You can easily beat him in any distance. Why bother? LMFAO
You can easily beat him in any distance. Why bother? LMFAO
Young runners, disagree with the Liberal mob and this is what happens in the NEW and improved USA. These idiots try to pretend like we hate blacks. We don't. Yet, they think that they are stupid and need to think for them and most importantly, tell them how to vote. Who's helping who?
fasciz wrote:
bbbbb wrote:
I never had faith in yours: you act as if this were the only statement on the family proceeding from BLM ever. And did you notice the lone statement you adduced refers to “mother” but does not contain “father?” Sorry, but the absence of a father in the lives of black children is far more significant than “systemic racism” - and the most overt expression of systemic racism in the USA for several decades has been Affirmative Action.
Yes I’m sure that your misstating their goals is helping the situation.
Sorry, “disrupt” is not “drastically different” than “destroy.”
It is, and disrupt isn’t the only important context clue that flew over your head that shows that destruction of the nuclear family is not their goal.
NSRGObserver wrote:
Uh, I think he'll be fine. He probably said what most WHITE PEOPLE are thinking about the recent BLM movement and subsequent destruction.
We know that's want you meant
Lenny Leonard wrote:
Nick Symmonds commented:
“BLM lost me when they decided to wage war on the economy. I believe that black lives matter, but can no longer support the organization Black Lives Matter.”
Others in the running community drew attention to this, and now it appears his Twitter has been deactivated.
Nick in the 1960s... I was with Rosa Parks and MLK until they decided to wage war on busses.
fasciz wrote:
It is, and disrupt isn’t the only important context clue that flew over your head that shows that destruction of the nuclear family is not their goal.
Criticism of families consisting of a father and mother married to each other from an organization purporting to help black people in the USA is asinine.
sure boomer wrote:
Lenny Leonard wrote:
Nick Symmonds commented:
“BLM lost me when they decided to wage war on the economy. I believe that black lives matter, but can no longer support the organization Black Lives Matter.”
Others in the running community drew attention to this, and now it appears his Twitter has been deactivated.
Nick in the 1960s... I was with Rosa Parks and MLK until they decided to wage war on busses.
Such a person would be correct. MLK was a hardcore socialist, whose economic views did not age well.
92.5 The Chuck wrote:
Time for the unemployed basement dwellers to ramp up the cancel machine. Looking forward to woke hashtags.
Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
Me: Holy sh*t! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
Conservative: no...no not those views
Me: So....deregulation?
Conservative: no not those views either
Me: Which views, exactly?
Conservative: Oh, you know the ones
Harvard’s gatekeeper reveals SAT cutoff scores based on race
He said Harvard sends recruitment letters to African-American, Native American and Hispanic high schoolers with mid-range SAT scores, around 1100 on math and verbal combined out of a possible 1600, CNN reported.
Asian-Americans only receive a recruitment letter if they score at least 250 points higher — 1350 for women, and 1380 for men.
Fitzsimmons explained a similar process for white wannabe students in states that don’t see a lot of Harvard attendees, like Montana or Nevada. Students in those states would receive a recruitment letter if they had at least a 1310 on their SATs.
“That’s race discrimination, plain and simple,” John Hughes, a lawyer for Students for Fair Admissions, challenged the dean.
“It is not,” the dean insisted. He said the school targeted certain groups in order to “break the cycle” and try to convince students to apply to Harvard who normally wouldn’t consider the school.
https://nypost.com/2018/10/17/harvards-gatekeeper-reveals-sat-cutoff-scores-based-on-race/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW4uHBrSkpo
bbbbb wrote:
fasciz wrote:
It is, and disrupt isn’t the only important context clue that flew over your head that shows that destruction of the nuclear family is not their goal.
Criticism of families consisting of a father and mother married to each other from an organization purporting to help black people in the USA is asinine.
And again I must point out that your comprehension is lacking based on your faulty interpretation of their statement.
fasciz wrote:
bbbbb wrote:
Criticism of families consisting of a father and mother married to each other from an organization purporting to help black people in the USA is asinine.
And again I must point out that your comprehension is lacking based on your faulty interpretation of their statement.
You failed to respond to my statement that BLM essentially fabricated a straw-man argument in alleging a “requirement” of a nuclear family.
But let’s get down to brass tacks: BLM, in criticizing the importance of a mother and father married to each other, is giving horrible guidance.
Sincerely believing in perfect racial equality is no different from Creationism, the belief that the world was created in 7 days and Adam and Eve were created on the 7th day.
Both beliefs are a complete denial of evolution.
But of course, you will easily admit that West Africans evolved to be the best sprinters, and East Africans evolved to be the best distance runners.
But you will pretend that all races evolved to have identical intelligence, and you will march for "justice" every time Microsoft and Apple and Nike tell you to.
All to avoid having to admit to yourself that you lack courage.
vak wrote:
Young runners, disagree with the Liberal mob and this is what happens in the NEW and improved USA. These idiots try to pretend like we hate blacks. We don't. Yet, they think that they are stupid and need to think for them and most importantly, tell them how to vote. Who's helping who?
It’s not a good look when you call someone an idiot while showing you have no understanding of commas or the difference between subjects and objects in a sentence.
sfds wrote:
What you cowards don't realize is that the Marxist Bernie Sanders/Soros types don't actually believe in perfect racial equality. They know it's absurd, because different ethnic groups evolved differently in dramatically different climates and environments.
And they will be the first to tell you all about how J-ish IQs are the highest on average of any ethnic group. And then in the next sentence they will tell you that every OTHER ethnic group has the EXACT same average IQ, EXCEPT for the Chosen Js.
And you are so cowardly that you just pretend to not notice the hypocrisy. Just pretend not to notice that they all demand that Israel be kept as J-ish as possible. No blacks allowed, except for a few Ethiopian Js that are sterilized upon entry.
You're actively pushing for a communist dictatorship run by devoted ethnic nationalists and racial supremacists. All because the alternative is too frightening.
I’m not a supporter of Bernie’s but I’ve never heard him say as much - could you show me where he has?
How can the alternative be too frightening if I don’t know what it is?
Lenny Leonard wrote:
Nick Symmonds commented:
“BLM lost me when they decided to wage war on the economy. I believe that black lives matter, but can no longer support the organization Black Lives Matter.”
Others in the running community drew attention to this, and now it appears his Twitter has been deactivated.
There is an important distinction here. Go to the BLM site and look at some of the ideas it supports.
bbbbb wrote:
fasciz wrote:
And again I must point out that your comprehension is lacking based on your faulty interpretation of their statement.
You failed to respond to my statement that BLM essentially fabricated a straw-man argument in alleging a “requirement” of a nuclear family.
But let’s get down to brass tacks: BLM, in criticizing the importance of a mother and father married to each other, is giving horrible guidance.
... and again I must point out that your comprehension is lacking based on your faulty interpretation of their statement.
The White liberal narrative had its heyday. Its utopian dream . Enjoy it. Reality and science is about to punch you in the mouth and its gonna hurt yo. We'll be here to pick you up. Peace.
your parents wrote:
sfds wrote:
The only problem with it is that you pretend the quote is problematic, rather than the reality behind it.
In fact, with 200 more years of generational welfare, the dumbest blacks will continue having by far the most kids, and the average black iq will be significantly lower than it is now.
And people like you will still be total cowards about mentioning the obvious. Just like you'll still blame obesity and absent fathers on 600 years of oppression.
Facts, science, and progress have absolutely nothing to do with your opinions when it comes to sacred black people.
Mentioning the obvious, which is what? And what is your genius solution?
If you/we really want perfect racial equality, we need to be honest and scientific about what the differences are, and then use science to elevate the "lower" race(s).
YOU will never be part of any successful effort to elevate the black community, because YOU don't care enough about them to be honest and scientific. YOU will go on blaming teachers for the never-ending waves of terrible black test scores. YOU won't even mention the 75% single-parent household rate in the black community, which will probably be 85-95% in 200 years, up from 25% during Jim Crow.
YOU will support giving the dumbest and least functional blacks the Biggest financial incentives to have the Most children as humanly possible. YOU will call it racist to suggest mandating birth control for the retarded and mildly retarded.
YOU will call it classist and white supremacist to suggest that all of that generational welfare money should be spent giving high IQ, functional married black couples that money, and the same Huge financial incentives to have as many kids as humanly possible.
YOU will do everything in your power to stop actual progress to achieve actual equality. And you'll pat yourself on the back the whole time, and call yourself stunning and brave for speaking out, even when your voice shakes.
felonious monk wrote:
bbbbb wrote:
Easy to believe that anyone opposed to Marxism and to the destruction of the nuclear family would oppose BLM.
"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."
Why misrepresent?
Wow, I thought bbbb was over-exaggerating but felonius monk's post proved him right. Not only did it prove him right, but if anything he was understating. Those are some extremely radical views from the organization.