Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
I'm amused by the different reactions of people in this forum and their shifting burdens of proof for "racism" and other such claims. When the claim comes that the majority of the looters are black, these people pop up pictures showing a white person or two looting as if this balances it out. Ok, so we'll assume that one picture and some whites in the mix is their evidential burden.
Now we go to Bush being a racist and "hating black people". Anyone who watches the news would note how that black woman who is always around isn't exactly polishing furniture and bringing cold sweet tea to massa Bush. The black man who used to run around with Bush, the man in the uniform, he wasn't exactly Bush's butler or manservant. So why is it that one white person looting is enough for liberal-types to smugly say that it's not a predominatly black issue, but Bush having high-ranking black people in his cabinet isn't enough to disprove the claims of him hating black people?
"Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest."
From the Declaration of the Continental Congress
"We can have peace and security only as long as we band together to preserve that most priceless possession, our inheritance of European blood."
Charles A. Lindbergh,"Aviation, Geography, and Race", Reader's Digest, Nov. 1939
"We must secure the existance of our people and a future for White children."
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil 278 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]