# Politics and News > SOCIETY & humanities >  Teens Playing Disturbing Game Of Knock Out The Jew

## DonGlock26

> *Brooklyn Rabbi: Gang Of Teens Playing Disturbing Game Of Knock Out The Jew**Activists, Victims' Families Say 8 Incidents Not About Robbery, But About Hate**November 12, 2013 6:28 PM**NEW YORK (CBSNewYork)*  The NYPD is looking into a series of attacks on Jews in Brooklyn. At least one attack was caught on surveillance tape.
> Some of the assaults may be part of a disturbing game, CBS 2s John Slattery reported on Tuesday.
> Police have yet to connect all the incidents, but released surveillance video that shows one group attacking a Jewish man. The video shows from a few different angles the victim, a man in a hooded jacket, getting punched.
> One man who didnt want to be identified told Slattery his 12-year-old son was attacked in the same way.
> Its clearly anti-Semitism, the man said.
> The 64-year-old said his son, who was dressed in traditional Jewish clothing, was attacked last Wednesday afternoon on President Street.
> One, full strength with his fist, whacked him, punched him, on the side of the face, full force, the man said.
> The child went to the ground as he heard the group of five to six teens yell out.
> A hysterical, happy shout, We got him, the man said.
> ...



Hmmmmm.......now the 'Knockout Game" may be a hate crime because the victims are Jews?

What is it when a non-Jewish, non-Hispanic white is beaten?

----------


## countryboy

> Hmmmmm.......now the 'Knockout Game" may be a hate crime because the victims are Jews?
> 
> What is it when a non-Jewish, non-Hispanic white is beaten?


It's called a crime Don.

----------


## Brewski

> Hmmmmm.......now the 'Knockout Game" may be a hate crime because the victims are Jews?
> 
> What is it when a non-Jewish, non-Hispanic white is beaten?


Interesting... even the knockout game stories that involve them saying "get that white bitch" didn't earn a "hate crime" designation.  It seems like attacking certain groups, but not others, have increased consequences.

----------


## Brewski

> It's called a crime Don.


Exactly.  It's only a hate crime if certain groups are attacked.  Whites are not one of them.

----------

DonGlock26 (11-13-2013)

----------


## countryboy

> Exactly.  It's only a hate crime if certain groups are attacked.  Whites are not one of them.


Would you like them to be one of them?

----------


## Brewski

> Would you like them to be one of them?


If we are going to have "hate crime" laws, I would prefer that they be consistently applied, yes.  As they are, their purpose is to punish white people for practicing racism.

----------

DonGlock26 (11-13-2013)

----------


## DonGlock26

> It's called a crime Don.


I said that when hate crime laws were first proposed, but Leftists like yourself insisted on them.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Interesting... even the knockout game stories that involve them saying "get that white bitch" didn't earn a "hate crime" designation.  It seems like attacking certain groups, but not others, have increased consequences.


The racists on the Left only care about certain racial groups.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Would you like them to be one of them?


I think he would like equal protection under the law. How about you?

----------


## countryboy

> I said that when hate crime laws were first proposed, but Leftists like yourself insisted on them.


If you had any shred of credibility, it went out the window when you called me a leftist. Personally, I believe "hate crime" legislation to be stupid and unnecessary. Any crime when one human being beats another human being without provocation is a "hate crime". Why do we need a special designation for *any* race? 

How about you provide some examples of my "leftist" positions? We'll give you the twenty second lib clock.....GO!

While you're at it, please provide an example of me insisting on "hate crime" legislation or STFU.

----------


## countryboy

@DonGlock26

Still waiting for all those leftist positions of mine.

----------


## garyo

Damn, you mean all my ex's could be prosecuted for hate crimes against me, shit I had a piss poor attorney.

----------


## Brewski

> The racists on the Left only care about certain racial groups.


If I remember correctly, countryboy is a conservative, but is a Hispanic who doesn't want whites to have the same kind of racial and cultural pride that his people are allowed to have in society.

----------


## DonGlock26

> If you had any shred of credibility, it went out the window when you called me a leftist. Personally, I believe "hate crime" legislation to be stupid and unnecessary. Any crime when one human being beats another human being without provocation is a "hate crime". Why do we need a special designation for *any* race? 
> 
> How about you provide some examples of my "leftist" positions? We'll give you the twenty second lib clock.....GO!
> 
> While you're at it, please provide an example of me insisting on "hate crime" legislation or STFU.


I know a contrarian troll, when I smell one. Show us all of your anti-Obama threads that you created. LOL!!!

----------


## DonGlock26

> If I remember correctly, countryboy is a conservative, but is a Hispanic who doesn't want whites to have the same kind of racial and cultural pride that his people are allowed to have in society.


I'm not buying that. If he were a conservative, he'd be here bashing Obama daily. Where's the beef?

----------


## countryboy

> I know a contrarian troll, when I smell one. Show us all of your anti-Obama threads that you created. LOL!!!


So, in other words, you're full of shit. Not exactly a profound revelation. Are you seriously trying to convince people that I am pro Obama? Wow.  :Moron:  Do you revel in making yourself look like a moron?

For the record, I rarely create threads at all. But my conservative positions are not a secret and are evident in my postings. Why do you feel the need to lie to advance your agenda @DonGlock26? That's usually a lib tactic.

----------


## countryboy

> If I remember correctly, countryboy is a conservative, but is a Hispanic who doesn't want whites to have the same kind of racial and cultural pride that his people are allowed to have in society.


I am obviously a conservative. And yes, I am of Hispanic heritage. Please provide even one post I've made on any forum where I conveyed the idea that I don't *"want whites to have the same kind of racial and cultural pride that his people are allowed to have in society"*. If you're going to make that kind of definitive statement about someone, it shouldn't be too hard. Right?

BTW, "my people" are Americans of a like mind. Unlike you, I don't place race above all else. In fact, the only race that I care about at all is the human race.

It is ironic in the extreme that you claim to be a conservative while at the same time employing lib tactics in a  :Lame:  attempt to smear those who disagree with you. @Brewskier

----------


## countryboy

> I'm not buying that. If he were a conservative, he'd be here bashing Obama daily. Where's the beef?


I do bash Bobama daily, so you must either have a reading comprehension problem, or, you are a liar. I am gonna go with the latter. @DonGlock26

Produce one pro Obama quote from me. Just one.

----------


## Brewski

> I am obviously a conservative. And yes, I am of Hispanic heritage. Please provide even one post I've made on any forum where I conveyed the idea that I don't *"want whites to have the same kind of racial and cultural pride that his people are allowed to have in society"*. If you're going to make that kind of definitive statement about someone, it shouldn't be too hard. Right?


You just seem very upset whenever a white person talks about white pride.  Do you get as equally upset when one of your cousins or friends at school wears a "Brown Pride" T-shirt?  




> BTW, "my people" are Americans of a like mind. Unlike you, I don't place race above all else. In fact, the only race that I care about at all is the human race.
> 
> It is ironic in the extreme that you claim to be a conservative while at the same time employing lib tactics in a  attempt to smear those who disagree with you. @Brewskier


There's differences within every group.  The conservatives I would identify with wouldn't be saying things like "the only race that I care about at all is the human race", especially when they are probably thrilled that the US is being reconquered for Mexico.

----------


## countryboy

> You just seem very upset whenever a white person talks about white pride.  Do you get as equally upset when one of your cousins or friends at school wears a "Brown Pride" T-shirt?


That's fine if that is your perception, but why would that cause you to make such baseless claims about me? I don't have any cousins or friends at school, I'm an older dude, 50ish. But yes, I get equally upset over any type of racial pride. I have no problem with cultural pride, whether it's white, brown, black, or red. And in fact, am greatly interested in other cultures. I am utterly disgusted by groups such as "La Raza". But you shouldn't be, how are they any different than the KKK, or White Nationalists?

And for the record, I am part of the "white" culture. I never really hung around a lot of other Hispanics. I am married to a white gal. But it's not because I made a conscious decision to associate with "whites". I suppose it's just because I hang with like minded people with similar interests.




> There's differences within every group.  The conservatives I would identify with wouldn't be saying things like "the only race that I care about at all is the human race", especially when they are probably thrilled that the US is being reconquered for Mexico.


Again, why would you assume that simply because I care about *all* human beings, that I would be in any way, shape, or form "thrilled" that the US is being reconquered for Mexico? I am virulently against the flood of illegal aliens from Mexico into my country. As are many of my relatives. My grandparents on both sides came to this country LEGALLY, and were appalled at the flood of illegal aliens from Mexico. 

I am equally appalled at some of my fellow conservatives who make statements like, "let them have California". FUCK. THAT. I grew up in SoCal, and would not want to see the great Golden State become part of Mexico. That's just silly talk.

----------

Rudy2D (11-16-2013)

----------


## The XL

I don't see eye to eye with on countryboy all the time, but he's certainly no racist, and has never claimed or insinuated racial superiority.  But around here, if you aren't acting like a stormfront-lite member, you're anti white or some bullshit like that.

And DonGlock calling anyone a leftist is rich, especially after he showed total disdain for the 4th Amendment not long ago.

----------

countryboy (11-14-2013)

----------


## countryboy

> I don't see eye to eye with on countryboy all the time, but he's certainly no racist, and has never claimed or insinuated racial superiority.  But around here, if you aren't acting like a stormfront-lite member, you're anti white or some bullshit like that.
> 
> And DonGlock calling anyone a leftist is rich, especially after he showed total disdain for the 4th Amendment not long ago.


Well, apparently I'm "pro-Bobama" because I don't create ten threads per day showcasing black on white crime.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------

The XL (11-14-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Well, apparently I'm "pro-Bobama" because I don't create ten threads per day showcasing black on white crime.


Yeah, apparently.  Good thing DonGlock isn't the authority on those sorts of things.  I'm still waiting for him to prove he's a Constitutionalist, especially after that whole stop and frisk fiasco he supported.  Just no regard for the 4th Amendment whatsoever.  Progressive as fuck.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Well, apparently I'm "pro-Bobama" because I don't create ten threads per day showcasing black on white crime.



well you oughta consider it countryboy seeing as you're probably one of those white Hispanics.

----------

DonGlock26 (11-14-2013)

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> You just seem very upset whenever a white person talks about white pride.  Do you get as equally upset when one of your cousins or friends at school wears a "Brown Pride" T-shirt?


Why would anyone be "proud" of being of a particular racial heritage? They are what they are through no actions of their own. I am not "proud" of my racial origins. I am not ashamed of my racial origins. They are an integral part of me, but they do not define me.

----------

Rudy2D (11-16-2013),The XL (11-14-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Why would anyone be "proud" of being of a particular racial heritage? They are what they are through no actions of their own. I am not "proud" of my racial origins. I am not ashamed of my racial origins. They are an integral part of me, but they do not define me.


Well said.  Your accomplishments and merits as an individual are all that matter.

----------


## Perianne

Character is what matters.  I don't care what color the person's skin is as long as he or she has good character.

----------


## countryboy

> Yeah, apparently.  Good thing DonGlock isn't the authority on those sorts of things.  I'm still waiting for him to prove he's a Constitutionalist, especially after that whole stop and frisk fiasco he supported.  Just no regard for the 4th Amendment whatsoever.  Progressive as fuck.


Exactly. I don't see how anyone can claim the mantle of  "conservative", and yet advocate for "stop-n-frisk". 

I'm still waiting for @DonGlock26 to come up with a single post by me advocating *any* leftist position. But like the progressive little ***** he is, he just makes baseless claims and then runs away.  

At least Brewskier has the cajones to have a dialogue.

----------

The XL (11-14-2013)

----------


## countryboy

> well you oughta consider it countryboy seeing as you're probably one of those white Hispanics.


Huh? Care to 'splain that to me? @Calypso Jones

----------


## Calypso Jones

it's a joke, CB.   White Hispanic?  Zimmerman.   black on 'white' crime.   It's a reality.  It's not a racist thang, it's a crime thang.  That's what Law Enforcement tell us.    Black perps make it a race thing seeing as they say inconvenient things like 'Kill whitey' or something like that.  But i'm sure it means nothing.    no biggie.

----------


## countryboy

> it's a joke, CB.   White Hispanic?  Zimmerman.   black on 'white' crime.   It's a reality.  It's not a racist thang, it's a crime thang.  That's what Law Enforcement tell us.    Black perps make it a race thing seeing as they say inconvenient things like 'Kill whitey' or something like that.  But i'm sure it means nothing.    no biggie.


That's wut I figgered.  :Smile: 

Black thugs ain't the only one's who make it a racist thang.  :Wink:  

Don.....cough.....Glock.....cough.

----------


## Brewski

> That's fine if that is your perception, but why would that cause you to make such baseless claims about me? I don't have any cousins or friends at school, I'm an older dude, 50ish. But yes, I get equally upset over any type of racial pride.I have no problem with cultural pride, whether it's white, brown, black, or red. And in fact, am greatly interested in other cultures. I am utterly disgusted by groups such as "La Raza". But you shouldn't be, how are they any different than the KKK, or White Nationalists?


The difference is that they are generally accepted and not challenged in any significant way by society.  Minorities are not given a social stigma on their racist beliefs, especially against white people.  Racist blacks are just reacting naturally to past wrongs.  Racist groups like La Raza get a pass because they are said to be the original people of this area, so they are just taking back what is theirs.  Racism is only vehemently opposed when it is being practiced by a white person.  With anyone else, someone may not condone their actions, but the level of venom never even comes close.  

Culture and race are correlated.  If I go to Norway, am I likely to see Norwegian culture more in the native population, or in the Islamic immigrants who have come there within the last several decades? When Mexicans came to Southern California, why did the culture in that area change to resemble that of Mexico?  Shouldn't these new immigrants act like the people who were there before them?  




> And for the record, I am part of the "white" culture. I never really hung around a lot of other Hispanics. I am married to a white gal. But it's not because I made a conscious decision to associate with "whites". I suppose it's just because I hang with like minded people with similar interests.


Most of my friends growing up were Hispanic.  I didn't have much of a choice, since they were the majority.  Most were of the more whitewashed variety, but there were still differences.  They and their families had a different culture from my family.  At the time I just chocked it up to the way things were, but later on when I moved to other areas, I realized just how little I related to them.  I seeked out people who were more likeminded, and they happened to be white.  




> Again, why would you assume that simply because I care about *all* human beings, that I would be in any way, shape, or form "thrilled" that the US is being reconquered for Mexico? I am virulently against the flood of illegal aliens from Mexico into my country. As are many of my relatives. My grandparents on both sides came to this country LEGALLY, and were appalled at the flood of illegal aliens from Mexico. 
> 
> I am equally appalled at some of my fellow conservatives who make statements like, "let them have California". FUCK. THAT. I grew up in SoCal, and would not want to see the great Golden State become part of Mexico. That's just silly talk.


It already is, essentially.   40 years ago it was probably a nice place.

----------


## Brewski

> Why would anyone be "proud" of being of a particular racial heritage? They are what they are through no actions of their own. I am not "proud" of my racial origins. I am not ashamed of my racial origins. They are an integral part of me, but they do not define me.


That's like saying you can't be proud of being a part of a family, because you were  born into that family through no actions of your own.  You can't be proud of being tall, because you did that through no action of your own.  Etc,etc.   I wasn't aware that the only thing someone can be proud of is something they accomplished.  

Only white people think like you do.  Society only pressures white people into thinking this way.  Every other group is not only allowed to be proud of themselves, but are encouraged to.    Only whites are expected to cheer on their own extinction and the loss of their own countries.    What other racial group is currently being attacked in this way?  

Whites should be proud enough to resist allowing their unique physical characteristics and culture from being drowned in a sea of diversity.  A black person can mate with any other race and produce another black person.  Whites can't do that.

----------


## countryboy

> The difference is that they are generally accepted and not challenged in any significant way by society.  Minorities are not given a social stigma on their racist beliefs, especially against white people.  Racist blacks are just reacting naturally to past wrongs.  Racist groups like La Raza get a pass because they are said to be the original people of this area, so they are just taking back what is theirs.  Racism is only vehemently opposed when it is being practiced by a white person.  With anyone else, someone may not condone their actions, but the level of venom never even comes close.


Who gives them a pass? Liberals maybe, but not normal people. You are simply exaggerating in the extreme, due to your extremely biased opinion. C'mon dude, who the fuck says, "La Raza get a pass because they are said to be the original people of this area"? See what I mean about making shit up to advance your agenda? Why do you feel the need to do that?

I vehemently oppose all racism, and I am not the exception.




> Culture and race are correlated.  If I go to Norway, am I likely to see Norwegian culture more in the native population, or in the Islamic immigrants who have come there within the last several decades? When Mexicans came to Southern California, why did the culture in that area change to resemble that of Mexico?  Shouldn't these new immigrants act like the people who were there before them?


Mexicans didn't "come" to Southern California, they've always been there. It was once part of Mexico, before that it was part of Spain. The culture of SoCal has always had elements of Mexican culture. If anything, whites brought their culture to California, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Have you ever been to San Diego? There's a lot of white people, and culture there. People have always retained at least a part of their ethnic heritage. Whites are no exception to that rule. 

Having said all that, Southern California is now part of The United States of America. Government forms shouldn't be printed in Spanish, they should be in English only. That's our language. If you want to live in our country, you should learn it. So yes, I agree with you people should assimilate into the country the live in, and should expect no special accommodations. But that doesn't mean they should have to rid themselves completely of their native culture. Just as Europeans who choose to live in the US shouldn't have to completely rid themselves of their culture.







> Most of my friends growing up were Hispanic.  I didn't have much of a choice, since they were the majority.  Most were of the more whitewashed variety, but there were still differences.  They and their families had a different culture from my family.  At the time I just chocked it up to the way things were, but later on when I moved to other areas, I realized just how little I related to them.  I seeked out people who were more likeminded, and they happened to be white.


And that's fine. Freedom of association should never be hindered in any way. Just as "multiculturalism" should never be forced on people in any way.

Would you care to list some of the "cultural" differences between you and your Hispanic friends? 






> It already is, essentially.   40 years ago it was probably a nice place.


Dude. Yes, 40 years ago, it was a much nicer place. But that is true of anywhere in the United States. Southern California is still a damn beautiful place, in spite of decades of liberal policies. The only reason I would prolly never move back has more to do with overcrowding than anything else. That, and the cost of living.

Again, have you ever even been to SoCal? It's nothing like Mexico. For that matter, have you ever been to Mexico? If not, you should go. At least to SoCal, Mexico ain't too safe these days.

----------


## DonGlock26

> So, in other words, you're full of shit. Not exactly a profound revelation. Are you seriously trying to convince people that I am pro Obama? Wow.  Do you revel in making yourself look like a moron?
> 
> For the record, I rarely create threads at all. But my conservative positions are not a secret and are evident in my postings. Why do you feel the need to lie to advance your agenda @DonGlock26? That's usually a lib tactic.


There's no need to convince anyone of anything. I am enjoying your meltdown and childish name-calling though.

So, show us all the anti Obama quotes. Hahahaha!!!  

Ok, have you created any seriously anti-Democrat threads, since you got here?

----------


## DonGlock26

> I do bash Bobama daily, so you must either have a reading comprehension problem, or, you are a liar. I am gonna go with the latter. @DonGlock26
> 
> Produce one pro Obama quote from me. Just one.


Ok, let's see them.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I don't see eye to eye with on countryboy all the time, but he's certainly no racist, and has never claimed or insinuated racial superiority.  But around here, if you aren't acting like a stormfront-lite member, you're anti white or some bullshit like that.
> 
> And DonGlock calling anyone a leftist is rich, especially after he showed total disdain for the 4th Amendment not long ago.


I have disdain for the 14th that put the states under the federal yoke. Apparently, you are a garden-variety statist.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Why would anyone be "proud" of being of a particular racial heritage? They are what they are through no actions of their own. I am not "proud" of my racial origins. I am not ashamed of my racial origins. They are an integral part of me, but they do not define me.


Do you belong to any cultural group?

----------


## countryboy

> That's like saying you can't be proud of being a part of a family, because you were  born into that family through no actions of your own.  You can't be proud of being tall, because you did that through no action of your own.  Etc,etc.   I wasn't aware that the only thing someone can be proud of is something they accomplished.  
> 
> Only white people think like you do.  Society only pressures white people into thinking this way.  Every other group is not only allowed to be proud of themselves, but are encouraged to.    Only whites are expected to cheer on their own extinction and the loss of their own countries.    What other racial group is currently being attacked in this way?  
> 
> Whites should be proud enough to resist allowing their unique physical characteristics and culture from being drowned in a sea of diversity.  A black person can mate with any other race and produce another black person.  Whites can't do that.


Really? It's illegal for you to mate with other white people?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Well said.  Your accomplishments and merits as an individual are all that matter.


Unless you are a minority getting affirmative action goodies from the federal gov't.

----------


## countryboy

> Ok, let's see them.


You made the accusation, so you must be able to provide some proof. But, you are simply making shit up like any good progressive would.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Exactly. I don't see how anyone can claim the mantle of  "conservative", and yet advocate for "stop-n-frisk". 
> 
> I'm still waiting for @DonGlock26 to come up with a single post by me advocating *any* leftist position. But like the progressive little ***** he is, he just makes baseless claims and then runs away.  
> 
> At least Brewskier has the cajones to have a dialogue.



Conservatives are for law and order. I say let the states handle their public safety issues and let the federal gov't handle defense and the border. 

I don't have to. I see that your posting history consists of mostly personal attacks on forum members and a profound lack of anti-Obama threads. 

That reeks of Contrarian Troll-kind.

----------


## countryboy

> Unless you are a minority getting affirmative action goodies from the federal gov't.


Really, whites don't get entitlement goodies from the federal government? Wait, I thought whites _were_ the minority now.

----------


## DonGlock26

> You made the accusation, so you must be able to provide some proof. But, you are simply making shit up like any good progressive would.


 I'm waiting for you to show us the "_bash Bobama daily" posts with links. I think this is the part where you refuse to show us them._

----------


## DonGlock26

> Really, whites don't get entitlement goodies from the federal government? Wait, I thought whites _were_ the minority now.


Like what?

----------


## countryboy

> Conservatives are for law and order. I say let the states handle their public safety issues and let the federal gov't handle defense and the border. 
> 
> I don't have to. I see that your posting history consists of mostly personal attacks on forum members and a profound lack of anti-Obama threads. 
> 
> That reeks of Contrarian Troll-kind.


I've created a total of five threads since I've been here, none were political. What does that prove? Your lame attempt at obfuscation is noted.

I assume you can provide evidence that, "your posting history consists of mostly personal attacks on forum members"? I think what you mean is, my posting history contains a profound lack of black on white crime threads, therefore I must be pro-Obama.  :Lame:

----------


## countryboy

> I'm waiting for you to show us the "_bash Bobama daily" posts with links. I think this is the part where you refuse to show us them._


Why should I have to prove a baseless accusation? If you don't know how to use the search function, ask a 12 year old to help you out.

You really are making a complete fool of yourself. Why?

----------


## DonGlock26

> You made the accusation, so you must be able to provide some proof. But, you are simply making shit up like any good progressive would.


That's what I thought. So, why are you here?

This isn't rocket science. Where are the daily anti-Obama posts?

I don't see them.

http://thepoliticsforums.com/search.php?searchid=248949

----------


## countryboy

> Like what?


Do you want to have a serious discussion? Are you seriously saying whites don't receive entitlements from the federal government? There are no whites on welfare? There are no whites living in section 8 housing? Why do you continue to embarrass yourself?

----------


## DonGlock26

> I've created a total of five threads since I've been here, none were political. What does that prove? Your lame attempt at obfuscation is noted.
> 
> I assume you can provide evidence that, "your posting history consists of mostly personal attacks on forum members"? I think what you mean is, my posting history contains a profound lack of black on white crime threads, therefore I must be pro-Obama.



Your lack of thread creation (especially anti-Obama threads and posts) along with your penchant to attack forum members at a mostly conservative political forum tells me that you aren't here to attack Obama.

----------


## countryboy

> That's what I thought. So, why are you here?
> 
> This isn't rocket science. Where are the daily anti-Obama posts?
> 
> I don't see them.
> 
> http://thepoliticsforums.com/search.php?searchid=248949


Where's the pro-Obama posts? Where's a single post with a leftist position?

Your link leads to nothing. Don't you have a 12 year old nephew who can help you operate a computer or something?

----------


## countryboy

> Your lack of thread creation (especially anti-Obama threads and posts) along with your penchant to attack forum members at a mostly conservative political forum tells me that you aren't here to attack Obama.


If I create some black on white crime threads, will you like me?

----------

The XL (11-15-2013)

----------


## DonGlock26

> Why should I have to prove a baseless accusation? If you don't know how to use the search function, ask a 12 year old to help you out.
> 
> You really are making a complete fool of yourself. Why?


I've used the search function, and I'm still asking for you to produce the claimed daily anti-Obama posts.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Do you want to have a serious discussion? Are you seriously saying whites don't receive entitlements from the federal government? There are no whites on welfare? There are no whites living in section 8 housing? Why do you continue to embarrass yourself?


Who said anything about entitlements? You've created a strawman and now you are going to make a mess tearing up your creation.

----------


## countryboy

> Who said anything about entitlements? You've created a strawman and now you are going to make a mess tearing up your creation.


I did, and you responded with, "like what". Try and keep up.

----------


## DonGlock26

> If I create some black on white crime threads, will you like me?


You came into this thread about Jews being beaten by blacks and began to make an ass out of yourself. Don't cry now because you are getting smacked around a bit.

----------

Brewski (11-14-2013)

----------


## DonGlock26

> I did, and you responded with, "like what". Try and keep up.


Which has ZERO to do with my comment about affirmative action. So far, you've provided no examples of whites getting affirmative action.

LOL!!!

----------


## countryboy

> I've used the search function, and I'm still asking for you to produce the claimed daily anti-Obama posts.


Then you already know the gist of my posting. Why do you continue to obfuscate?

----------


## countryboy

> Which has ZERO to do with my comment about affirmative action. So far, you've provided no examples of whites getting affirmative action.
> 
> LOL!!!


Why would whites get affirmative action? Are you on drugs?

----------


## countryboy

> You came into this thread about Jews being beaten by blacks and began to make an ass out of yourself. Don't cry now because you are getting smacked around a bit.


Please, you couldn't smack me around on your best day, let alone today. How exactly did I make an ass out of myself?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Then you already know the gist of my posting. Why do you continue to obfuscate?


I know the game you are playing. That's why you can't show us the "daily anti-Obama" posts.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Why would whites get affirmative action?


Why is there AA at all?

----------


## countryboy

> Why is there AA at all?


Because of liberal numbskulls.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Why would anyone be "proud" of being of a particular racial heritage? They are what they are through no actions of their own. I am not "proud" of my racial origins. I am not ashamed of my racial origins. They are an integral part of me, but they do not define me.


are you guys clueless or just in a state of denial?   BLACKS are proud of being BLACK.  I"M BLACK AND I"M PROUD.  What about the Hispanics...what is that racist organization they belong to and our gov't gives special consideration to?   Seems everyone on the face of the earth can be proud of their heritage....but americans.

----------

Brewski (11-14-2013)

----------


## DonGlock26

> Please, you couldn't smack me around on your best day, let alone today. How exactly did I make an ass out of myself?


It's already happened. 

You should read your own entry to this thread.

----------


## Brewski

> Who gives them a pass? Liberals maybe, but not normal people. You are simply exaggerating in the extreme, due to your extremely biased opinion. C'mon dude, who the fuck says, "La Raza get a pass because they are said to be the original people of this area"? See what I mean about making shit up to advance your agenda? Why do you feel the need to do that?


Why do you require that somebody actually say "La Raza gets a pass..."?  The pass is implied by the lack of concern over this group, and the goals that its membership is hoping to achieve.  I just searched through the Southern Poverty Law Center site, which catalogues virtually every white nationalist/white supremacist group in existence, and I did not see "La Raza" listed as a hate group.  In fact, I found articles on SPLC on how La Raza _is not_ a hate group.  They're just a "civil rights" group, you see.  Their goal of reclaiming the southwest for Hispanic people is just part of their civil rights activism.  

Do you think the Southern Poverty Law Center would defend a "civil rights" group that wants to claim a part of the US for white people?  




> I vehemently oppose all racism, and I am not the exception.


But some more vehemently than others.  





> Mexicans didn't "come" to Southern California, they've always been there. It was once part of Mexico, before that it was part of Spain. The culture of SoCal has always had elements of Mexican culture. If anything, whites brought their culture to California, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Have you ever been to San Diego? There's a lot of white people, and culture there. People have always retained at least a part of their ethnic heritage. Whites are no exception to that rule.


60-70 years ago California was nearly 90% white.  In 1970 they were just short of 80%.  Today whites account for just a little over 40% of the population, and this number is declining every year.   Just because a few random Mexicans were roaming around the great stretches of nothingness in California before whites got there doesn't mean that Mexicans were "always there", at least in the context that I am referring to.  This was a white state not that long ago.  




> Having said all that, Southern California is now part of The United States of America. Government forms shouldn't be printed in Spanish, they should be in English only. That's our language. If you want to live in our country, you should learn it. So yes, I agree with you people should assimilate into the country the live in, and should expect no special accommodations. But that doesn't mean they should have to rid themselves completely of their native culture. Just as Europeans who choose to live in the US shouldn't have to completely rid themselves of their culture.


Good luck with that.  Perhaps if whites were maintaining their population advantage the minority would be pressured into assimilating.  As it stands, whites are on the decline, so there is little reason to assimilate.  The land belongs to them, and this becomes more true every year.  




> And that's fine. Freedom of association should never be hindered in any way. Just as "multiculturalism" should never be forced on people in any way.
> 
> Would you care to list some of the "cultural" differences between you and your Hispanic friends?


Not really, seems like a waste of time.  I think most reasonable people would understand that a typical white family is going to be different than a typical Hispanic family.  Different cultures, and all.  




> Dude. Yes, 40 years ago, it was a much nicer place. But that is true of anywhere in the United States. Southern California is still a damn beautiful place, in spite of decades of liberal policies. The only reason I would prolly never move back has more to do with overcrowding than anything else. That, and the cost of living.
> 
> Again, have you ever even been to SoCal? It's nothing like Mexico. For that matter, have you ever been to Mexico? If not, you should go. At least to SoCal, Mexico ain't too safe these days.


Have I ever been to SoCal?  I live there now, and I have for my entire life.  And yes, I've been to Mexico several times.  It's scary how much South Gate resembles it, and it was just across town from me.

----------

DonGlock26 (11-14-2013)

----------


## Brewski

> Really? It's illegal for you to mate with other white people?


Where did I say that?

----------


## countryboy

> I know the game you are playing. That's why you can't show us the "daily anti-Obama" posts.


Dude, it is you playing the games. Here, since you cannot seem to figger out how to use the search function, I'll hep a bruther out. http://thepoliticsforums.com/search.php?searchid=248960

Now, click on the area of text that's a different color. That's known as a "hyperlink". It takes you to a specific location on the, "world wide web", or, "www". I'm sorry man, I'm typing as slow as I can.

Now, in twenty pages of posts, you should have little difficulty finding *one* pro-Obama posting. Just one. Get to work son.

----------


## countryboy

> are you guys clueless or just in a state of denial?   BLACKS are proud of being BLACK.  I"M BLACK AND I"M PROUD.  What about the Hispanics...what is that racist organization they belong to and our gov't gives special consideration to?   Seems everyone on the face of the earth can be proud of their heritage....but americans.


That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 

We're not talking about being proud of one's heritage, we're talking about being proud of one's race.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Dude, it is you playing the games. Here, since you cannot seem to figger out how to use the search function, I'll hep a bruther out. http://thepoliticsforums.com/search.php?searchid=248960
> 
> Now, click on the area of text that's a different color. That's known as a "hyperlink". It takes you to a specific location on the, "world wide web", or, "www". I'm sorry man, I'm typing as slow as I can.
> 
> Now, in twenty pages of posts, you should have little difficulty finding *one* pro-Obama posting. Just one. Get to work son.


One? You are a conservative that posts them daily, remember? Only, I can't find them. LOL!!!!!

----------


## DonGlock26

> That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 
> 
> We're not talking about being proud of one's heritage, we're talking about being proud of one's race.


Let's cut to the chase- Are you unconcerned that black mobs are beating non-blacks (mostly whites) and in some cases murdering them?

----------


## countryboy

> One? You are a conservative that posts them daily, remember? Only, I can't find them. LOL!!!!!


That's cool man, if you want to continue to make shit up, that's your prerogative.

----------


## DonGlock26

> That's cool man, if you want to continue to make shit up, that's your prerogative.


I know it's cool. It's also clear as crystal to anyone who wants to look for themselves at your post history at the link that I put up.

----------


## countryboy

> Why do you require that somebody actually say "La Raza gets a pass..."?  The pass is implied by the lack of concern over this group, and the goals that its membership is hoping to achieve.  I just searched through the Southern Poverty Law Center site, which catalogues virtually every white nationalist/white supremacist group in existence, and I did not see "La Raza" listed as a hate group.  In fact, I found articles on SPLC on how La Raza _is not_ a hate group.  They're just a "civil rights" group, you see.  Their goal of reclaiming the southwest for Hispanic people is just part of their civil rights activism.  
> 
> Do you think the Southern Poverty Law Center would defend a "civil rights" group that wants to claim a part of the US for white people?


Actually, if the SPLC were completely honest, they would be on their own list of racist organizations. Your point?






> But some more vehemently than others.


So?







> 60-70 years ago California was nearly 90% white.  In 1970 they were just short of 80%.  Today whites account for just a little over 40% of the population, and this number is declining every year.   Just because a few random Mexicans were roaming around the great stretches of nothingness in California before whites got there doesn't mean that Mexicans were "always there", at least in the context that I am referring to.  This was a white state not that long ago.


Do you have a reputable source for those stats? 

Since we seem to be having a civil conversation, I'll be kind. Why do you continue to use hyperbolic bullshit to explain your agenda? A few random Mexicans were roaming around MEXICO? Do you know there are 16th century Spanish missions in SoCal?




> Good luck with that.  Perhaps if whites were maintaining their population advantage the minority would be pressured into assimilating.  As it stands, whites are on the decline, so there is little reason to assimilate.  The land belongs to them, and this becomes more true every year.


It doesn't have do do with race as much as political ideology. The land doesn't belong to "them". Although, I will admit if the libs have their way, and a lot of repubes too, amnesty will happen (officially, it's already defacto), ensuring liberal policies in perpetuity. I'm with you on that one, and many more I'm sure. In fact, we probably agree politically on more than we disagree. 




> Not really, seems like a waste of time.  I think most reasonable people would understand that a typical white family is going to be different than a typical Hispanic family.  Different cultures, and all.


It's not a waste of time. But if you don't want to, okay.




> Have I ever been to SoCal?  I live there now, and I have for my entire life.  And yes, I've been to Mexico several times.  It's scary how much South Gate resembles it, and it was just across town from me.


If you hate it so much, why do you stay? No offense man, but you live in L.A., one of the largest liberal cesspools in the world. You need to head North, South, or East. The battle for L.A. is lost. Retreat, retreat!!!

----------


## countryboy

> I know it's cool. It's also clear as crystal to anyone who wants to look for themselves at your post history at the link that I put up.


You mean the link I put up. Yours doesn't work. In fact, this thread alone makes it crystal clear.

----------


## DonGlock26

> You mean the link I put up. Yours doesn't work. In fact, this thread alone makes it crystal clear.


Yours doesn't work for me. If anyone is interested, they can search your posts simply by clicking on your name above your avatar. Then, they will see the lack of anti-Obama posts or threads.

----------


## countryboy

> Let's cut to the chase- Are you unconcerned that black mobs are beating non-blacks (mostly whites) and in some cases murdering them?


Wow, I missed this one. I'll ask you again. Are you on drugs?

----------


## Brewski

> Actually, if the SPLC were completely honest, they would be on their own list of racist organizations. Your point?


I already said:  that supremacist and nationalist groups in other races are tolerated much more than white supremacist and nationalist groups.  




> So?


Thank you for finally abandoning the pretense of being "equally upset over any type of racial pride."  It bothers you more when a white person is racist than a fellow Hispanic, a black, a Jew, or any other minority group.  You contradicted yourself:




> But yes, I get equally upset over any type of racial pride.





> Do you have a reputable source for those stats?


I certainly do.  

1940:  
Total population: 6,907,387
White non-Hispanic - 6,196,940 (89.7%)
Hispanic  - 415,113 (6%)

1970:  
Total population: 19,957,304
White non-Hispanic - 15,222,210 (76.3%)
Hispanic  - 2,738,513 (13.2%)

2010
Total Population: 37,253,956
White non-Hispanic: 14,956,253 (40.1%)
Hispanic:  14,013,719 (37.6%)

As you can see, every single statistic I mentioned is 100% accurate.  




> Since we seem to be having a civil conversation, I'll be kind. Why do you continue to use hyperbolic bullshit to explain your agenda? A few random Mexicans were roaming around MEXICO? Do you know there are 16th century Spanish missions in SoCal?


Yeah, so?  How does that disprove my claim?  I haven't disputed that the Spanish and Spanish/Indian mixture (Hispanics) were here before the whites got here.  My point is simply that it's disingenuous to act like this area was a dense and populous Hispanic area prior to when the whites got here.  The area was very sparsely populated, and it stayed that way for quite a while.  It wasn't until the gold rush that the state started getting more populated, and even then, it didn't grow that fast.  In 1940 there were less than 7 million people living in the state.  In 73 years that number has almost increased 6 fold, thanks in part to our immigration policy.  




> It doesn't have do do with race as much as political ideology. The land doesn't belong to "them". Although, I will admit if the libs have their way, and a lot of repubes too, amnesty will happen (officially, it's already defacto), ensuring liberal policies in perpetuity. I'm with you on that one, and many more I'm sure. In fact, we probably agree politically on more than we disagree.


Most likely, however you are well aware that you are in the minority amongst Hispanics.  I think we're already past the tipping point where we will never see a conservative President win, but it gets more and more unlikely as the Hispanic population grows as the white population declines. 




> It's not a waste of time. But if you don't want to, okay.


Thank you.




> If you hate it so much, why do you stay? No offense man, but you live in L.A., one of the largest liberal cesspools in the world. You need to head North, South, or East. The battle for L.A. is lost. Retreat, retreat!!!


First chance I get.  The problem is, as the demographics of L.A branch out to other areas, those areas will become liberal as well.  One of the main reasons why New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and (soon) Arizona all went from red states to purple states to blue states is because each of these states have had large increases in their Hispanic populations.  Understandably, this has touched off white flight in some of these states, further adding to the problem.  

The only place left for whites is the Pacific Northwest, and as I showed in another thread, southern Idaho, parts of Washington, eastern Oregon, and even parts of Wyoming now have areas with large Hispanic populations.  It's almost like a disease.  Whites can't just go somewhere and be left alone.  Minorities follow them looking for good schools, safe neighborhoods, and jobs.

----------


## countryboy

> Yours doesn't work for me. If anyone is interested, they can search your posts simply by clicking on your name above your avatar. Then, they will see the lack of anti-Obama posts or threads.


There is no lack of anti Obama posts, there is a lack of thread creation of any kind, which doesn't bolster your lies. One doesn't need to create multiple threads every day about black on white crime to prove they are anti Obama. No matter how badly you'd like to convince yourself of that.

----------


## DonGlock26

> There is no lack of anti Obama posts,.


Oh, but there is and we both know it.

----------


## countryboy

> I already said:  that supremacist and nationalist groups in other races are tolerated much more than white supremacist and nationalist groups.


By the SLPC, a racist organization. What does that prove exactly? I mean, besides nothing.






> Thank you for finally abandoning the pretense of being "equally upset over any type of racial pride."  It bothers you more when a white person is racist than a fellow Hispanic, a black, a Jew, or any other minority group.  You contradicted yourself:


I was responding to your statement that some people oppose racism more vehemently than others, only. I have no pretense to drop. You are simply lying and making shit up about me, which seems to be your favorite tactic to advance your agenda. A typical liberal maneuver.






> I certainly do.  
> 
> 1940:  
> Total population: 6,907,387
> White non-Hispanic - 6,196,940 (89.7%)
> Hispanic  - 415,113 (6%)
> 
> 1970:  
> Total population: 19,957,304
> ...


Yep, thanks. That's interesting. But whites still make up 75% of the population of the USA, so not sure what you are panicky about.




> Yeah, so?  How does that disprove my claim?  I haven't disputed that the Spanish and Spanish/Indian mixture (Hispanics) were here before the whites got here.  My point is simply that it's disingenuous to act like this area was a dense and populous Hispanic area prior to when the whites got here.  The area was very sparsely populated, and it stayed that way for quite a while.  It wasn't until the gold rush that the state started getting more populated, and even then, it didn't grow that fast.  In 1940 there were less than 7 million people living in the state.  In 73 years that number has almost increased 6 fold, thanks in part to our immigration policy.


Yes, but your main concern is the influx of non whites. I doubt if the majority of illegal aliens were coming in from Northern Europe, you'd be so concerned. Even though the majority of them would be liberal voters as well.





> Most likely, however you are well aware that you are in the minority amongst Hispanics.  I think we're already past the tipping point where we will never see a conservative President win, but it gets more and more unlikely as the Hispanic population grows as the white population declines.


Yes, I am in the minority, but not as much as you make me out to be. And in fact, you still feel the need to make shit up about me in an attempt to further your agenda. If your facts are facts, why make shit up?





> Thank you.


Well, that's fine. But I suspect your reluctance to list the cultural differences stems more from how much we have in common, rather than the differences. Heaven forbid your fellow travelers find that out. 





> First chance I get.  The problem is, as the demographics of L.A branch out to other areas, those areas will become liberal as well.  One of the main reasons why New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and (soon) Arizona all went from red states to purple states to blue states is because each of these states have had large increases in their Hispanic populations.  Understandably, this has touched off white flight in some of these states, further adding to the problem.


I have stated my concern for the influx of democrat voters. On this we agree, albeit for different reasons. You do realize there is no shortage of white libs, right?




> The only place left for whites is the Pacific Northwest, and as I showed in another thread, southern Idaho, parts of Washington, eastern Oregon, and even parts of Wyoming now have areas with large Hispanic populations.  It's almost like a disease.  Whites can't just go somewhere and be left alone.  Minorities follow them looking for good schools, safe neighborhoods, and jobs.


What you mean is, the only place left for whites who don't want to associate with other races is the Pacific Northwest, in your opinion. As wrong as it is.

And your comparison of non whites to a "disease" doesn't bolster your claim that you are not a racist.

----------


## countryboy

> Oh, but there is and we both know it.


Prove it. You can't. 

Also, earlier in this thread you claimed I was a leftist. I asked you to produce one post of mine that was from a leftist position. You couldn't. Just one. Why is that so difficult if I am the leftist Obama supporter you make me out to be?

----------


## Perianne

Blank post.

----------


## countryboy

> Blank post.


Why did you delete this post and mention @Perianne?

----------


## Brewski

> By the SLPC, a racist organization. What does that prove exactly? I mean, besides nothing.


Is the SLPC considered a "racist organization" by the majority of society?  Not even close.  They are partnered up with the very Government of the society we live in.  




> The Southern Poverty Law Center is listed under the resources section of the Federal Bureau of Investigation web page on hate crimes.[84] The FBI has partnered with the SPLC "to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems". Due to legal limitations on the FBI, it relies on the SPLC and other civil rights organizations in collecting data on hate groups.[79][84][85][86][87]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Souther...rty_Law_Center

So we have a group who defends La Raza and is also partnered up with the FBI.  




> I was responding to your statement that some people oppose racism more vehemently than others, only. I have no pretense to drop. You are simply lying and making shit up about me, which seems to be your favorite tactic to advance your agenda. A typical liberal maneuver.


You misunderstood my post:




> I vehemently oppose all racism, and I am not the exception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				But some more vehemently than others. 
> 
> 
> ...






> Yep, thanks. That's interesting. But whites still make up 75% of the population of the USA, so not sure what you are panicky about.


No they don't, they make up 62% of the US population, and this is expected to drop to 40% in less than 3 decades.  The 75% comes from the fact that many Hispanics identify as "white" in the Census figures.   The prospect of the entire country having the same demographic profile as California is something to panic about, unless you're one of the groups that benefits.  




> Yes, but your main concern is the influx of non whites. I doubt if the majority of illegal aliens were coming in from Northern Europe, you'd be so concerned. Even though the majority of them would be liberal voters as well.


You're right, I would be less concerned.  If we are going to have liberal voters, I'd rather have Northern Europeans here than Hispanics.  That's how it was back before 1965.  




> Yes, I am in the minority, but not as much as you make me out to be.


How is that?  You realize that almost 3/4ths of Hispanics voted for Obama in 2012, right?   You act as if Hispanics are split 51/49.




> And in fact, you still feel the need to make shit up about me in an attempt to further your agenda. If your facts are facts, why make shit up?


I'm not making up anything.  




> Well, that's fine. But I suspect your reluctance to list the cultural differences stems more from how much we have in common, rather than the differences. Heaven forbid your fellow travelers find that out.


Whether you and I have more in common than not is irrelevant to the conversation.  I'm discussing demographics, which is looking at the overall groups.  There are big cultural differences between American whites and Hispanics.  And even if there weren't, I would still oppose our immigration policies simply based on the fact that I do not want to see the race I belong to bred out of existence.  I think there should be countries for whites, since every other race has countries that are not being threatened like this.  




> I have stated my concern for the influx of democrat voters. On this we agree, albeit for different reasons. You do realize there is no shortage of white libs, right?


No shortage, but whites are the only racial group whose majority does not vote liberal.  You realize that, right?  




> What you mean is, the only place left for whites who don't want to associate with other races is the Pacific Northwest, in your opinion. As wrong as it is.


There's nothing wrong with my opinion.  




> And your comparison of non whites to a "disease" doesn't bolster your claim that you are not a racist.


When did I make that claim?  

The disease is the spread of non-whites into white areas, not the non-whites themselves.

----------


## countryboy

> Is the SLPC considered a "racist organization" by the majority of society?  Not even close.  They are partnered up with the very Government of the society we live in.  
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Souther...rty_Law_Center
> 
> So we have a group who defends La Raza and is also partnered up with the FBI.  
> 
> 
> ...


Any further discussion with you is clearly a waste of time. If you will not even own up to your own words, what's the point? Your virulent racism has been made clear to all who care to see. My work here is finished.

I have no ill will toward you Brewskier, and I pray that whatever placed you on this road of hatred can someday be rectified, and you will see the light. You have some valid points, but they are clouded by your extreme racist viewpoints. No good can ever come from your current positions. In fact, the hatred you potentially stir up is actually counterproductive to what you wish to achieve. I am not your enemy, and until you realize that, you will only continue down the dark path you have chosen for yourself. Evil has you by the proverbial balls, and will continue to squeeze out any good that may be left in you. Very sad.

----------


## Brewski

> Any further discussion with you is clearly a waste of time. If you will not even own up to your own words, what's the point? Your virulent racism has been made clear to all who care to see. My work here is finished.
> 
> I have no ill will toward you Brewskier, and I pray that whatever placed you on this road of hatred can someday be rectified, and you will see the light. You have some valid points, but they are clouded by your extreme racist viewpoints. No good can ever come from your current positions. In fact, the hatred you potentially stir up is actually counterproductive to what you wish to achieve. I am not your enemy, and until you realize that, you will only continue down the dark path you have chosen for yourself. Evil has you by the proverbial balls, and will continue to squeeze out any good that may be left in you. Very sad.


Self-righteous dodge is noted.

----------

DonGlock26 (11-15-2013)

----------


## The XL

> I have disdain for the 14th that put the states under the federal yoke. Apparently, you are a garden-variety statist.


Individual rights trump all.  And you're using tyranny of the state to justify your disdain of the Bill of Rights.

Shameful.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Individual rights trump all.  And you're using tyranny of the state to justify your disdain of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Shameful.


We are losing those rights thanks to an out of control Federal gov't made possible by statist mindsets like yours.

----------


## Gemini

> We are losing those rights thanks to an out of control Federal gov't made possible by statist mindsets like yours.


 @DonGlock26, While I share a concern of the demographics of the country, calling the Xl a statist is possibly the greatest misnomer of all forum history.

----------


## countryboy

> @DonGlock26, While I share a concern of the demographics of the country, calling the Xl a statist is possibly the greatest misnomer of all forum history.


It's his habit. He called me a pro-Obama leftist.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## DonGlock26

> @DonGlock26, While I share a concern of the demographics of the country, calling the Xl a statist is possibly the greatest misnomer of all forum history.


I'll explain; though it is a little technical. He likes to follow me around the forum like a puppy and go off-topic with insults about my defense of the NYPD's stop and frisk policy that effectively lowered gang-related homicides (keep in mind that A LOT of innocent Americans get murdered by gangs in the US every year and the Establishment in these cities rarely give a shit- NYC does).

After much debate, we established that I respect the spirit of the constitution as it was written by the founding fathers as a limit on a central national gov't's powers. It didn't limit the states' individual gov'ts at all in most domestic matters. 

That all changed with the Supreme court's assumed power of judicial review (it is not written in the COTUS), their absurdly broad view of the interstate commerce clause that gives the federal gov't the power to regulate almost anything in the 50 states (57 if you are Barack 'The Genius" Obama), the Civil War assault on the Southern States, and the Fourteenth amendment that was forced on the Southern States before they could become fully returned to the Union, and the income tax (16th amendment). XL supports this growth of the central gov't's powers over the states, so that the states are bound by the COTUS AND the rulings of the federal courts on all sorts of local law enforcement matters, the schools, and on and on it goes. XL supports this enormous grown in the federal gov't's power and size. That's why he is a statist. He's a statist when he thinks it benefits himself. 

My opinion is that the states should be as free to police themselves as the day they ratified the COTUS and as the voters of the state see fit, and not as some unelected federal judge or panel of judges in a federal court wants them to. This growth of federal power is the reason our nation is in serious decline.

XL is embarrassed at his chastisement and can't let it go, so he yaps a lot at my heels in various threads.

----------


## DonGlock26

> It's his habit. He called me a pro-Obama leftist.


Your claimed "daily" criticism of Obama is non-existent. Anyone who wants to search for them need only to click on your name.

----------


## usfan

well, i've been called a statist by the anarchists here.. but i would be hard pressed to see much statism in the XL.

But, to address the OP, IIRC, there was a game of knockout of 'woods' which is a new, cool racial slur for white people.. evidently short for 'peckerwoods'.  

_In St. Louis alone, a judge said one person was responsible for 300 episodes of the Knockout Game. In Oklahoma, an accused killer of the Australian college student Chris Lane tweeted that he was “playing golf” and hitting “woods” prior to the murder earlier this month. Woods is short for “peckerwoods:” White people. The Knockout Game._
_He said he did that five times since the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin._
source


But this just means i won't be able to call the xl a peckerwood anymore..  I guess i'll just have to call him a statist..   :Laughing7:

----------

DonGlock26 (11-16-2013)

----------


## countryboy

> Your claimed "daily" criticism of Obama is non-existent. Anyone who wants to search for them need only to click on your name.


And doing so proves you to be the lying POS you are. If you want to continue to make a fool of yourself, that's your business.

----------


## Gemini

> I'll explain; though it is a little technical. He likes to follow me around the forum like a puppy and go off-topic with insults about my defense of the NYPD's stop and frisk policy that effectively lowered gang-related homicides (keep in mind that A LOT of innocent Americans get murdered by gangs in the US every year and the Establishment in these cities rarely give a shit- NYC does).


These good intentions have gone too far, which is why they should never have been implemented in the first place.  Just let people arm themselves and let nature take its course, and prosecute what you can when you can.  Gang violence is not a hard mystery to solve.  The true source of gang violence is bad parenting, or an utter lack of parenting.  Until this is taken care of, this problem will continue.  That and the failed drug war, but there have been endless threads on that.




> After much debate, we established that I respect the spirit of the constitution as it was written by the founding fathers as a limit on a central national gov't's powers. It didn't limit the states' individual gov'ts at all in most domestic matters.


That doesn't give the states the right to take a dump on the constitution though.  It does mention that "all other powers belong to the states", not that states can choose to ignore it when convenient.  There are mountains of case law about states stomping on constitutional rights and getting themselves put in their place - because they were wrong to violate them.




> That all changed with the Supreme court's assumed power of judicial review (it is not written in the COTUS), their absurdly broad view of the interstate commerce clause that gives the federal gov't the power to regulate almost anything in the 50 states (57 if you are Barack 'The Genius" Obama), the Civil War assault on the Southern States, and the Fourteenth amendment that was forced on the Southern States before they could become fully returned to the Union, and the income tax (16th amendment). XL supports this growth of the central gov't's powers over the states, so that the states are bound by the COTUS AND the rulings of the federal courts on all sorts of local law enforcement matters, the schools, and on and on it goes. XL supports this enormous grown in the federal gov't's power and size. That's why he is a statist. He's a statist when he thinks it benefits himself.


Indeed, most people are statists when it benefits them.  Not so sure he is one of them though.  However, most state constitutions have a clause stating somewhere that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  So by their own state constitutions, they are breaking their own laws by violating the US constitution.  If they wanted true state sovereignty, they should avoid that particular clause in the state constitutions.




> My opinion is that the states should be as free to police themselves as the day they ratified the COTUS and as the voters of the state see fit, and not as some unelected federal judge or panel of judges in a federal court wants them to. XL is embarrassed at his chastisement and can't let it go.


I agree about that, but that states made a fool's mistake when they agreed to sign the damn thing, and then put the acknowledgment of it in their own state constitutions.  States don't really have a leg to stand on in this instance.  Or at least in theory they shouldn't.

----------


## DonGlock26

> And doing so proves you to be the lying POS you are. If you want to continue to make a fool of yourself, that's your business.


Since you can't do it, I challenge anyone here to show us the "daily" anti-Obama posts that you "made", if they are willing to take the time to do so.

----------


## DonGlock26

> These good intentions have gone too far, which is why they should never have been implemented in the first place.  Just let people arm themselves and let nature take its course, and prosecute what you can when you can.  Gang violence is not a hard mystery to solve.  The true source of gang violence is bad parenting, or an utter lack of parenting.  Until this is taken care of, this problem will continue.  That and the failed drug war, but there have been endless threads on that.
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't give the states the right to take a dump on the constitution though.  It does mention that "all other powers belong to the states", not that states can choose to ignore it when convenient.  There are mountains of case law about states stomping on constitutional rights and getting themselves put in their place - because they were wrong to violate them.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, most people are statists when it benefits them.  Not so sure he is one of them though.  However, most state constitutions have a clause stating somewhere that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  So by their own state constitutions, they are breaking their own laws by violating the US constitution.  If they wanted true state sovereignty, they should avoid that particular clause in the state constitutions.
> ...


That's a problem. See, the judge was biased against NYPD. Her ruling was overturned and the appeals court basically recommended that she be investigated in the their strongly worded opinion. XL and the others based their venom towards NYPD on a horribly flawed ruling.

They weren't bound to the COTUS. They were bound to their own state constitutions. Choose to ignore what? A document that restrained the central gov't only?
Regarding your case law, were they after the fourteenth amendment?

Again, was that after the Civil war and 14th amendment? Remember, I am speaking of prior to the 14th. It wouldn't matter what their state constitutions said, since the 14th puts the federal gov't and COTUS over them anyway.

You tell the federal gov't "No" after they burned Atlanta to the ground and put Americans in concentration camps to die. We are still living with the legacy of the pro-centralized gov't faction to this day from the Civil War era. It will likely be the root cause of our downfall. It would have been far better for the Southern states to give up slavery. I do wonder, if the pro-centralized gov't faction was in a hurry to get the Civil War going before industrialization/mechanization made slavery unnecessary and unprofitable. I'm sure a lot of money was made in arming the North. They never tried to attack the South over slavery until they had industrial might either. 

Just to be clear, I'm anti-slavery and the South did the nation and humanity a great disservice by not doing away with it after they won their independence from Great Britain. 

The states could repeal the 16th and the 14th amendments, if enough of them chose to with a constitutional convention. It would be interesting to see how a federal gov't would react to suddenly losing it's power to tax the American people's income directly and thereby its power to threaten the states with the withholding of "federal" funds originally taken from the residents of the 50 states. I think they would suspend the constitutional convention or have the Supreme Court find a way to nullify it. Then again, they might just murder the leaders with drone strikes.

----------


## countryboy

> Since you can't do it, I challenge anyone here to show us the "daily" anti-Obama posts that you "made", if they are willing to take the time to do so.


Oh, I could do it. But I'm not playing your master/slave superiority complex games. Aren't you late for a cross burning or something?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Oh, I could do it.


No, you can't. I've already looked. LOL!!!

How many times do you want me to say that and chuckle?

----------


## countryboy

> No, you can't. I've already looked. LOL!!!
> 
> How many times do you want me to say that and chuckle?


Prove it.

----------


## Gemini

> That's a problem. See, the judge was biased against NYPD. Her ruling was overturned and the appeals court basically recommended that she be investigated in the their strongly worded opinion. XL and the others based their venom towards NYPD on a horribly flawed ruling.


This is not something I am terribly familiar with, so I will pass on this one.  What I have personally experienced are police habitually overstepping their bounds though.  And that has to stop.  If they want to bust somebody up for shooting someone, fine, but frisking people without any logical probable cause?  No way.




> They weren't bound to the COTUS. They were bound to their own state constitutions. Choose to ignore what? A document that restrained the central gov't only?


In the bill of rights, I am unfamiliar with any passage that states it is only the federal government to be restrained with exception to the first amendment.  Although it was passed by congress, my understanding is that it applies to everyone, not just the feds.

Case in point-




> Section 3. State inseparable part of Union. The  state of Idaho is an inseparable part of the American Union, and the  Constitution of the United States is the supreme                       law of the land.


Idaho State Constitution.  And it is current as of 2013.  I am sure Idaho is not the only state that has something like this.




> Regarding your case law, were they after the fourteenth amendment?


Truth be told, I don't know.  I would have to look.  I am sure you could find some that are both prior and after though.




> Again, was that after the Civil war and 14th amendment? Remember, I am speaking of prior to the 14th. It wouldn't matter what their state constitutions said, since the 14th puts the federal gov't and COTUS over them anyway.


Not gonna lie.  I am not picking up what you're laying down here.  It doesn't happen often, but I will admit it when it happens.  But what does the 14nth amendment have to do with this Bill of Rights issue?





> You tell the federal gov't "No" after they burned Atlanta to the ground and put Americans in concentration camps to die. We are still living with the legacy of the pro-centralized gov't faction to this day from the Civil War era. It will likely be the root cause of our downfall. It would have been far better for the Southern states to give up slavery. I do wonder, if the pro-centralized gov't faction was in a hurry to get the Civil War going before industrialization/mechanization made slavery unnecessary and unprofitable. I'm sure a lot of money was made in arming the North. They never tried to attack the South over slavery until they had industrial might either.


Well, it makes no sense to attack when you don't got the arms.  But you are right about he central gov since the Civil War era.  Lincoln is no hero in my book.




> Just to be clear, I'm anti-slavery and the South did the nation and humanity a great disservice by not doing away with it after they won their independence from Great Britain.


Dude, I could care less if you attend clan meetings or if you are a secretary as the NAACP - it doesn't matter to me at all.  What a man does is his business so long as he harms nobody else nor their property through his actions or gross negligence.




> The states could repeal the 16th and the 14th amendments, if enough of them chose to with a constitutional convention. It would be interesting to see how a federal gov't would react to suddenly losing it's power to tax the American people's income directly and thereby its power to threaten the states with the withholding of "federal" funds originally taken from the residents of the 50 states. I think they would suspend the constitutional convention or have the Supreme Court find a way to nullify it. Then again, they might just murder the leaders with drone strikes.


No point in doing so.  The only way out of this mess is the ugly way I'm afraid.  We can juggle and fudge the paperwork all we like, but Obama administration has proven to be lawless in their behavior,  And the Bush Administration laid the foundation for it via the Patriot Act.  Neither side really care about our rights.  If they did, the NDAA wouldn't have passed by a long shot.

Now if states got the balls to actually secede and make physical motions in order to do so?  That I could get behind.  But I highly doubt it will happen.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Prove it.


I can't post what does not exist. Neither can you-BTW.  :Wink: 

I can only point to the lack of the claimed "daily" anti-Obama posts.

----------


## DonGlock26

> This is not something I am terribly familiar with, so I will pass on this one.  What I have personally experienced are police habitually overstepping their bounds though.  And that has to stop.  If they want to bust somebody up for shooting someone, fine, but frisking people without any logical probable cause?  No way.
> 
> 
> 
> In the bill of rights, I am unfamiliar with any passage that states it is only the federal government to be restrained with exception to the first amendment.  Although it was passed by congress, my understanding is that it applies to everyone, not just the feds.
> 
> Case in point-
> 
> 
> ...




Rather than repeat a long thread, here's the ruling against the judge.

http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...l=1#post155527

----------

