Quoting Post Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic What's the point of racial purity? (hey kidd rune) Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] Quote: from [m]kidd rune[/m] at 6:01 pm on Nov. 26, 2008[quote][quote]Middle easterns changed it. It is not a race thing You know shit about the faith anywy. you proved your stupidity so much you have no leg to stand on..Stop talking about shit you know nothing about.   [/quote]HAHA! Pagan regions in Europe altered the religion so much the original is far different than anything that they would practice. [quote]LOL more proof that you know abosultely nothing on the topic. [/quote]Why did they kill him? Why is it written in the Talmud that he's boiling in semen in hell? [quote]Yeah "I know abosultely nothing about Christianity but I can quote from a white nationalist website so I can look I know something" [/quote]And? Did you read it? [quote]Yes and Mary was Jewish [/quote]But wasn't he created by God? Therefore, 1/2 of his genetic input is from her - and half is from..... I'm sure each religion differs in this concept. [quote]that quote sucks races dont have the right to exist, people have the right to exist [/quote]Why not races?[/quote] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post tell me again Posted at 5:46 pm on Nov. 25, 2008 I can understand if it's an arbitrary preference. But if it's not about supremacy, then why is it such a big deal? Why does it even exist as a principle? Or is it always supremist, fundamentally?

Replies jakelong Posted at 8:12 pm on Dec. 4, 2008 Quote: from drkberry at 7:18 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 Whites segregate themselves from nonwhites all the time in my school. You don't need a freakin white country to seperate your people, your people are already segregating themselves. I'm fine with it, I don't care too much for white people, epsecially if they think like you...kidd runne. Don't forget white flight drkberry. It's funny how they like to make it sounds its nonwhites who do that but white flight is PROOF some whites are still into segragating. jacktop Posted at 5:28 pm on Dec. 4, 2008 Post from this position was omitted due to content violations drkberry Posted at 7:18 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 Whites segregate themselves from nonwhites all the time in my school. You don't need a freakin white country to seperate your people, your people are already segregating themselves. I'm fine with it, I don't care too much for white people, epsecially if they think like you...kidd runne. jakelong Posted at 4:08 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 3:13 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 That one other guy did and I was arguing with him and you just jumped in. He didn't either. He said it was one of the factors. Like you he probably forgot to add "most" or "sometimes" or "usually" or "often"   But you do that alot too so you can't criiticize. When you want money and everyone else around you has large plantations - you have to have one too to compete. No you don't have to COMPETE. If you just want to survive you can survive. But you don't always have to COMPETE. Competing means to want more, you are comapring yourself, you are in a race. Actually - when they defeated a tribe they took all the able bodied as slaves. They would defeat a small group in the whole tribe. A tribe can be really big thing you know. But this was not to exploit them. It was a part of a battle. When they got defeated they could be enslaved too. And, again, greed and slavery aren't the same thing. Not the "same thing" but they sure are linked espceially id its a an institution with laws and taxes and money attached. It's funny you can't see that. And it's not like the Amerinds in North America were capable of taking as many slaves as the Europeans. No one spoke of "capable" again you diverting the point. If more people wanted them free and equal they would have been earlier. Thats complete fail of logic. But if you want to know really they were actually allowed to be free earlier As I said many times but you fail to understand most blacks slaves were able to become FREE with the earlier laws BEFORE the 19th century.   I'm just seeing if you have any idea about how many... You seem to. So what are you waiting for: back up YOUR claim. Do you know how many people were abolitionists? I asked you first. Speak English much? Not the mumbo jumbo you spew. Not to mention you have so many unrefernced pronouns in most of your posts, you'll have a bad day on the English SAT. You said that it was somebodies job to gas Jews. I said somebody didn't do their job. I did not say "it was somebody's job". (you mispelled it btw) I said "Sure. Gassing a bunch of jews was just a job. " If you can't tell the difference go back and study English. (And "speak English much" is pig English) My proof is that there hasn't been 1 person with undeniable proof of them being gassed - much less millions. That's no proof. You can't ask the dead how they were killed. The proof is in the testimony of the survivors and the presence of the crime weapon. Ask judges how they really prove that a burned victim was really murdered and stabbed first. They do it all the time. I think you just replied to your own comment. I replied to you failure to answer. I think you have it mixed up. They didn't call them non-human to make slavery "Better" but they called them subhuman because they THOUGHT they were. Nope. re-read the article on the 3/5 law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise The 3/5 law was purely meant for tax purposes and population counting. It had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with how they considered slaves. Those OPPOSED to slavery did NOT want to count the slaves AT ALL. Does that mean they thought slaves were absolutely NOT human?   Moonscar Posted at 3:46 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 "Leave or suck it up" it's so easy for a white person to say that though Kidd Rune =/ kidd rune Posted at 3:13 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 Did I say it was? That one other guy did and I was arguing with him and you just jumped in. When it comes to making a large plantation with more than 50 slaves into a large scale business its pretty much greed yeah. Its one thing to have 3 or 4 slaves for your own personal use. Its totally another when you use a whole gang to make huge profits on the back of 50 people. When you want money and everyone else around you has large plantations - you have to have one too to compete. Why should I? They were not motivated by as much greed as the Europeans. They only used a few slaves as part of prisoners of wars instead on enslaving whole populations and whole tribes. Actually - when they defeated a tribe they took all the able bodied as slaves. And, again, greed and slavery aren't the same thing. And it's not like the Amerinds in North America were capable of taking as many slaves as the Europeans. I put my question in large print because apparently you can't read. If more people wanted them free and equal they would have been earlier. I am asking you. You made the claim. Back it up. I'm just seeing if you have any idea about how many... Do you know how many people were abolitionists? Not sure what that BS means. Speak English much? You said that it was somebodies job to gas Jews. I said somebody didn't do their job. My proof is that there hasn't been 1 person with undeniable proof of them being gassed - much less millions. Which proves that the ONLY way to make surethey could do this is to PASS a NEW LAW saying that black are not human.. And yeah that's racism. Yep your ancestor should went along fine with that law. I guess the apple don't fall far from the tree I think you just replied to your own comment. Good job. Re-read my posts and you know what I said on the topic. Whites were slaves but whites were not considered 3/5 of Asians or Amerindians now were they? They were not automatically considered slaves just because of thir race. Laws were not changed around just to make sure whites would become slaves and stayed slaves. Whites had the MEANS to escape slavery by paying their debts and converting. BLacks used to be treated more fairly BEFORE the slave laws of the 19th century. Sure blacks were taken as slaves from the start but those who had managed to pay their debts or convert became freedmen long before the civil war. When the Slave laws passed it was OVER. Now I ask you WHY WERE THE LAWS CHANGED JUST TO MAKE SURE blacks became slaves and stayed slave? I think you have it mixed up. They didn't call them non-human to make slavery "Better" but they called them subhuman because they THOUGHT they were. Then why did you quote it and put in a statement that had nothing to do with it. How the hell am I going to answer something that isn't a question? You told me to answer it! You sure did You said they were needed to survive and if whites didn't have slaves they would "impoverished" You never mentioned that. You said it was needed for food. That was the case for many people. It was only needed to SELL crops and make money from it. Re-read the article on WHO owned slaves and why and what happened to those ppl/ Go head it is on this thread. Oh you lost the link and the quote Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States Okay, and? Again an assfact without eveidence of proof. Just some general BS throw out there to make believe. Most families only had a few slaves. But the MAJORITY of slaves were owned by greedy plantation owners. it's funny you defend them. Explain there greediness. Undeniable proof or YOU threw out an assfact. Be sure to have it fit the definition of greed 100% and not have any error in your argument. Or admit your fail. The ONLY way to do it? The BEST way to do it? The ONLY way they could think of? Be specific. Where did I put "Only" in that sentence? Wealth obtained on the back of the unpaid and forced  labor of others = Greed, Greed is when you want more than you need. That isn't the only explanation. Understanding between people. But yeah you don't seem to know much about that. Slavery made EVERYONE suffer: blacks AS WELL poor whites. And? But the consequences of slavery for the social and ecomincs of blacks is still an issue. If it's so bad they should leave or suck it up. SAMMYJS99 Posted at 8:48 am on Dec. 3, 2008 mods, a make a motion to sticky this. i dont think this topic is going away anytime soon. my reason: kidd rune and jakelong HAVE OPEN MINDS about this issue. just as long as they stay in check - which i am sure they are.   jakelong Posted at 12:14 am on Dec. 3, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 2:44 pm on Dec. 2, 2008 I never said greed couldn't exist - but I said that it's not the ONLY factor. Did I say it was? And competition may be related to greed but many times is related to just not wanting to run out of business. When it comes to making a large plantation with more than 50 slaves into a large scale business its pretty much greed yeah. Its one thing to have 3 or 4 slaves for your own personal use. Its totally another when you use a whole gang to make huge profits on the back of 50 people. But, then again - compare the Amerind achievement to European... Why should I? They were not motivated by as much greed as the Europeans. They only used a few slaves as part of prisoners of wars instead on enslaving whole populations and whole tribes. Prove it was the "vast majority of people"in the whole United States. KR nonsequitur I put my question in large print because apparently you can't read. Prove that those who wanted blacks around wee a very small minority. How many do you really think were abolitionists? Do you have an estimate? I am asking you. You made the claim. Back it up. Sure. Gassing a bunch of jews was just a job. Well, someone wasn't doing their job! Not sure what that BS means. But he thought their were "not human" right? So he could wash his hands off that. Which proves that the ONLY way to make surethey could do this is to PASS a NEW LAW saying that black are not human.. And yeah that's racism. Yep your ancestor should went along fine with that law. I guess the apple don't fall far from the tree And do you really think Whites weren't sold as slaves either? Re-read my posts and you know what I said on the topic. Whites were slaves but whites were not considered 3/5 of Asians or Amerindians now were they? They were not automatically considered slaves just because of thir race. Laws were not changed around just to make sure whites would become slaves and stayed slaves. Whites had the MEANS to escape slavery by paying their debts and converting. BLacks used to be treated more fairly BEFORE the slave laws of the 19th century. Sure blacks were taken as slaves from the start but those who had managed to pay their debts or convert became freedmen long before the civil war. When the Slave laws passed it was OVER. Now I ask you WHY WERE THE LAWS CHANGED JUST TO MAKE SURE blacks became slaves and stayed slave?   Well it's a statement and wasn't a question - how do you answer a statement? Then why did you quote it and put in a statement that had nothing to do with it. I didn't say such bullshit! You sure did You said they were needed to survive and if whites didn't have slaves they would "impoverished" Here are your own quotes It's not greed if you're trying to live. Slaves didn't have to make money - they just had to work. If everyone around you has slaves and puts out 10x more food - you are going to go out of business or find some nice workers. But, if you didn't have a plantation and worked on something else you probably wouldn't need slaves. You never mentioned that. You said it was needed for food. Rich and powerful? Maybe SOME did - but not all. Re-read the article on WHO owned slaves and why and what happened to those ppl/ Go head it is on this thread. Oh you lost the link and the quote Here Of all 1,515,605 families in the 15 slave states, 393,967 held slaves (roughly one in four),[6] amounting to 8% of all American families.[7] Most slaveholding households, however, had only a few slaves. The majority of slaves were held by planters, defined by historians as those who held 20 or more slaves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States Some just wanted money for their families. Again an assfact without eveidence of proof. Just some general BS throw out there to make believe. Most families only had a few slaves. But the MAJORITY of slaves were owned by greedy plantation owners. it's funny you defend them. And the right path = the way to do it. The ONLY way to do it? The BEST way to do it? The ONLY way they could think of? Be specific. No it doesn't. Wealth is not synonymous with greed. Wealth obtained on the back of the unpaid and forced  labor of others = Greed, Understanding for what? Understanding between people. But yeah you don't seem to know much about that. Slavery made EVERYONE suffer: blacks AS WELL poor whites. They aren't enslaving people anymore and I doubt they want to. But the consequences of slavery for the social and ecomincs of blacks is still an issue. hersheyparker Posted at 2:46 pm on Dec. 2, 2008 Its that people want to know that they are from an exact race/culture/background. kidd rune Posted at 2:44 pm on Dec. 2, 2008 I know that was not the only motivation going on with slavery. And competition is often related to greed. I never said greed couldn't exist - but I said that it's not the ONLY factor. And competition may be related to greed but many times is related to just not wanting to run out of business. You can't read the word MOST? Yep just what I thought. The whole tribes enslaved other tribes - it was SHARED slavery. And the Amerinds of America weren't even 1/2 as bad as the ones in South and Central America. But, then again - compare the Amerind achievement to European... Prove it was the "vast majority of people" in the whole United States. When the Blacks were freed they were hated against a lot and they weren't considered equal for a while. If they loved them so much don't you think they would've had a better past? Prove that those who wanted blacks around wee a very small minority. How many do you really think were abolitionists? Do you have an estimate? That you are full of fail. That was a good one.... Sure. Gassing a bunch of jews was just a job. Well, someone wasn't doing their job! If he was just the employee how did he make so much money? And why "of course"/ If he had some sdistate for selling human beings he would not have done it. But he thought their were "not human" right? So he could wash his hands off that. Yep just what I thought. Where did I say he made so much money? I don't know how much he made. And do you really think Whites weren't sold as slaves either? Interesting how you avoided answering that. Well it's a statement and wasn't a question - how do you answer a statement? Pontius Pilate hasd the same reasoning Okay? Didn't you say he did? I don't think so. Which is exaclty what I posted thanks for repeating the obvious. Excpet that YOU argued that if they did not have slaves they would starve or be poor. That slavery was NEEDED for ppl to survive and make a living, Were all whites who had no slaves poor in the south? I didn't say such bullshit! I said that to have a plantation it would incomparable to one with slave workers - and really be only for your family and you wouldn't make much money from it. But, if you didn't have a plantation and worked on something else you probably wouldn't need slaves. They wanted to become rich and powerful. Prett much defines greed yeah. And why the RIGHT path? Rich and powerful? Maybe SOME did - but not all. Some just wanted money for their families. And the right path = the way to do it. Also defines greed yep. No it doesn't. Wealth is not synonymous with greed. If you ar  saying that slaving owning was ALSO BAD for the whites who did not own slaves then I agree. Slavery made EVERYONE suffer: blacks AS WELL poor whites. It committed a grave injustivce to BOTH black and other whites. When whites from the south start realizing this maybe there will be more understanding across the board. Understanding for what? They aren't enslaving people anymore and I doubt they want to. jakelong Posted at 11:59 pm on Dec. 1, 2008 No go ahead and bring in something useful if you got it. SAMMYJS99 Posted at 11:41 pm on Dec. 1, 2008 Quote: from jakelong at 2:37 am on Dec. 2, 2008 I try to stop but everytime the guy starts dissecting my posts,,,   He's got some sort of homo obsession on me I bet.   But if you want to say something not one stopping you man. HOMO OBSESSION -- funny   you 2 keep at it - I wont stop ya. jakelong Posted at 11:37 pm on Dec. 1, 2008 I try to stop but everytime the guy starts dissecting my posts,,, He's got some sort of homo obsession on me I bet. But if you want to say something not one stopping you man. SAMMYJS99 Posted at 11:19 pm on Dec. 1, 2008 hey "jakelong" and  "kidd rune", maybe you 2 need to start your own forum on this topic. damn - the 2 of you are just up in arms over this issue. NOT A BAD THING, just i am going, " jesus - will these 2 ever stop arguing"?? jakelong Posted at 7:00 pm on Dec. 1, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 6:25 pm on Dec. 1, 2008 You don't understand the concept of competition? I know that was not the only motivation going on with slavery. And competition is often related to greed. The Amerinds had slaves! You can't read the word MOST? Yep just what I thought. when I said "Everyone" I meant the vast majority of people Prove it was the "vast majority of people" in the whole United States. and that anyone that didn't was such a small amount that they were almost impossible to discern from the general population. Prove that those who wanted blacks around wee a very small minority. The thought that all slave owners were great men is absurd! But to say that all were evil to their slaves is as bad too. Neither of which I said. Next. What do you think I'm trying to prove? That you are full of fail. It was a job Sure. Gassing a bunch of jews was just a job. - and he wasn't really the man in charge - he just took them to the Americas and worked on the boat - but helped them sell them of course. If he was just the employee how did he make so much money? And why "of course"/ If he had some sdistate for selling human beings he would not have done it. But he thought their were "not human" right? So he could wash his hands off that. Yep just what I thought. The MAJORITY of slaves belonged to large plantations that treated them like shit and raped the women and took their kids and sold the kids like cattle. Interesting how you avoided answering that. First off - he sold slaves, it wasn't his fault what the masters did to them. Pontius Pilate hasd the same reasoning How do you know he got rich? I doubt he did. Didn't you say he did? Second off - The vast majority of American Whites didn't have slaves, couldn't afford them, and/or didn't want them. Which is exaclty what I posted thanks for repeating the obvious. Excpet that YOU argued that if they did not have slaves they would starve or be poor. That slavery was NEEDED for ppl to survive and make a living, Were all whites who had no slaves poor in the south? The large plantation owners wanted money for their families or whatever else and the slaves were the right path to that. They wanted to become rich and powerful. Prett much defines greed yeah. And why the RIGHT path? Of course they achieved wealth - just like the owner of Walmart and his family. Also defines greed yep. It doesn't say anything about business and the affects on the non-slaveholding population. If you ar  saying that slaving owning was ALSO BAD for the whites who did not own slaves then I agree. Slavery made EVERYONE suffer: blacks AS WELL poor whites. It committed a grave injustivce to BOTH black and other whites. When whites from the south start realizing this maybe there will be more understanding across the board. Most recent 15 of 146 previous replies displayed.