Orange Duce

[a fan]

You're missing my point completely, this is about as simply as I can put it, if the Dems want to win, the words racist, bigot, and white privilege need to come out of their mouths far less frequently. Remember DocB's post during the last run....racist, bigot, misogynistic, white privilege, the white man's days are done? All of that back fired and it will again.

Yep.

What do we do about the people at the border? If one is of the opinion that they can't all just come in and stay, does that make him/her a racist abd bigot? That's what the Dem's message seems to be to me. They better figure out a better way to deal with it than calling all the people like me a racist and bigot...

The Dems need to pass an immigration reform bill, and spell it out. Because right now, what voters hear is that the Dems want open borders, which is obviously not true. Pass the bill, and then there's your talking points.

The Dems need to get off their butts and do their jobs if they want to stand any chance to beat Trump.

[ABV 8.3%]

I'm getting real tired of hearing how none of us ever experienced hardships and life was just an easy road for us all because we were born white.

This is what a lot of people miss about the term "white privilege." "White privilege" doesn't mean your life was easy, or that you were necessarily handed anything.

It means the color of your skin had little or nothing to do with problems you have faced in life.

Problems, all due to the color of ones skin? What an embarrassing mindset to have.

Like when a friend was a victim of the polar bear knockout game on the corner of M st and Wisconsin so many years ago. Friday happy hour in the late 80's. Black cops were going to arrest my unconscious friend for "loitering" true F n story Big crowd of people politely made the pigs stand down. It was twillight zonish.

[DMac]

How many who use white privilege mean it that way today? White privilege means you can't possibly understand how tough other than whites have had it, and you're inherently racist as a result of your white privilege, the way I hear it (too often).

Actually a friend of mine's daughter told him that their lives have been shaped by "white privilege". He said he didn't know where that came from. She went to an all girls HS.... Later that day, she ordered a $15.00 veggie burger Calvert, Bryn Mawr and off to a private college..... We laughed about it. She is going to turn 40 one day and her outlook may change but until then, it's nice to see that spirit. A good example of white privilege is not being stopped to ask where you are going when meeting friends at a hotel..... When 6 guys meet at a hotel and the black guy is the only one stopped, the guy stopping and asking the question isn't racist. The white guys are shocked when they get a phone call verifying the guy is there to meet them. They are shocked because nobody else was stopped..... The black guy just isn't afforded the same privilege.... again the guy stopping and asking questions is not racist. His thoughts have been conditioned and he is not even aware of it.

Apparently I'm unable to adequately express what I'm trying to get across here. You really think you told me anything I didn't already know? White privilege also means you were born a racist and a bigot to many who use it, and that's the part you guys don't seem to want to understand and the part that's pissin' a lot of people off (and will drive them to reelect Trump). JMHO.

[Typical Lax Dad]

How many who use white privilege mean it that way today? White privilege means you can't possibly understand how tough other than whites have had it, and you're inherently racist as a result of your white privilege, the way I hear it (too often).

Actually a friend of mine's daughter told him that their lives have been shaped by "white privilege". He said he didn't know where that came from. She went to an all girls HS.... Later that day, she ordered a $15.00 veggie burger Calvert, Bryn Mawr and off to a private college..... We laughed about it. She is going to turn 40 one day and her outlook may change but until then, it's nice to see that spirit. A good example of white privilege is not being stopped to ask where you are going when meeting friends at a hotel..... When 6 guys meet at a hotel and the black guy is the only one stopped, the guy stopping and asking the question isn't racist. The white guys are shocked when they get a phone call verifying the guy is there to meet them. They are shocked because nobody else was stopped..... The black guy just isn't afforded the same privilege.... again the guy stopping and asking questions is not racist. His thoughts have been conditioned and he is not even aware of it.

Apparently I'm unable to adequately express what I'm trying to get across here. You really think you told me anything I didn't already know? White privilege also means you were born a racist and a bigot to many who use it, and that's the part you guys don't seem to want to understand and the part that's pissin' a lot of people off (and will drive them to reelect Trump). JMHO.

No. Just pointing out white privilege doesn’t mean the person is racist. Those other things happen all the time and is no surprise. Some people are racist too. The word is used too often in my opinion.

[Trinity]

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019 ... y-of-trump

Sad to learn Mike Pompeo is the most enthusiastic Trump sycophant, in public and private. The Sec of State is “a heat-seeking missile for Trump’s ass,” says the New Yorker.

[MDlaxfan76]

Apparently Salty doesn’t like having his Trumpism pointed out. He claims to not like Trump, didn’t vote for him but darn if near everything he contributes on here isn’t another attempt to normalize the creep that currently inhabits the Oval Office. Just ain’t buying it, that dog don’t hunt.

Point out this BS and he feels stifled. SAD

Salty, yes you Can do something about it . Vote him out of office!
Meanwhile, call on the GOP to grow a spine and repudiate him.

You still haven't figured out how Trump highjacked the GOP & why he still has it in a strangle hold.

1. One of the most persistent myths in politics is that Trump is an aberration for the Republican party.

Republicans, including the Republican establishment, do not oppose Trump.

He is the one they've been waiting for.

Well, a bunch of us R's were definitely not waiting for this dishonest jackass, nor anyone remotely close. But a lot of us have now left the GOP or, like me, holding our breath that the fever will break and sanity will resume. But it's getting really hard to hold our breaths this long!

Sadly, I think there's an entire generation of future voters lost to the GOP, so since the leadership has proven so spineless, I think it's going to shrivel up and another party will occupy the center-right.

I believe in two party competition, not single party dominance, so for the sake of that dynamic I sure as heck hope a center-right party can emerge that is truly competitive.

[MDlaxfan76]

How many who use white privilege mean it that way today? White privilege means you can't possibly understand how tough other than whites have had it, and you're inherently racist as a result of your white privilege, the way I hear it (too often).

Actually a friend of mine's daughter told him that their lives have been shaped by "white privilege". He said he didn't know where that came from. She went to an all girls HS.... Later that day, she ordered a $15.00 veggie burger Calvert, Bryn Mawr and off to a private college..... We laughed about it. She is going to turn 40 one day and her outlook may change but until then, it's nice to see that spirit. A good example of white privilege is not being stopped to ask where you are going when meeting friends at a hotel..... When 6 guys meet at a hotel and the black guy is the only one stopped, the guy stopping and asking the question isn't racist. The white guys are shocked when they get a phone call verifying the guy is there to meet them. They are shocked because nobody else was stopped..... The black guy just isn't afforded the same privilege.... again the guy stopping and asking questions is not racist. His thoughts have been conditioned and he is not even aware of it.

Apparently I'm unable to adequately express what I'm trying to get across here. You really think you told me anything I didn't already know? White privilege also means you were born a racist and a bigot to many who use it, and that's the part you guys don't seem to want to understand and the part that's pissin' a lot of people off (and will drive them to reelect Trump). JMHO.

No. Just pointing out white privilege doesn’t mean the person is racist. Those other things happen all the time and is no surprise. Some people are racist too. The word is used too often in my opinion.

DMac,
I agree with you and a fan that the Dems need to nominate someone who discusses these issues in ways that bring Americans together around shared values of opportunity for all rather than divisive language that demonizes anyone.

But for the life of me I don't get where you come up with the notion that 'white privilege' means you are born a racist and a bigot, if white. That would be patently stupid, and I don't recall any major candidate make that argument, nor anyone on these threads make that argument.

So, where you getting that?

Uhh ohh, did someone on Fox tell you that?

I'm sure there are some extremists who get themselves all worked up and might say something that stupid, but hey, that's not at all what the term actually means to the vast majority of folks who think it's real and an issue that deserves honest recognition.

But again, you're correct that the Dems would be well served to nominate a candidate who can bring most folks together on this most divisive of issues.

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm getting real tired of hearing how none of us ever experienced hardships and life was just an easy road for us all because we were born white.

This is what a lot of people miss about the term "white privilege." "White privilege" doesn't mean your life was easy, or that you were necessarily handed anything.

It means the color of your skin had little or nothing to do with problems you have faced in life.

Problems, all due to the color of ones skin? What an embarrassing mindset to have.

Like when a friend was a victim of the polar bear knockout game on the corner of M st and Wisconsin so many years ago. Friday happy hour in the late 80's. Black cops were going to arrest my unconscious friend for "loitering" true F n story Big crowd of people politely made the pigs stand down. It was twillight zonish.

Yikes, I must be misunderstanding you ABV.

First, of course no one's problems are solely due to the color of one's skin. No one said anything remotely like that. All sorts of problems folks have, independent of skin color. As I said, lots of white folks are born into pretty darn disadvantaged situations, crummy homelife, crummy schools, medical issues, you name it.

But they don't ALSO have to deal with the prejudices around skin color, neither those that exist in the immediacy of today, nor the implications of generations of such.

As to your 2nd para, I'm lost. First, I have no idea what a 'polar bear knockout game' might be other than it sounds like it might be associated with excessive drinking? And are you really calling black cops "pigs"? I just don't follow...

[holmes435]

Yeah, the it's amazing to see the logic get so twisted about in his brain. Somehow thinking that "problems white people have usually aren't due to the color of their skin" means that brown and black people's problems are "all due to the color of ones skin".

There's no gray area or nuance for many people on here.

[ABV 8.3%]

Yikes, I must be misunderstanding you ABV.

First, of course no one's problems are solely due to the color of one's skin. No one said anything remotely like that. All sorts of problems folks have, independent of skin color. As I said, lots of white folks are born into pretty darn disadvantaged situations, crummy homelife, crummy schools, medical issues, you name it.

But they don't ALSO have to deal with the prejudices around skin color, neither those that exist in the immediacy of today, nor the implications of generations of such.

As to your 2nd para, I'm lost. First, I have no idea what a 'polar bear knockout game' might be other than it sounds like it might be associated with excessive drinking? And are you really calling black cops "pigs"? I just don't follow...

Yes, the black cops acted like pigs....so.

And, big surprise from you. Since YOU have NO knowledge of said "polar bear knockout game", gee, I wonder geee, why is that? Who owns youtube? (not that you use that website, or very often ) What's your go to WIKI say about it? Oh, whats that? It gives you climate change links? So, since YOU can't find anything, it didn't happen.

And, once again, show disrespect towards someones life experiences. Guess, only your's matter. Think about it.

[ABV 8.3%]

Yeah, the it's amazing to see the logic get so twisted about in his brain. Somehow thinking that "problems white people have usually aren't due to the color of their skin" means that brown and black people's problems are "all due to the color of ones skin".

There's no gray area or nuance for many people on here.

Twist facts all you want, but the black on white crime in the District is legend. Especially in the kill for sneakers era. ,
Just pointing out that being white, was, and still is, a problem is many areas.

Yeah, I can't find those stories of you can't join our gang until you shot a white person on Anacostia pkwy..........either.

I google it. Even though that is exactly what THEY want to do. Narrative. You remove porn websites (boooo), and than see how long it takes for people to notice the surpression of facts on google, etc.

[old salt]

The President is the sort of moron that muses about this sort of thing, which will never happen. The President's advisors appear to be toadying morons who not only think nothing of the President -- in his limited executive time -- musing about these sorts of idiotic things, they encourage it. It's like the President of the United States saying, "Gee, let's buy the Algarve." But you toady-up too, as if on cue, to normalize the musings of this knucklehead.

C'mon now. Comparing the state of things now with the conditions of the world at the time of the Louisiana Purchase or Seward's Folly is comparing apples to sea urchins, which you certainly know. My point -- which you also get, even if you don't agree with it -- is that these are the sort of silly, pointless things that take up the mind of our President, and are condoned and encouraged by the little yes-men with whom he has surrounded himself. The issue is where we are now and the likelihood that the purchase of Greenland is any more or less liable to happen in the 65 years since Harry Truman couldn't get the deal done. Tell me: how would you place a value on Greenland? What are the due diligence metrics? Etc., etc., etc.

Gillian Tett (of FT) today on MSNBC, in response to Andrea Mitchell calling Trump's Greenland purchase statement "crazy" :

With all due respect, actually, I think the idea has been talked around quite a bit in recent months. People I've been speaking to in Washington have been talking about this. It's something that wasn't on the table at all a year ago, in fact the Americans were offered a chance to actually invest in air bases & things & ports & they actually turned some of that down. What I expect to see going forward is not so much a debate about whether the govt should buy Greenland as a whole, but whether you're going to start seeing American private equity companies & financial companies investing in hard assets & strategic assets, because quite apart from the mineral issue & the geopolitical issue to do with the Arctic Circle & the military aspect, there's also a big debate about climate change & Greenland is one of the places that you actually want to be in if you believe any of the climate change projection in the coming years are going to be true. There are people inside the US military right now who absolutely can see that equation. ...the military does believe in climate change & that's impacting the date in the WH.

Andrea Mitchell was clearly not happy with this Brit Trumpist toady (from FT) pushing back on her TDS Resistance snarkfest.

[MDlaxfan76]

Yikes, I must be misunderstanding you ABV.

First, of course no one's problems are solely due to the color of one's skin. No one said anything remotely like that. All sorts of problems folks have, independent of skin color. As I said, lots of white folks are born into pretty darn disadvantaged situations, crummy homelife, crummy schools, medical issues, you name it.

But they don't ALSO have to deal with the prejudices around skin color, neither those that exist in the immediacy of today, nor the implications of generations of such.

As to your 2nd para, I'm lost. First, I have no idea what a 'polar bear knockout game' might be other than it sounds like it might be associated with excessive drinking? And are you really calling black cops "pigs"? I just don't follow...

Yes, the black cops acted like pigs....so.

And, big surprise from you. Since YOU have NO knowledge of said "polar bear knockout game", gee, I wonder geee, why is that? Who owns youtube? (not that you use that website, or very often ) What's your go to WIKI say about it? Oh, whats that? It gives you climate change links? So, since YOU can't find anything, it didn't happen.

And, once again, show disrespect towards someones life experiences. Guess, only your's matter. Think about it.

Huh?
Why not just explain what it is and what your point was supposed to be?

ok, so I've now put the google on it and yes, I do recall this disgusting behavior getting some attention a half decade ago. https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch ... h-branding

How you took my post to be "disrespect towards someones' life experiences" I don't get. I was asking you to simply to explain to an old hoagie what the heck you were referring to.

That said, your initial part was a really dumb statement that I was also asking you to explain, as it was SO dumb that I thought I must have misunderstood you. You've ignored that part, so am I left to think you really meant it so ignorantly? Or do you want to correct that impression?

I'm still assuming that you're not actually that dumb.

So...ok, now that I understand that your friend had been attacked by a mob of black kids and the cops thought he was drunk and disorderly or "loitering", what exactly was your point that you think I was disrespecting?

I don't get it. Your friend was white and got beaten up by black kids and black cops assumed your friend was drunk, or maybe that he'd actually instigated something? what exactly are you suggesting, that white folks have it rough?...come to think of it, you sure he didn't say something stupid to the black kids?

To be clear, the behavior that's described as the 'knockout game' is truly disgusting, no excuses, period.

[seacoaster]

The President is the sort of moron that muses about this sort of thing, which will never happen. The President's advisors appear to be toadying morons who not only think nothing of the President -- in his limited executive time -- musing about these sorts of idiotic things, they encourage it. It's like the President of the United States saying, "Gee, let's buy the Algarve." But you toady-up too, as if on cue, to normalize the musings of this knucklehead.

C'mon now. Comparing the state of things now with the conditions of the world at the time of the Louisiana Purchase or Seward's Folly is comparing apples to sea urchins, which you certainly know. My point -- which you also get, even if you don't agree with it -- is that these are the sort of silly, pointless things that take up the mind of our President, and are condoned and encouraged by the little yes-men with whom he has surrounded himself. The issue is where we are now and the likelihood that the purchase of Greenland is any more or less liable to happen in the 65 years since Harry Truman couldn't get the deal done. Tell me: how would you place a value on Greenland? What are the due diligence metrics? Etc., etc., etc.

Gillian Tett (of FT) today on MSNBC, in response to Andrea Mitchell calling Trump's Greenland purchase statement "crazy" :

With all due respect, actually, I think the idea has been talked around quite a bit in recent months. People I've been speaking to in Washington have been talking about this. It's something that wasn't on the table at all a year ago, in fact the Americans were offered a chance to actually invest in air bases & things & ports & they actually turned some of that down. What I expect to see going forward is not so much a debate about whether the govt should buy Greenland as a whole, but whether you're going to start seeing American private equity companies & financial companies investing in hard assets & strategic assets, because quite apart from the mineral issue & the geopolitical issue to do with the Arctic Circle & the military aspect, there's also a big debate about climate change & Greenland is one of the places that you actually want to be in if you believe any of the climate change projection in the coming years are going to be true. There are people inside the US military right now who absolutely can see that equation. ...the military does believe in climate change & that's impacting the date in the WH.

Andrea Mitchell was clearly not happy with this Brit Trumpist toady (from FT) pushing back on her TDS Resistance snarkfest.

It is a waste of the Administration's time, or another shiny object with which to avoid the problems presented by income inequality, gun violence, climate change, racial division, the resurgence of public white supremacists and Modern Klan activities, and what to do when the steroidal juice of the tax changes run out of gas. So let's talk about buying Greenland. But keep it up; you're doing great!

[MDlaxfan76]

The President is the sort of moron that muses about this sort of thing, which will never happen. The President's advisors appear to be toadying morons who not only think nothing of the President -- in his limited executive time -- musing about these sorts of idiotic things, they encourage it. It's like the President of the United States saying, "Gee, let's buy the Algarve." But you toady-up too, as if on cue, to normalize the musings of this knucklehead.

C'mon now. Comparing the state of things now with the conditions of the world at the time of the Louisiana Purchase or Seward's Folly is comparing apples to sea urchins, which you certainly know. My point -- which you also get, even if you don't agree with it -- is that these are the sort of silly, pointless things that take up the mind of our President, and are condoned and encouraged by the little yes-men with whom he has surrounded himself. The issue is where we are now and the likelihood that the purchase of Greenland is any more or less liable to happen in the 65 years since Harry Truman couldn't get the deal done. Tell me: how would you place a value on Greenland? What are the due diligence metrics? Etc., etc., etc.

Gillian Tett (of FT) today on MSNBC, in response to Andrea Mitchell calling Trump's Greenland purchase statement "crazy" :

With all due respect, actually, I think the idea has been talked around quite a bit in recent months. People I've been speaking to in Washington have been talking about this. It's something that wasn't on the table at all a year ago, in fact the Americans were offered a chance to actually invest in air bases & things & ports & they actually turned some of that down. What I expect to see going forward is not so much a debate about whether the govt should buy Greenland as a whole, but whether you're going to start seeing American private equity companies & financial companies investing in hard assets & strategic assets, because quite apart from the mineral issue & the geopolitical issue to do with the Arctic Circle & the military aspect, there's also a big debate about climate change & Greenland is one of the places that you actually want to be in if you believe any of the climate change projection in the coming years are going to be true. There are people inside the US military right now who absolutely can see that equation. ...the military does believe in climate change & that's impacting the date in the WH.

Andrea Mitchell was clearly not happy with this Brit Trumpist toady (from FT) pushing back on her TDS Resistance snarkfest.

nah, Gillian's a pretty competent commentator who is on precisely because she has a head on her shoulders, providing some nuance to the discussion on MSNBC.

Trump's indeed a moron, the US is not going to buy Greenland and it's not for sale. Period.
He's an idiot for suggesting otherwise.

But Gillian is correct that it might well be an astute play for private sector folks to buy some real estate there as a hedge against climate change and she's right that the US military believes that climate change is real and that perhaps some bases there would be prudent. Good commentary.

She ain't a Trump toady in the slightest, far as I recall!
But hey, thanks for letting us know that MSNBC had someone on who disagreed, if only a little, with Andrea Mitchell's characterization.

[MDlaxfan76]

The President is the sort of moron that muses about this sort of thing, which will never happen. The President's advisors appear to be toadying morons who not only think nothing of the President -- in his limited executive time -- musing about these sorts of idiotic things, they encourage it. It's like the President of the United States saying, "Gee, let's buy the Algarve." But you toady-up too, as if on cue, to normalize the musings of this knucklehead.

C'mon now. Comparing the state of things now with the conditions of the world at the time of the Louisiana Purchase or Seward's Folly is comparing apples to sea urchins, which you certainly know. My point -- which you also get, even if you don't agree with it -- is that these are the sort of silly, pointless things that take up the mind of our President, and are condoned and encouraged by the little yes-men with whom he has surrounded himself. The issue is where we are now and the likelihood that the purchase of Greenland is any more or less liable to happen in the 65 years since Harry Truman couldn't get the deal done. Tell me: how would you place a value on Greenland? What are the due diligence metrics? Etc., etc., etc.

Gillian Tett (of FT) today on MSNBC, in response to Andrea Mitchell calling Trump's Greenland purchase statement "crazy" :

With all due respect, actually, I think the idea has been talked around quite a bit in recent months. People I've been speaking to in Washington have been talking about this. It's something that wasn't on the table at all a year ago, in fact the Americans were offered a chance to actually invest in air bases & things & ports & they actually turned some of that down. What I expect to see going forward is not so much a debate about whether the govt should buy Greenland as a whole, but whether you're going to start seeing American private equity companies & financial companies investing in hard assets & strategic assets, because quite apart from the mineral issue & the geopolitical issue to do with the Arctic Circle & the military aspect, there's also a big debate about climate change & Greenland is one of the places that you actually want to be in if you believe any of the climate change projection in the coming years are going to be true. There are people inside the US military right now who absolutely can see that equation. ...the military does believe in climate change & that's impacting the date in the WH.

Andrea Mitchell was clearly not happy with this Brit Trumpist toady (from FT) pushing back on her TDS Resistance snarkfest.

It is a waste of the Administration's time, or another shiny object with which to avoid the problems presented by income inequality, gun violence, climate change, racial division, the resurgence of public white supremacists and Modern Klan activities, and what to do when the steroidal juice of the tax changes run out of gas. So let's talk about buying Greenland. But keep it up; you're doing great!

funny, of course you're right, that's what this is, just a way to distract.

[ABV 8.3%]

In reference to the Polar bear knockout game comment........it's working.....howz my spelln ?

NO.....the cops saw the entire thing. we all pointed to the kids across the street in front of the bank, laughing......bla bla bla......more to the story, but, really tough to get thru to someone who doesn't get the sub-titles of mastery and your mystical, mythical personnal hommage to thee self.

I told you a story

You said you never heard of it. (what do MOST people view this action/interaction as? passive aggressive, dickish, insecure??)

I pointed out that I had just told you a story.

You will argue that you forgot to type, "before your story, I had never heard of...."

I will point out that you didn't. You never do. Hence, the disrespect.

[holmes435]

Twist facts all you want, but the black on white crime in the District is legend. Especially in the kill for sneakers era. ,
Just pointing out that being white, was, and still is, a problem is many areas.

Yeah, I can't find those stories of you can't join our gang until you shot a white person on Anacostia pkwy..........either.

I google it. Even though that is exactly what THEY want to do. Narrative. You remove porn websites (boooo), and than see how long it takes for people to notice the surpression of facts on google, etc.

Not sure where I'm twisting the facts, what I said is completely true.

Then you come along and say, here are a few incidents where black people are committing crime against white people as if that somehow relates to the discussion in a meaningful way. We're talking about problems due to the history of ones skin here in America. Let me ask you a simple question. At any point in the history of this country, including today, do you think you would have it easier being born an average black man, or an average white man?

Do you want to talk about homicide facts? Black people usually kill black people. White people usually kill white people. By a large majority. FBI Source. But hey, a few black people killed some white people because of the color of their skin, so that means white people in this country have it just as hard as black people due to the color of their skin.

[ABV 8.3%]

Twist facts all you want, but the black on white crime in the District is legend. Especially in the kill for sneakers era. ,
Just pointing out that being white, was, and still is, a problem is many areas.

Yeah, I can't find those stories of you can't join our gang until you shot a white person on Anacostia pkwy..........either.

I google it. Even though that is exactly what THEY want to do. Narrative. You remove porn websites (boooo), and than see how long it takes for people to notice the surpression of facts on google, etc.

Not sure where I'm twisting the facts, what I said is completely true.

Then you come along and say, here are a few incidents where black people are committing crime against white people as if that somehow relates to the discussion in a meaningful way. We're talking about problems due to the history of ones skin here in America. Let me ask you a simple question. At any point in the history of this country, including today, do you think you would have it easier being born an average black man, or an average white man?

Do you want to talk about homicide facts? Black people usually kill black people. White people usually kill white people. By a large majority. FBI Source. But hey, a few black people killed some white people because of the color of their skin, so that means white people in this country have it just as hard as black people due to the color of their skin.

What part of a "few nutjobs with rapid fire guns " part won't you understand?

Define a few? A day, a week, a decade?

Guessing you don't know, or remember, the white couple in Tennassee being brutally murdered by 5 blacks.....not a hate crime. Remember their names? Just another "few". Who cares? Is this what you are saying, who cares about "a few" ? Unless it fits YOUR narrative.......understood. No need to reply.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Twist facts all you want, but the black on white crime in the District is legend. Especially in the kill for sneakers era. ,
Just pointing out that being white, was, and still is, a problem is many areas.

Yeah, I can't find those stories of you can't join our gang until you shot a white person on Anacostia pkwy..........either.

I google it. Even though that is exactly what THEY want to do. Narrative. You remove porn websites (boooo), and than see how long it takes for people to notice the surpression of facts on google, etc.

Not sure where I'm twisting the facts, what I said is completely true.

Then you come along and say, here are a few incidents where black people are committing crime against white people as if that somehow relates to the discussion in a meaningful way. We're talking about problems due to the history of ones skin here in America. Let me ask you a simple question. At any point in the history of this country, including today, do you think you would have it easier being born an average black man, or an average white man?

Do you want to talk about homicide facts? Black people usually kill black people. White people usually kill white people. By a large majority. FBI Source. But hey, a few black people killed some white people because of the color of their skin, so that means white people in this country have it just as hard as black people due to the color of their skin.

What part of a "few nutjobs with rapid fire guns " part won't you understand?

Define a few? A day, a week, a decade?

Guessing you don't know, or remember, the white couple in Tennassee being brutally murdered by 5 blacks.....not a hate crime. Remember their names? Just another "few". Who cares? Is this what you are saying, who cares about "a few" ? Unless it fits YOUR narrative.......understood. No need to reply.

Was the kid’s name Charles Stuart?