Uh oh.
It appears that supporting and commending and being a close friend of a white supremacist is not racist or bigoted for a candidate to do after all.
This is what emboldened white supremacists look like
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
It appears that supporting and commending and being a close friend of a white supremacist is not racist or bigoted for a candidate to do after all.
“It has emerged throughout my life to haunt and embarrass me and has taught me in a very graphic way what one major mistake can do to one’s life, career, and reputation.” Robert Byrd
But does this continue to define Byrd? Only to the lazy or politically motivated. Why?
“Senator Byrd came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda, doing well on the NAACP Annual Civil Rights Report Card,” said Hilary O. Shelton, director of the NAACP Washington bureau and senior vice president for advocacy and policy. “He stood with us on many issues of crucial importance to our members from the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the historic health care legislation of 2010 and his support for the Hate Crimes Prevention legislation.”
Or, it appears that a disingenuous or under examined attempt at comparison just got a kick in the seat of its assumptive pants. Looks like you guys will have to dig up some other dead guy to attack.
ClimateSanity
New member
Did any of those things actually do anything to improve the code of African Americans? No. Their situation is worse now than prior to 1964.
The code of African Americans?
lain: No...I'm betting it utterly failed to impact their....code. But to suggest blacks are worse off now than they were before the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were passed is to require an entirely new word, as it breaks the strong back of asininity.
oly:
ClimateSanity
New member
It's called auto spell you moron. And you knew that already. You even knew my point but deliberately chose to act confused. Get the hell out of my face evil one.The code of African Americans?
But to suggest blacks are worse off now than they were before the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were passed is to require an entirely new word, as it breaks the strong back of asininity.
yes, she does, especially now that she rejects God.
So, are you now claiming if you live in a small town in mo, that you are a white supremacist?
How do you function anymore?
Christ died for you anna, you shouldnt be demanding others be your scapegoat. Lay your guilt at the cross.
ClimateSanity
New member
Yes....they are much worse off than prior to 1964. Go look at their families. Children used to have father's. Children used to not be aborted. Gangs were not rampant. Drugs were not rampant. Hatred of whites was not as fevered pitched as it is today. Education was valued. There is even more that can be added to that list.
Democrats know full well it was their policies that caused much of it, thats why they wallow in white guilt now.
WizardofOz
New member
So clarify. What did you actually mean to say? :idunno:
ClimateSanity
New member
What begins with a C that fits in that sentence? I know town knew the answer. Condition.......duh
You might need to add auto-punctuate and auto-reason to your writing. Auto-maturity, comes to it.
No and I still don't. But if you say so. Auto-spell altered what, exactly?
EDIT: Ah, condition. Then it was answered.
Your point? I addressed the daft notion that blacks were better off before the Civil Rights and Voting acts.
You're one brick shy of having a brick.
lain:The word makes sense...which is more than you can say for how it was supposed to be used.
WizardofOz
New member
ClimateSanity
New member
You're the daft one if you think African Americans were better off after 1964. I guess you have a different standard of measure. If that list isn't more important to you than the supposed gains of legislation post 1964, then we have the exact reason why this country is so screwed up and it appears hopelessly so.You might need to add auto-punctuate and auto-reason to your writing. Auto-maturity, comes to it.
No and I still don't. But if you say so. Auto-spell altered what, exactly?
EDIT: Ah, condition. Then it was answered.
Your point? I addressed the daft notion that blacks were better off before the Civil Rights and Voting acts.
You're one brick shy of having a brick.
The word makes sense...which is more than you can say for how it was supposed to be used.
ClimateSanity
New member
ClimateSanity
New member
By the way there are many different "blacks" in the world. You equate that generic term with the more specific term African Americans.
I'm referencing American blacks by their general preference.
They have freedom as a people, opportunity as a people they were denied before. The rest is a combination of larger social problems within the nation amplified by poverty in that community but present in every other to an extent. You aren't worse off if you have opportunity, though you may not avail yourself of the opportunities or be in a position to do so.
A less paternalistic one, apparently.
There are two conversations you're confusing as one. The flaw in your thinking is like this: a man wins the lottery then is killed by a bolt of lightening. If you say he was better off without the money you're making the same sort of mistake.
ClimateSanity
New member
It's funny you mention paternalistic. You're view is the paternalistic one. We even have different meanings of words or youre mind is so twisted it views my opinion as paternalistic.