Dougie93 Posted July 9 Report Posted July 9 42 minutes ago, WestCanMan said: There's nothing wrong with black history month, but right now it's 'black revisionist history month'. "WHITES WERE THE ONLY SALVERS EVER!!! I'M A VICTIM" never mind that Africans were enslaved by Africans then sold to the Portuguese with Protestant Abolitionist Britons first, then the Americans after, as the only people to ever go war against that 1 Quote
User Posted July 9 Report Posted July 9 2 hours ago, Black Dog said: Black people, in the context of Black history month, refers mainly to African-Americans. OMG. Lets hear this brilliant distinction explained. What makes someone an "African-American" vs "Black" and how does "Black" History month mainly refer to "African-Americans?" You can't make this garbage up it is so dumb. 1 Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."
Black Dog Posted July 9 Report Posted July 9 14 hours ago, User said: OMG. Lets hear this brilliant distinction explained. What makes someone an "African-American" vs "Black" and how does "Black" History month mainly refer to "African-Americans?" You can't make this garbage up it is so dumb. It was started in the States by a Black scholar who wanted to "ensure that the overlooked role of Black people in American history was acknowledged by white historians." Honestly, we live in a time of wonders where almost all the knowledge of the world can be gleaned from simply searching on the internet and you're here asking retarded questions and stumbling around like a very dumb toddler. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Black Dog Posted July 9 Report Posted July 9 (edited) 16 hours ago, WestCanMan said: There's nothing wrong with black history month, but right now it's 'black revisionist history month'. "WHITES WERE THE ONLY SALVERS EVER!!! I'M A VICTIM" No one says this. Quote FYI that post doesn't mean that blacks love slavery. I didn't say it did, dummy. Quote It means that blacks nowadays wouldn't wish freedom on their ancestors, because they're so addicted to the victim status that they get from it. I'm not saying it's true or it's funny, but that seems to be what they're saying. No the post is saying, quite clearly, that Blacks today are better off here because their ancestors were enslaved than they would have been if they stayed in Africa. In other words "slavery is a net good for black people." Edited July 9 by Black Dog 1 Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Michael Hardner Posted July 9 Report Posted July 9 8 minutes ago, Black Dog said: It was started in the States by a Black scholar who wanted to "ensure that the overlooked role of Black people in American history was acknowledged by white historians." Also to allow trolls to make ridiculous statements and then shriek with fake disbelief when people dismiss them as they should. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Black Dog Posted July 9 Report Posted July 9 15 hours ago, CdnFox said: So make it about American Chinese. The question is why haven't you? You feel pointing out the contributions of black people specifically is so important, why wasn't it so for the chinese? Simple answer is they're not a group you can easily exploit so you don't bother. Again, Black History month was started by Black people for Black people, if someone of Chinese descent wants to start their own history month distinct from what's out there, they're welcome todo so and. I wouldn't have a problem with that so I'm not sure what the f*gotcha is supposed to be here, you;re just throwing crap at the wall like the chimp you are. Quote Well we're primarily talking about white people in america. 🙄 But sure - how about caucasian day? Which white people, specifically? Quote 100 percent leftists. They believed that slavery should be maintained for the public good (social). They stood up for what they called the rights of the working farmers to work their land (and they coudln't without slavery) . And they believed that those that disagreed with their point of view should be dealt with violently (classic leftism there). Sorry kiddo - those were your guys not ours. This is, like, Grade 8-tier sociopolitical analysis, you would be embarrassed if you had any capacity for self-reflection or shame. We're talking about a group for wealthy people who were willing to go to war to conserve the right to keep other human beings as private property in order to profit from their labour and preserve their idea of civilization and nationhood. Can't get much more conservative than that. Quote Ahhh - so you just realized i've never made that claim. So you were lying previously. LOL - well we all knew that, it's what you do. Lol so this is confirmation that you do not think Jews deserve their own state or that we should be especially concerned about antisemitism. Quote I didn't see the 'net good' comment (unless that's something else you're trying to claim i said) but regardless of what that person is saying, you are definitely *A* racist and bigot here, whether someone else is or not. A white person racist against white people, Jesus Christ get in the ditch already. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
User Posted July 9 Report Posted July 9 1 hour ago, Black Dog said: It was started in the States by a Black scholar who wanted to "ensure that the overlooked role of Black people in American history was acknowledged by white historians." Honestly, we live in a time of wonders where almost all the knowledge of the world can be gleaned from simply searching on the internet and you're here asking retarded questions and stumbling around like a very dumb toddler. Way to avoid the question. I asked: "OMG. Lets hear this brilliant distinction explained. What makes someone an "African-American" vs "Black" and how does "Black" History month mainly refer to "African-Americans?" Let me spell it out for you: Yet again you assert something incredibly dumb, and now you run away instead of owning up to it. 1 Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."
CdnFox Posted July 9 Report Posted July 9 39 minutes ago, Black Dog said: Again, Black History month was started by Black people for Black people, First off you said yourself it was started to make sure whites knew what blacks had done. So it wasn't "for black people". it was for white people. According to you. At least when it started. And it seems like it was intended to be for everyone in the 70s and made it about 'everyone taking the time to look at the contribution of black people'. But now? It only serves one purpose, and that's to keep black people seperate as a group. From the activities and 'lesson plans' and such i can see it's meant to teach mostly about slavery and the repression of blacks historically, and mostly to black people. 52 minutes ago, Black Dog said: if someone of Chinese descent wants to start their own history month distinct from what's out there, they're welcome todo so They don't seem to be. Seems they got lumped in with the "asians" which includes hawaii for some reason and that's that, the gov't isn't interested in recognizing a separate Chinese month. 54 minutes ago, Black Dog said: Which white people, specifically? Why, american-caucausians of course! I thought we established this was supposed to be about the contributions to America. Except virtually all white historical figures are being cancelled right now. 57 minutes ago, Black Dog said: This is, like, Grade 8-tier sociopolitical analysis, you would be embarrassed if you had any capacity for self-reflection or shame. It's simple fact. And you can't refute it which is why you resort to trying to pretend somehow history is my fault. 58 minutes ago, Black Dog said: We're talking about a group for wealthy people who were willing to go to war to conserve the right to keep other human beings as private property in order to profit from their labour and preserve their idea of civilization and nationhood. That is literally the definition of socialism. That is stalin, that is mao, that is castro. Read some history. In fact the right wing republicans in the north were the ones who opposed it. I get that you desperately want to re-write history because the history of the left has ALWAYS turned out shamefully. But sorry - that's really how it went down. Oh and the democrats were hardly just in the south or just 'rich people'. 1 hour ago, Black Dog said: A white person racist against white people, Sure - self hatred is a thing. But you're racist against more than whites if it makes you feel any better Racist just means you judge people by race. Whether you judge them to be better or worse than other races, you're still a racist. Quote
Black Dog Posted July 9 Report Posted July 9 9 minutes ago, User said: Way to avoid the question. I asked: "OMG. Lets hear this brilliant distinction explained. What makes someone an "African-American" vs "Black" and how does "Black" History month mainly refer to "African-Americans?" Let me spell it out for you: Yet again you assert something incredibly dumb, and now you run away instead of owning up to it. 1. African American and "Black" are basically interchangeable terms, but black people can also be from other places. it depends on teh context. 2. Do you honestly not understand how Black History Month, which originated in the U.S. to celebrate the achievements of Black American, refers mainly to Black Americans? Are you functionally braindead? 1 Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Black Dog Posted July 9 Report Posted July 9 9 minutes ago, CdnFox said: First off you said yourself it was started to make sure whites knew what blacks had done. So it wasn't "for black people". it was for white people. According to you. At least when it started. And it seems like it was intended to be for everyone in the 70s and made it about 'everyone taking the time to look at the contribution of black people'. But now? It only serves one purpose, and that's to keep black people seperate as a group. From the activities and 'lesson plans' and such i can see it's meant to teach mostly about slavery and the repression of blacks historically, and mostly to black people. I doubt you've read a thing about it. Quote They don't seem to be. Seems they got lumped in with the "asians" which includes hawaii for some reason and that's that, the gov't isn't interested in recognizing a separate Chinese month. So get on it. Quote Why, american-caucausians of course! I thought we established this was supposed to be about the contributions to America. Who? Quote Except virtually all white historical figures are being cancelled right now. lol Quote It's simple fact. And you can't refute it which is why you resort to trying to pretend somehow history is my fault. I literally refuted what you said in the next sentence child. Quote That is literally the definition of socialism. That is stalin, that is mao, that is castro. Read some history. yeah man socialism is when you try to protect private property and corporate profits. Did your parents have any children that lived? Also I'll just leave this here, you can get a grown up to read it to you: https://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm Quote In fact the right wing republicans in the north were the ones who opposed it. Republicans weren't "right wing" back then, at least in how we'd understand it. Quote I get that you desperately want to re-write history because the history of the left has ALWAYS turned out shamefully. But sorry - that's really how it went down. You don't know a single thing about history as this embarrassing display of ignorance proves. Quote Oh and the democrats were hardly just in the south or just 'rich people'. Oh wow really, that's incredible insight. Quote Sure - self hatred is a thing. But you're racist against more than whites if it makes you feel any better Racist just means you judge people by race. Whether you judge them to be better or worse than other races, you're still a racist. You shitbirds love to make up new and increasingly stupid definitions of common terms, huh. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
User Posted July 9 Report Posted July 9 19 minutes ago, Black Dog said: 1. African American and "Black" are basically interchangeable terms, but black people can also be from other places. it depends on teh context. You were the one who made this stupid distinction. You tell me what the context was you were using here and what makes someone an "African-American" vs Black. 21 minutes ago, Black Dog said: 2. Do you honestly not understand how Black History Month, which originated in the U.S. to celebrate the achievements of Black American, refers mainly to Black Americans? Are you functionally braindead? The only thing I didn't understand here was your stupid mention of some distinction between the terms African American and Black and how Black History month mainly refers to African Americans. Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."
CdnFox Posted July 9 Report Posted July 9 5 minutes ago, Black Dog said: I doubt you've read a thing about it. I literally replied to what YOU said about it. Are you saying you were wrong or that YOU haven't read anything about it? Quote So get on it. Why - i don't want to emotionally enslave anyone so there'd be no point. That's you guys. Quote Who? Sorry - are you acting stupid or actually stupid? Sometimes it's hard to tell Quote I literally refuted what you said in the next sentence child. You literally didn't. And that's always how it is when you start off with an insult like that. ANd i see you still couldn't Quote yeah man socialism is when you try to protect private property and corporate profits. Did your parents have any children that lived? Socialism is where you feel that one group's rights should be repressed to benefit the society as a whole. And that's exactly what they sold. And there weren't "corporatons". The socialistic democrats said that the collective rights of the farmers was more important than the collective rights of the slaves and society would break down if things changed. That wasn't about personal rights. Quote Also I'll just leave this here, you can get a grown up to read it to you: https://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm LOL - you didn't read it did you You googled for something and posted the first thing you found and didn't read it Go read it. Quote Republicans weren't "right wing" back then, at least in how we'd understand it. Sure they were. They believed in PERSONAL freedom, not the freedom of any collective group. They didn't believe in using violence to enforce their opinion on others as the dems did. They wanted to make America great again - one big nation not a bunch of small states. Very much right wing stuff. Quote You don't know a single thing about history as this embarrassing display of ignorance proves. once again, can't refute so insults. Quote Oh wow really, that's incredible insight. Yeah - kind of sad you had to be told that but now you know Quote You shitbirds love to make up new and increasingly stupid definitions of common terms, huh. ROFLMAO!!!!!!! FIrst off pot meet kettle And secondly you have to have suffered serious brain damage to claim Defining racism as being when you judge someone by race is not a normal use of the word Quote
WestCanMan Posted July 9 Report Posted July 9 1 hour ago, Black Dog said: No one says this. Find me an example of black Americans talking about slavery within the context of "slavery was 100% normal all across the world for all of known history at that time" instead of talking about it as if it was the only example of slavery ever... They act like only white people have ever owned slaves and only blacks were enslaved. "White people owe black people"... FYI what happened to those people was 'normal' for that period in time. Quote No the post is saying, quite clearly, that Blacks today are better off here because their ancestors were enslaved than they would have been if they stayed in Africa. Even from that POV, yeah, a lot of them would choose "slavery for their ancestors and living in America now" over "freedom for their ancestors but currently living in Africa". Quote If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. Kamala didn't get where she is because of her achievements or anything that came out of her mouth.
Black Dog Posted July 9 Report Posted July 9 20 minutes ago, User said: You were the one who made this stupid distinction. You tell me what the context was you were using here and what makes someone an "African-American" vs Black. Context? Well we weren't talking about Zimbabwe here, were we. Quote The only thing I didn't understand here was your stupid mention of some distinction between the terms African American and Black and how Black History month mainly refers to African Americans. Yes you are apparently quite ignorant of the whole subject. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Black Dog Posted July 9 Report Posted July 9 19 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Socialism is where you feel that one group's rights should be repressed to benefit the society as a whole. And that's exactly what they sold. Oh I see we're not going by actual definitions commonly used by political scientists or historians, but something you, a halfwit with some kind of undiagnosed TBI, cooked up. LOL. I mean it's not like socialism has anything to say about the exploitation of labour for profit or anything like that. Quote The socialistic democrats said that the collective rights of the farmers was more important than the collective rights of the slaves and society would break down if things changed. I was clearly being generous when i described this as Grade 8 tier history, this is shortbus, special class, stop-eating-paste stuff. The slaveholder class were capitalists protecting their profits and private property, two concepts antithetical to socialism it's just that simple. Quote once again, can't refute so insults. Were your parents siblings? Quote ROFLMAO!!!!!!! FIrst off pot meet kettle And secondly you have to have suffered serious brain damage to claim Defining racism as being when you judge someone by race is not a normal use of the word Like everything else you post this is a simpleton's viewpoint. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
User Posted July 9 Report Posted July 9 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Black Dog said: Context? Well we weren't talking about Zimbabwe here, were we. LOL, still obfuscating to avoid the stupidity of your comment. 23 minutes ago, Black Dog said: Yes you are apparently quite ignorant of the whole subject. Not that you have demonstrated so far. Edited July 9 by User Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."
Black Dog Posted July 9 Report Posted July 9 Just now, User said: LOL, still objuscating to avoid the stupidity of your comment. Again, I'm not sure how much more simple i can make it or even where your confusion lies. May I suggests you slam your head in the car door a few times to see if some blockage shakes loose? Quote Not that you have demonstrated so far. No you've been doing a great job demonstrating that yourself. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
User Posted July 9 Report Posted July 9 1 minute ago, Black Dog said: Again, I'm not sure how much more simple i can make it or even where your confusion lies. May I suggests you slam your head in the car door a few times to see if some blockage shakes loose? Try to actually answer the question. That would be a good place to start. Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."
CdnFox Posted July 9 Report Posted July 9 1 hour ago, Black Dog said: Oh I see we're not going by actual definitions commonly used by political scientists or historians, but something you, a halfwit with some kind of undiagnosed TBI, cooked up. LOL. That's the definition commonly used, i just used simple language so you could understand and follow along at home SOCIAL - ism. Where the needs of society outweigh the needs of the individual. There are many many kinds, but that's the gist of all of them. Quote I mean it's not like socialism has anything to say about the exploitation of labour for profit or anything like that. It absolutely does. in fact that's ALL it allows for - but it feels that the profit has to benefit the state rather than the individual primarily to various degrees. And that was the argument they made. Quote I was clearly being generous when i described this as Grade 8 tier history, this is shortbus, special class, stop-eating-paste stuff. Once again you know i'm right and can't rebutt it so you cover your tracks with insults Or try to. Quote The slaveholder class were capitalists protecting their profits and private property, two concepts antithetical to socialism it's just that simple. They're not against socialism in the slightest. We have lots of different "Market socialist' models, we have 'Democratic socialism" in europe, tonnes of examples. SIgh. Once again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge. MOST socialist models these days absolutely incorporate profits and market economies. Do you need me to explain that further? Or would you like to do some reading and be humiliated for your ignorance in private? 1 hour ago, Black Dog said: Like everything else you post this is a simpleton's viewpoint. Only natural when explaining things to a simpleton Hell you didn't even realize socailsm could incorporate private ownership. Racism is literally discrimination based on race. That's what it is. That is not 'simplistic', that's factual. I'm sorry that it upsets your echo chamber ideology but there you go. Quote
Black Dog Posted July 9 Report Posted July 9 (edited) 44 minutes ago, CdnFox said: That's the definition commonly used, i just used simple language so you could understand and follow along at home SOCIAL - ism. Where the needs of society outweigh the needs of the individual. There are many many kinds, but that's the gist of all of them. lmao utterly retarded, you will not see the face of god. Socialism is an economic theory that is based on the collective or public ownership of the means of production and where workers are entitled to the fruits of their labour. In other word, it's the antithesis of chattel slavery in a capitalist system. Quote It absolutely does. in fact that's ALL it allows for - but it feels that the profit has to benefit the state rather than the individual primarily to various degrees. And that was the argument they made. Bullshit. Prove it. Quote Once again you know i'm right and can't rebutt it so you cover your tracks with insults Or try to. I'll say this in all earnestness: no one in the history of being wrong has been as wrong as you are right now. Quote They're not against socialism in the slightest. We have lots of different "Market socialist' models, we have 'Democratic socialism" in europe, tonnes of examples. SIgh. Once again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge. MOST socialist models these days absolutely incorporate profits and market economies. All those systems are just bourgeoisie capitalism with welfare programs as none of them feature the central defining trait of socialism: the common ownership of the means of production. They aren't 'democratic socialist" societies but "social democracies." Edited July 9 by Black Dog Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Black Dog Posted July 9 Report Posted July 9 2 hours ago, User said: Try to actually answer the question. That would be a good place to start. Here we go again... Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
CdnFox Posted July 9 Report Posted July 9 1 hour ago, Black Dog said: lmao utterly retarded, you will not see the face of god. Socialism is an economic theory that is based on the collective or public ownership of the means of production and where workers are entitled to the fruits of their labour. In other word, it's the antithesis of chattel slavery in a capitalist system. Sigh. Types of socialism - Wikipedia Oh look at that, you were wrong. Yawn. Read a book kid. Quote Bullshit. Prove it. Resolved, That we regard this as a distinctive feature of our political creed, which we are proud to maintain before the world, as the great moral element in a form of government springing from and upheld by the popular will; and we contrast it with the creed and practice of Federalism, under whatever name or form, which seeks to palsy the will of the constituent, and which conceives no imposture too monstrous for the popular credulity. Bunch of other places as well. Other examples are out there for other years. They seek the benefit of the 'society' and 'popular will' vs the feds in the north who aren't interested in that. Their big issue however was that the feds shoudln't have power over the states becuase while they did believe in the common state they did not believe in the feds having a say in it. Sorry kid - they believed that the state should exercise controls on teh state in banking, slavery, and everything else pretty much for the benefit of the state. The republican slogans at the time were 'free labour, free men", meaning workers should be free and people should be free and the state shoudl'nt have controls over htem. Strike two 1 hour ago, Black Dog said: I'll say this in all earnestness: no one in the history of being wrong has been as wrong as you are right now. Oh look another admission that you're wrong and have no argument so you'll attack me instead in a childish fashion. Yawn. 1 hour ago, Black Dog said: All those systems are just bourgeoisie capitalism with welfare programs as none of them feature the central defining trait of socialism They do. As previously proven you're entirely wrong. Sorry kiddo. That's strike three. Yer stupid. Quote
User Posted July 9 Report Posted July 9 1 hour ago, Black Dog said: Here we go again... As usual, you make stupid comments and then run away when called out. Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."
Black Dog Posted July 10 Report Posted July 10 17 hours ago, CdnFox said: Sigh. Types of socialism - Wikipedia Oh look at that, you were wrong. Yawn. Read a book kid. Lol first paragraph: Quote Types of socialism include a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control[1][2][3] of the means of production[4][5][6][7] and organizational self-management of enterprises[8][9] as well as the political theories and movements associated with socialism.[10] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity[11] in which surplus value goes to the working class and hence society as a whole.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and no single definition encapsulates all of them,[13] but social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms (excluding Liberal socialism etc.) Quote Resolved, That we regard this as a distinctive feature of our political creed, which we are proud to maintain before the world, as the great moral element in a form of government springing from and upheld by the popular will; and we contrast it with the creed and practice of Federalism, under whatever name or form, which seeks to palsy the will of the constituent, and which conceives no imposture too monstrous for the popular credulity. Weak. That says f.a. about "profit has to benefit the state rather than the individual" as you claimed. Quote Bunch of other places as well. Other examples are out there for other years. They seek the benefit of the 'society' and 'popular will' vs the feds in the north who aren't interested in that. Weak. Those are broad sentiments asserting their right to self-determination states, not actually how their societies and economies were organized. Quote Their big issue however was that the feds shoudln't have power over the states becuase while they did believe in the common state they did not believe in the feds having a say in it. Weak. Again the argument was couched around self-determination and "states rights" (to own chattel slaves and exploit their labour for profit). Quote The republican slogans at the time were 'free labour, free men", meaning workers should be free and people should be free and the state shoudl'nt have controls over htem. Weak. That slogan was entirely about opposition to slavery, not to any state intervention in the economy. And slavery was thoroughly enmeshed in the capitalist system. Quote They do. As previously proven you're entirely wrong. Sorry kiddo. That's strike three. Yer stupid. Honestly I'm getting second hand embarrassment here. For your own good, you should ask the librarian to take away your internet privileges for the day, but given that's the only thing keeping you from jacking off in the kids book area, I suppose I'm doing god's work here keeping you occupied. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Black Dog Posted July 10 Report Posted July 10 17 hours ago, User said: As usual, you make stupid comments and then run away when called out. I'm not running away, I'm mocking you for being too dumb to grasp why Black History Month, an occasion invented by an African American for the express purpose of highlighting the achievements of African Americans, might be about African Americans. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.