDT&E Division*
ATTN : A. Sterrett Code 411
53140 Systems Street
San Diego California 92152-4808
Voice (619) 553-4078
FAX (619) 553-4808
Nkosi sikelel'iAfrika
--Red Wings,Pistons Rule, Tigers Rule, Lions Rule!-----------------
*NOSC is now the RDT&E division of NCCOSC therefore NRaD

jaemye...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 22, 2014, 5:54:47 PM7/22/14
to
Hello! I'm trying to compile some data into a book for my boss and stumbled across this gem. However, being that I can't really cite a google group conversation, I was wondering if you could help me find where you found the statistics in the following part of your post:

The Violence wasn't limited to the L.A. area. It extended to Long
Beach, Cal. (where more than 500 Cambodian-owned businesses were torched);
Seattle, Wash.; Eugene, Ore.; San Francisco, Cal.; San Jose, Cal.; Las
Vegas, Nev. (where it still lingers); Madison, Wis.; Birmingham, Ala.; and
Atlanta, Ga.

I know it's a lot to dig up, but anything you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages