Make mine black .... or can I still say that?

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Yeah, well, speaking just for myself, I always like to start my morning with a cup of ridiculously-priced coffee and some awkward conversation.

Damn right, we should not have awkward conversations about shit like this.

Florida Cops Fired Over Racist Texts, KKK Video
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/22/cops-fired-racist-video_n_6918652.html

That's pretty bad.
Let me know when you and your barista have figured out how to stop it from ever happening again.

That will be pretty tough considering I don't have a barista.

happy jack wrote:

Well, I guess you're screwed, then, because everyone knows that there's no way to resolve racial issues without a barista.

I'm devastated, I hope I can sleep tonight.

Artie60438 wrote:

   
Like all bigots,any discussion at all of racial inequality scares the living daylights out of him. Hence the constant overreaction.


I picture our trolling bigot as someone who still gets his coffee from one of those coin operated vending machines from decades ago.

Would you care to see what real bigots looks like?
Pay attention.



http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415955/blacks-get-pilloried-speaking-truth-about-ferguson-deroy-murdock

Blacks Get Pilloried for Speaking Truth about Ferguson

by DEROY MURDOCK March 25, 2015 3:00 PM
The Left slams the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart.

Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart stopped toeing the liberal policy line for just a moment. That was long enough for the Left to denounce this black man as a race traitor. “Sellout,” carping online critics called him. “House Negro,” snarled others. Capehart’s crime? In a March 16 op-ed headlined ‘“Hands up, don’t shoot’ was built on a lie,” he explained that he wrongly advanced the narrative that exploded after the death of Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old cigar thief, at the hands of former Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson. Capehart cited the Department of Justice’s final report on Ferguson. DOJ says that eyewitnesses that day all establish that Brown was moving toward Wilson when Wilson shot him. Although some witnesses state that Brown held his hands up at shoulder level with his palms facing outward for a brief moment, these same witnesses describe Brown then dropping his hands and “charging” at Wilson. For this, Capehart got slammed on Facebook and elsewhere online. As he explained, some “said I did it because I wanted ‘white people to like me’ or that I ‘did it for the money.’ No, I didn’t. I did it because it was the right thing to do.” Jonathan Capehart By the ignorant, twisted logic of the anti-Capehart crowd, Attorney General Eric Holder also is a “house Negro.” After all, his department wrote the report that debunked the “hands up” myth and declared that the physical, forensic, and eyewitness evidence “corroborates Wilson’s account of the struggle.” And, for that matter, Holder works for Obama. Therefore, as I observed on Sunday’s Fox & Friends, these critics also should label Obama a “house Negro.” The Obama administration prepared and released the study that exposed this compelling story as a fascinating fiction. The Justice Department, in a separate report, chronicled aggressive police behavior elsewhere in Ferguson. DOJ also detailed how the Ferguson cops acted as de facto tax collectors, slapping all manner of tickets, mainly on black residents, in order to raise revenue. Big government? Yes. Bigotry? Maybe. Racist killer cops? No. The increasingly furious Left launched an entire movement on an incident that never took place. A St. Louis County grand jury reached this conclusion, as did the DOJ’s second opinion. Whatever one thinks about the police and race relations, Americans need to live within reality. Otherwise, we inhabit Fantasyland. Alas, too many liberals can’t handle the truth. Rather than intellectual engagement, leftists foam at their mouths and resort to the racist name-calling of which they accuse the Right. This ugliness has a disparate impact on black conservatives and even honest black liberals who stop reading the collectivist cue cards and think for themselves. White liberals call white conservatives wrong, mistaken, cold-hearted, and mean. But whites on the right never are accused of being bad white people or betraying their fellow Caucasians. Black conservatives and libertarians should be so lucky. Black liberal attorney Leo Terrell appeared opposite yours truly on Hannity last March 9. After I answered Sean Hannity’s question about the 50th anniversary of the March on Selma, Terrell erupted and screamed like a caged animal. He was enraged that I did not mention that day’s news about members of the University of Oklahoma’s Sigma Alpha Epsilon chapter singing a truly deplorable song about lynching blacks. Hannity and I switched topics, denounced the fraternity, and applauded the school’s immediate decision to padlock this house of hate. But that was not enough for Terrell, who hollered even more loudly. Indeed, the more that Hannity and I agreed with him, the more unhinged Terrell became. This was one of my most otherworldly experiences in three decades on television. But the fun wasn’t over. Behold a few of the racist and often ungrammatical comments left by some who watched this surreal encounter on TalkingPoints Memo.com and YouTube. • Thaddius Lee denounced “ . . . Hannity and his Uncle Tom ass negro . . . ” • Carol Woodous wrote, “Fox news seems to always find them a Uncle Tom House Nigger.” • ThunderclapNewman remarked: “It’s nice to see Deroy Murdock — the living definition of ‘Uncle Tom’ — called out for his behavior.” • Atlanta rex called me “Uncle tom mother f*****.” That was the extent of Atlanta rex’s comment, by the way. It contained no verb or other parts of speech. Perhaps he meant to say, “I was so impressed with that charming and eloquent Uncle tom mother f*****.” But that is mere speculation. (If people could use pseudonyms in letters to the editor, America’s newspapers would be filled with this garbage. Website editors should scrap the anonymous handles that let people spew this kind of bile while hiding behind avatars like “Atlanta rex.” Instead, people who leave comments at the ends of articles should sign them with their real names and home towns. This would begin to flush the sewers that carry so much of the sludge that passes as “Internet discourse.”) Representative Mia Love (R., Utah) should be familiar with this sort of hate speech. During her first, unsuccessful House bid, this black conservative delivered well-received remarks in September 2012 to the Republican National Convention in Tampa. As I wrote at the time, the Left could not stand this. After her speech, a liberal hacked Love’s Wikipedia page. She was denounced as a “token” and an “Aunt Tom.” Next, this vandal hammered the daughter of Haitian immigrants as a “dirty, worthless whore who sold out her soul in the name of big business.” The attacker then added: “She is a total sell-out to the Right Wing Hate Machine and the greedy bigots who control the GOP and love to see people like Mia Love be exploited like the House Nigger she truly is.” So much for liberals being compassionate, open-minded, and tolerant. They are the ones sowing rancor and division from coast to coast. If you seek bitter, nasty, vulgar bigots, look Left.

Yup. True bigotry comes in the form of Youtube/Facebook comments. Totally what MLK was fighting against.

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

Yup.  True bigotry comes in the form of Youtube/Facebook comments.  Totally what MLK was fighting against.

[b]It’s also entirely possible that MLK was fighting against bigotry on public discussion forums, such as the imaginary bigotry that Artie accuses me of when his idiotic arguments fall apart and he has nothing left in his quiver except the race card.

You mean your unnatural obsession with Al Sharpton or the dozens of topics you start like this where you get all up in arms when anyone dares to discuss racial injustice in equality?

Yeah,it must be my imagination

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

Yup.  True bigotry comes in the form of Youtube/Facebook comments.  Totally what MLK was fighting against.

It’s also entirely possible that MLK was fighting against bigotry on public discussion forums, such as the imaginary bigotry that Artie accuses me of when his idiotic arguments fall apart and he has nothing left in his quiver except the race card.

You mean your unnatural obsession with Al Sharpton or the dozens of topics you start like this where you get all up in arms when anyone dares to discuss racial injustice in equality?

Yeah,it must be my imagination

Discussion of current events does not equate to bigotry on my part, no matter how broadly you define it, not even if the discussion happens to revolve around a pomaded racist jackass.
Now, show me the bigotry, or go away.

1)Dozens and dozens of topics you start attacking minorities,Blacks,Gays,Muslims,etc. An excellent example is your latest anti-Muslim rant,ignoring the billions of Muslims who live peacefully.

2) Ignoring topics that involve white supremacy groups,religious abuse involving christian religions,etc

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

Yup.  True bigotry comes in the form of Youtube/Facebook comments.  Totally what MLK was fighting against.

It’s also entirely possible that MLK was fighting against bigotry on public discussion forums, such as the imaginary bigotry that Artie accuses me of when his idiotic arguments fall apart and he has nothing left in his quiver except the race card.

You mean your unnatural obsession with Al Sharpton or the dozens of topics you start like this where you get all up in arms when anyone dares to discuss racial injustice in equality?

Yeah,it must be my imagination

Discussion of current events does not equate to bigotry on my part, no matter how broadly you define it, not even if the discussion happens to revolve around a pomaded racist jackass.
Now, show me the bigotry, or go away.

1)Dozens and dozens of topics you start attacking minorities,Blacks,Gays,Muslims,etc. An excellent example is your latest anti-Muslim rant,ignoring the billions of Muslims who live peacefully.

2) Ignoring topics that involve white supremacy groups,religious abuse involving christian religions,etc

[b]Cite specific quotes, not vague generalities, and not your subjective perception, as to this alleged bigotry.

Did someone miss the button?

Defend yourself. Show us examples of topics you started that were favorable to Blacks,Muslims.or Gays. :bball:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Defend yourself. Show us examples of topics you started that were favorable to Blacks,Muslims.or Gays. :bball: [/b]

I have nothing to defend unless you cite the specific examples of my alleged bigotry. It is not up to me to defend against allegations - it is up to you to substantiate them. That is the way it works. Unless and until you do, the only conclusion to be taken away from this is that you are lying.[/b]

Specific example? "The religion of peace" a topic that disparages the Muslim religion despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of them are peaceful.
So another words,you can't even find one topic that you started that were favorable to Blacks,Muslims.or Gays,can you? Thanks for proving my point beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The good news? Your title as village idiot/troll is secure.

Artie60438 wrote:

Defend yourself. Show us examples of topics you started that were favorable to Blacks,Muslims.or Gays. :bball: [/b]

Artie60438 wrote:

   
So another words,you can't even find one topic that you started that were favorable to Blacks,Muslims.or Gays,can you?

Still waiting..... :bball:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Defend yourself. Show us examples of topics you started that were favorable to Blacks,Muslims.or Gays. :bball: [/b]

Artie60438 wrote:

   
So another words,you can't even find one topic that you started that were favorable to Blacks,Muslims.or Gays,can you?

Still waiting..... :bball:

[b]I have a very favorable attitude towards pizza and beer, but I have not started a thread about either of those, either.

Ahh,the ubiquitous straw man argument. Yeah,but you've never started any threads ranting about them either,have you?

7 years of posting here and you can't even find one topic that you started that were favorable to Blacks,Muslims.or Gays,can you?
[/quote]
Still waiting..... :bball:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Defend yourself. Show us examples of topics you started that were favorable to Blacks,Muslims.or Gays. :bball: [/b]

Artie60438 wrote:

   
So another words,you can't even find one topic that you started that were favorable to Blacks,Muslims.or Gays,can you?

Still waiting..... :bball:

I have a very favorable attitude towards pizza and beer, but I have not started a thread about either of those, either.

Ahh,the ubiquitous straw man argument. Yeah,but you've never started any threads ranting about them either,have you?

7 years of posting here and you can't even find one topic that you started that were favorable to Blacks,Muslims.or Gays,can you?

Still waiting..... :bball:[/quote]



I don’t believe that it can be said that I have started any topics favorable to blacks, Muslims, or gays, but I also don’t believe it can be said that I’ve started topics ranting against blacks, Muslims, or gays. There have certainly been topics I’ve started that concerned blacks, Muslims, and gays, but I fail to see any rants against any of those groups as a whole. Also, I don’t believe that I’ve started any topics favorable to any one particular thing. I have started my topics with one thing in mind – to get a debate going, welcoming views from any and all perspectives.
So I ask you again, for the third or fourth time: Is it your contention that, merely because a poster does not initiate a thread espousing a particular view, that poster is diametrically opposed to that particular view?


Having said that, I think it's time for you to list the topics you have started that are favorable to blacks, Muslims, and gays.       :bball:

happy jack wrote:

[b]I don’t believe that it can be said that I have started any topics favorable to blacks, Muslims, or gays, but I also don’t believe it can be said that I’ve started topics ranting against blacks, Muslims, or gays.

Holder the Race-Hustler

Ranting Troll wrote:

What a load of bullshit.
No one is being prevented from voting, due to race or any other characteristic; to state otherwise is simply a lie.
The man who is purportedly the Attorney General of the United States is acting more along the lines of a race hustler ranting away in some Daily Kos blogpost.

troll wrote:

Having said that, I think it's time for you to list the topics you have started that are favorable to blacks, Muslims, and gays.

Obama Freezes Pay, Toughens Ethics and Lobbying Rules
Game over troll!

happy jack wrote:

What a load of bullshit.
No one is being prevented from voting, due to race or any other characteristic; to state otherwise is simply a lie.

As to your first example, the only thing I was 'ranting' against was what I specifically identified as 'bullshit'.

Really now.

Ohio Republican admits voter suppression targets African Americans
http://www.allvoices.com/article/12814048

Fla. Republican: We wanted to suppress black votes

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/fla_republican_we_suppressed_black_votes/

Good one, jack.
Everybody who is not retarded knows that GOP voter suppression targets African Americans.
jack, you are:
A. lying
B. ignorant
C. delusional
D. all of the above

Take your pick.