Thank you for your kind words, but I'm content with my earlier post. Pabst's remark was intentionally provocative and quite beside the point. If he has a brain in his head then he knows why his post was a non sequitur. And if you think it through, then so will you.
I just report what I see. And your posts do nothing to deny that you hate Blacks. You hate Blacks. You can admit it. It's not a crime to hate even though the thought police would like to make it so. It is a crime if you use that hate to do harm. (Really, it's the harm that's the crime. Lots of motivations for harm.) When I really don't like someone, I find it hard to refrain from using language to disparage them. It just feels good. Makes me laugh too. I'm human, so I can admit that. Here's the thing; you base virtually all of your information about Blacks on third party info. That's not in and of itself wrong but does have consequences. I can tell you haven't spent much time around a diverse group of Blacks. Can't blame you really. The stats are a warning to anyone to tread with caution. But... there are many good and decent Black people that I have met and maintain a friendship with whose views would probably surprise the hell out of you. Black folk are not one homogeneous bunch. What's more, to hold individual Blacks accountable for what other Blacks do makes no sense. Especially if you understand the dynamic of the Black folk in America. It's as silly as holding any particular white person accountable for ills another white person does. If you're genuinely interested in facts, you will take all facts into consideration. Doing so doesn't make you an apologist. It makes you a realist. So if you said, as Chris Rock once said, "I hate Niggers! But I love Black people!" not only would you look poignant and relevant, but a person whose views are wholly worth considering as opposed to a person whose posts may require pondering whether or not the "facts" presented from time to time are actual or conjectured bias. Yeah, I know, you don't care what I think. So you said. But of course that isn't true otherwise you wouldn't respond to my posts. You're here to do more than vent. You're trying to get people to see another point of view. And you want them to see it. You feel it's important for them to see it. If you can help yourself, you might consider dropping the use of racial epithets, disparagement and slurs and stick to the facts and you might just reach some. Those who are susceptible to facts will consider the facts and come to a conclusion or dig a little deeper. Those who are afraid of the facts for whatever reason, won't readily accept the facts but will have it in the back of their minds. If your goal is to counter what is arguably the media's lack of responsible reporting of the facts, it would behoove you not to fall into the stereotype of a racist white supremacist. The media has portrayed them both rightly and wrongly as nutjob degenerates. Be different, think differently. Keep the hate speech to yourself considering that such speech, though covered and protected under the 1st amendment, doesn't engender rational discourse. Have a good one.
Liberal? Really? Now that's a very odd conclusion. If you said Conservative Libertarian, you might be close as I do take that position on number of issues. The closest I come to Liberalism is an occasional bout of Centrism. Which for many liberals is still too far to the right. Apologist? That's bizarre. Why? Because I fail to lump all Blacks into a negative category even though some do not belong there? In order to not be an apologist, what must I portray? Should I ignore the good Black folk I know personally and just assume that one day they'll turn into the bad Black folk I know and have dealt with? What would I have to do to not appear an apologist in your eyes? Just curious. In any event, weren't you berating other posters for not addressing the content of your posts? Yet when someone actually does address your posts, you fall into an auto response mode (meant to counter one who objects to facts, which as you know, I don't) and do the same which you were accusing others of. What gives?
Can there be a level of hatred of Blacks that is just on the political level? I know I can't stand that Jessee Jack-up-whitey. He sues every private sector employer of blacks he can find and thusly blacks are really, really, really not welcome in the private sector. Not to mention that black women are horrible power mongering people and it seems to get worse after they are hired in the private sector and they realize there aren't any blacks working in the private sector after all these decades of riots and lawsuits that are supposed to be fixing the "problem". On that level, I hate Blacks and the race industry headed by Jessie Jack'em up. Otherwise I don't think about Blacks. They can all prosper or all starve, it's not up to me at all....
I know this supposed liberal handbook of dodge and obfuscate. Take a look at it again and see how different it is from what you think I portrayed. I see. Well, it's not their responsibility to do anything about it. They maintain their own personal integrity and pass it along to their children. Isn't that each individual's and family's responsibility? The fact that you feel that they have some sort of fiduciary responsibility to tackle the issues of people of their race suggests that you adhere to the concept of group think. Even for yourself. What makes you think they condone what other blacks do? Blacks tend to be victims of other Blacks to a far greater degree than whites are of Blacks. They (the good Black folk I know) have to deal with both racism because of the image that the bad black folk continue to perpetuate and have to deal with hate coming at them from other Blacks for not being like them. What would you have them do? If the other Blacks don't want to wear a condom and reduce teen pregnancy and STD transmission, what are the good Black folk supposed to do about it? And so on and so forth concerning the other social ills of the Black community? It's senseless to hold good and innocent folk accountable for bad. You you should know this. Would you think it's fair to be held accountable for White Supremacists who murder and persecute Blacks just because you happen to be White? Is it fair to say it's your responsibility to clean up that act? A white person who tried would be considered a traitor to their race by these actors and likely wouldn't come away unmolested for their efforts. What are you going on about here? I echoed some of the same facts. But rather than address the facts, I told you I don't debate facts. I accept them for what they are... facts. Silly to debate facts, no? I'm not attacking the messenger, I was advising the messenger on use of a better methodology. Note; I respect your right to free speech. Just showing you how to be a more effective at delivering the facts. You should know that it's all about perception. Folks will reject out of hand any "fact" you have to present if you unnecessarily add racist sounding commentary to it. Why unnecessarily muddy up the message? Why unnecessarily cloud the facts. Shouldn't the facts speak for themselves?
I didn't grant it to you. The constitution does. I just uphold it. As for who decides what's "right": It's simple. If it's factual. it's right. Whether people like it or not. Onus is on the one who thinks the fact is wrong to disprove it. Opinion though, is a whole different matter.
I hate Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Lewis Farrakan. I'm a hater of these individuals. Oddly enough they also happen to be Black. Believe it or not, there are Black folk who hate them too.
Looks like there is a statistical conflict. By a 2002 measure, 45% of all murder victims in 2002 were African American, 91% of whom were killed by African Americans. And according to the DOJ, the same measure persists : Although slightly less true now than before, most murders are intraracial From 1976 to 2005 -- * 86% of white victims were killed by whites * 94% of black victims were killed by blacks http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
You're being belligerently silly now. You act as if I disagree with the facts you presented. That would be an issue, I admit. Worse, insanity. I disagree with your point of view and your incongruous and self-defeating methodology. There's no back tracking or back pedaling at all. I had suggested you not use racial epithets and slurs before this thread all the while agreeing with one of your posts about gun control. Since you can't enforce your views, you'd better learn how to negotiate them if you hope to accomplish anything worthwhile. Negotiation doesn't necessarily mean compromise or watering down your views. It means being smart about how you present your views and ideas. Or perhaps you're content with only conversing with and reaching like-minded individuals - a proverbial circle-jerk. Everyone else is just lost cause then? I know that where you come from, you have this notion that if someone isn't 100% with you, they are 100% against you. Truth of the matter is, no one is 100% with you and those that take exception to some aspects of what you say aren't invariably liberals or apologists. You should learn to take advantage of whatever common ground you can find. You never know how one might be persuaded to see some of what you're trying to say. Good luck to you in your endeavors.