06-14-2018, 03:06 PM
Truth isn't synonymous with "goofiness", though you seem to equate the two anytime someone/something conflicts with your observations or claims, Mags. I can take it though! ")
Your "I only judge by character and not skin color, and MLK wouldn't approve of blacks today" type statements just don't match up to a lot of your comments nor to reality. That's what I'm saying, with solid reason. There's nothing goofy about that observation.
Aside from those I already posted, here are some reasons I feel that way...
-- Your defense of Cliven Bundy's contention that 'negros were better off as slaves than they are today' (not even FOX would support that shit).
-- Your support of the Bundy clan taking federal land by force and aiming guns at LE for weeks and days on end (also putting locals out of work) because the Bundies disagreed with officers'/government's land policy, while simultaneously bitching and degrading unarmed black people for protesting or blocking intersections because they disagreed with officers'/government's use of fatal force on unarmed citizens.
-- Your frequent "what about black-on-black crime...Chicago!??!" interjections when we're discussing school/mass shootings primarily carried out by white males.
-- Your advocacy of racial profiling as a policy.
-- Your offense at a crime story referring to the suspect/perp as "white", when the same source and most sources often refer to skin color when describing a suspect/perp.
I could go on and on, but I think it's clear enough why your proclamations of skin color not affecting your views/judgments don't match the views and opinions you've shared in a lot of your comments.
I'm not claiming you are or aren't a racist. I am stating that based on your own comments, skin color is something that you use to make judgments more than most others here, even when you have no way of knowing the character of the people you're commenting about.
Your "I only judge by character and not skin color, and MLK wouldn't approve of blacks today" type statements just don't match up to a lot of your comments nor to reality. That's what I'm saying, with solid reason. There's nothing goofy about that observation.
Aside from those I already posted, here are some reasons I feel that way...
-- Your defense of Cliven Bundy's contention that 'negros were better off as slaves than they are today' (not even FOX would support that shit).
-- Your support of the Bundy clan taking federal land by force and aiming guns at LE for weeks and days on end (also putting locals out of work) because the Bundies disagreed with officers'/government's land policy, while simultaneously bitching and degrading unarmed black people for protesting or blocking intersections because they disagreed with officers'/government's use of fatal force on unarmed citizens.
-- Your frequent "what about black-on-black crime...Chicago!??!" interjections when we're discussing school/mass shootings primarily carried out by white males.
-- Your advocacy of racial profiling as a policy.
-- Your offense at a crime story referring to the suspect/perp as "white", when the same source and most sources often refer to skin color when describing a suspect/perp.
I could go on and on, but I think it's clear enough why your proclamations of skin color not affecting your views/judgments don't match the views and opinions you've shared in a lot of your comments.
I'm not claiming you are or aren't a racist. I am stating that based on your own comments, skin color is something that you use to make judgments more than most others here, even when you have no way of knowing the character of the people you're commenting about.