The Deplorables

Den søndag den 18. september 2016 kl. 23.26.26 UTC+2 skrev jurb...@gmail.com:
> >"and I don't live in a fascist, dictatorial state
> >like North Korea "
> 
> I am sick to death of people comparing this country to third worl shithole dictatorships and saying how great we are. How about Switzerland, Uruguay, wherever Amsterdam is, and places that have jobs, like EVEN RUSSIA ! 
> 
> I agree there are worse countries, but the fact is that there are also better.

https://youtu.be/GuTWMMpv4yk

>"They _drown_ swallowing the rain... dumbest creatures (domesticated
>turkeys) on the face of the earth ;-) "

I knew they are stupid but never though of that. Thank you, I learned something today, no matter how stoooopid it is. 

Fromm what I've read and heard, turkeys are the absolutely cheapest things to raise. They require less mineral supplements, hey, it costs MONEY to raise a cow. Well it is bigger, but per pound turkeys are cheaper than chicken. That is why I refuse to pay two bucks a pound for ground turkey. 

They go on sale for what they're worth around Thanksgiving, but them then and freeze them. We got two freezers for shit like that. We save alot of money on food.

>"Cheers,
>James Arthur "

You know the sickening bleeding heart liberals are going to call you all kinds of names for that post. 

On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 5:41:13 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 1:33:18 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

> > Or in 1950. When I was a kid, no
> > black person (defined as 1/16th black or more) could eat in a white
> > restaurant, use a white drinking fountain, go to a white school or
> > university, or enter any of a number of professions, or live in a
> > white neighborhood.
> 
> It's pretty interesting how that came about.  I recently read
> "Recollections of 92 Years, 1824-1916," by Elizabeth Avery Meriwether,
> a southern woman who lived through the thick of it.  I was very
> surprised to read of the Civil War from a Southerner's perspective.
> If you're inclined, a few passages give you the flavor:
> 
> "After Lee's surrender the people of the Sought were anxious to know

"...of the South"

(Crap. That's what I get for reading and typing at the same time.)

Cheers,
James

On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 6:01:10 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
> >"Cheers,
> >James Arthur "
> 
> You know the sickening bleeding heart liberals are going to call you all kinds of names for that post.

Since you didn't include any text I don't know which post.  If you're
referring to the Civil War lady, I merely summarized what she said.

Cheers,
James Arthur

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 14:48:08 -0700 (PDT), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

>>"There were hardly any male-dominated societies in history who
>>voluntarily offered equal rights to women or racial minorities.
>>They/we had to be shamed and forced to do it. Jurb's comments that
>>"White Men gave you your rights" is not what happened. "
>
>They couldn't even vote. What the fuck are you talking about ? 

Of course they couldn't vote; white males wouldn't let them. UK and
US, women's vote. South Africa, everything. India, everything. In the
US, the civil rights movement and gay rights. All were won by the
repressed, with political action and shaming and lawsuits and some
violence.

The US south would still have whites-only laundramats [1] if ML King
and his allies hadn't revolted, and died, for equal rights.

[1] The signs said "Whites Only except Colored Maids in Uniform." I
remember that. 


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 08:33:26 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 11:15:41 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
><fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>
>>Looking up my name I found that some of the Italian aristocracy would 
>>name their slaves "of the red" after the color of their coat of arms. 
>>(So I'm a desendant of slaves and Obama is not, unless his family was 
>>enslaved by Muslims.)  It doesn't matter to me.  In fact only 2 
>>generations ago it wouldn't have mattered; if my grandfather had been 
>>paid more it wouldn't make any difference to my bank account today.
>>
>>
>I haven't quite figured out why it's always liberals that want to stir
>up racial tensions.
>
Because it's profitable.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 14:40:47 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

>On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 1:33:18 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 08:10:05 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 11:17:47 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> You go right ahead, but we ain't taking no more shit. 
>> >> 
>> >> 1. Women, White Men gave you your rights.
>> >> 
>> >> 2. Blacks, White Men gave you your rights.
>> >> 
>> >> I, a White Man am willing to die for your rights right now. 
>> >> 
>> >> Who would do the same for me ? 
>> >> 
>> >> T^T
>> >
>> >It's got nothing to do with skin color.  It has to do with ideas that
>> >happened to arise first in Europe, e.g. liberty & natural rights.
>> >
>> >You're confusing the power of ideas with pigmentation.
>> >
>> >The beauty of our system was that no one had to care about anyone's color
>> >or the cut of their jib, provided we each lived freely without harming
>> >anyone else.
>> 
>> That certainly wasn't true in 1850.
>
>If you read their writings, the founders thought their Constitution's ban
>on slave importation beginning twenty years after signing would end the
>institution in America.  But Eli Whitney's cotton gin came along and
>changed the economics completely, making a failing practice suddenly
>highly profitable.  Technology.  The founders couldn't have foreseen that.
>
>> Or in 1950. When I was a kid, no
>> black person (defined as 1/16th black or more) could eat in a white
>> restaurant, use a white drinking fountain, go to a white school or
>> university, or enter any of a number of professions, or live in a
>> white neighborhood.
>
>It's pretty interesting how that came about.  I recently read
>"Recollections of 92 Years, 1824-1916," by Elizabeth Avery Meriwether,
>a southern woman who lived through the thick of it.  I was very
>surprised to read of the Civil War from a Southerner's perspective.
>If you're inclined, a few passages give you the flavor:
>
>"After Lee's surrender the people of the Sought were anxious to know
> how their conquerors were going to treat them.  Would they be merciful,
> or would they be bitter and cruel as they had been during the four years
> of war?"
>
>"This merciful treatment of Virginians by Lincoln evoked from every Southern
> heart the deepest appreciation; the people of the South hoped and believed
> that at last the hate and bitterness of the war were to die out on both
> sides and a true friendship between North and South was to make the country
> really one again."
>
>Lincoln was assassinated though, and his replacements preferred to
>humiliate and punish the South instead.
>
>Congress "[A]nnulled the State governments then in peaceful operation,
> divided the Southern States into Military Districts, placed them
> under martial law, disenfranchised all white men who had not actively
> sided with the North (this meant practically that all white men were
> disenfranchised) and enfranchised all black men!"
>
>New local governments were quickly assembled from the unschooled ranks of
>the former slaves.
>
>"At a banquet given here the other day, among the guests were three
> ex-Governors, two ex-members of Congress, and an ex-Justice of the
> Supreme Court, besides a number of lawyers, doctors, and prominent
> business men. But the only persons in the Banquet Hall who could
> either vote or hold public office were the negroes who waited on the
> table!" (letter from a North Carolina friend, 1868)
>
>Who began promptly to spend the public monies, threatening to ruin
>the distraught Southerners, who, disenfranchised, had no voice or
>legal recourse.
>
>"The adventurers from the North who swooped down upon the South to make
> their fortunes...
> Under the malign influences of these self-seeking carpet baggers the
> ignorant, poor negroes made but sorry use of the franchise thrust upon
> them. [...] Negro legislatures would vote millions and millions of
> dollars for public works that were never executed; but the carpet
> baggers would get hold of the bonds..."
>
>Meriwether then describes the Democrats' remedy: conquered and desperate,
>occupied by two million soldiers and living under martial law, they
>formed the Klu Klux Klan.
>
>
>> That produced a cultural isolation that exists
>> still.
>
>I credit Johnson's Great Society for that.  America has had several waves
>of newcomers since who have already been assimilated and are fully
>integrated into society.  But his aim to keep "n****ers voting Democrat
>for the next 200 years" necessitated the divide and conquer tactics
>Hillary Clinton is still spouting today, even this past week.

Surveys now show Trump with about 20% of the black vote!


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 7:53:02 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 14:40:47 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
> wrote:

> >> That produced a cultural isolation that exists
> >> still.
> >
> >I credit Johnson's Great Society for that.  America has had several waves
> >of newcomers since who have already been assimilated and are fully
> >integrated into society.  But his aim to keep "n****ers voting Democrat
> >for the next 200 years" necessitated the divide and conquer tactics
> >Hillary Clinton is still spouting today, even this past week.
> 
> Surveys now show Trump with about 20% of the black vote!

That's awesome.  It's about time someone punctured all these myths and
got people voting on policy rather than party.

Cheers,
James Arthur

On 9/18/2016 5:40 PM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 1:33:18 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 08:10:05 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 11:17:47 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> You go right ahead, but we ain't taking no more shit.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Women, White Men gave you your rights.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Blacks, White Men gave you your rights.
>>>>
>>>> I, a White Man am willing to die for your rights right now.
>>>>
>>>> Who would do the same for me ?
>>>>
>>>> T^T
>>>
>>> It's got nothing to do with skin color.  It has to do with ideas that
>>> happened to arise first in Europe, e.g. liberty & natural rights.
>>>
>>> You're confusing the power of ideas with pigmentation.
>>>
>>> The beauty of our system was that no one had to care about anyone's color
>>> or the cut of their jib, provided we each lived freely without harming
>>> anyone else.
>>
>> That certainly wasn't true in 1850.
>
> If you read their writings, the founders thought their Constitution's ban
> on slave importation beginning twenty years after signing would end the
> institution in America.  But Eli Whitney's cotton gin came along and
> changed the economics completely, making a failing practice suddenly
> highly profitable.  Technology.  The founders couldn't have foreseen that.
>
>> Or in 1950. When I was a kid, no
>> black person (defined as 1/16th black or more) could eat in a white
>> restaurant, use a white drinking fountain, go to a white school or
>> university, or enter any of a number of professions, or live in a
>> white neighborhood.
>
> It's pretty interesting how that came about.  I recently read
> "Recollections of 92 Years, 1824-1916," by Elizabeth Avery Meriwether,
> a southern woman who lived through the thick of it.  I was very
> surprised to read of the Civil War from a Southerner's perspective.
> If you're inclined, a few passages give you the flavor:
>
> "After Lee's surrender the people of the Sought were anxious to know
>  how their conquerors were going to treat them.  Would they be merciful,
>  or would they be bitter and cruel as they had been during the four years
>  of war?"
>
> "This merciful treatment of Virginians by Lincoln evoked from every Southern
>  heart the deepest appreciation; the people of the South hoped and believed
>  that at last the hate and bitterness of the war were to die out on both
>  sides and a true friendship between North and South was to make the country
>  really one again."
>
> Lincoln was assassinated though, and his replacements preferred to
> humiliate and punish the South instead.
>
> Congress "[A]nnulled the State governments then in peaceful operation,
>  divided the Southern States into Military Districts, placed them
>  under martial law, disenfranchised all white men who had not actively
>  sided with the North (this meant practically that all white men were
>  disenfranchised) and enfranchised all black men!"
>
> New local governments were quickly assembled from the unschooled ranks of
> the former slaves.
>
> "At a banquet given here the other day, among the guests were three
>  ex-Governors, two ex-members of Congress, and an ex-Justice of the
>  Supreme Court, besides a number of lawyers, doctors, and prominent
>  business men. But the only persons in the Banquet Hall who could
>  either vote or hold public office were the negroes who waited on the
>  table!" (letter from a North Carolina friend, 1868)
>
> Who began promptly to spend the public monies, threatening to ruin
> the distraught Southerners, who, disenfranchised, had no voice or
> legal recourse.
>
> "The adventurers from the North who swooped down upon the South to make
>  their fortunes...
>  Under the malign influences of these self-seeking carpet baggers the
>  ignorant, poor negroes made but sorry use of the franchise thrust upon
>  them. [...] Negro legislatures would vote millions and millions of
>  dollars for public works that were never executed; but the carpet
>  baggers would get hold of the bonds..."
>
> Meriwether then describes the Democrats' remedy: conquered and desperate,
> occupied by two million soldiers and living under martial law, they
> formed the Klu Klux Klan.
>
>
>> That produced a cultural isolation that exists
>> still.
>
> I credit Johnson's Great Society for that.  America has had several waves
> of newcomers since who have already been assimilated and are fully
> integrated into society.  But his aim to keep "n****ers voting Democrat
> for the next 200 years" necessitated the divide and conquer tactics
> Hillary Clinton is still spouting today, even this past week.
>
> American Indians, ditto.  All the crap to "help" them has held them down,
> and all the folks who came here without those special programs have blended
> in and are doing fine in no time at all (e.g. the Asian boat people).
>
>>> When the gov't starts harming you for your color, to benefit those of
>>> another, though, that's a horse of a different color.
>>>
>>> Therein's always the problem of governments getting involved in
>>> redistribution--they have to hurt some to benefit others, which
>>> sets peoples against each other.
>>
>> In the South, segregation was unconstitutionally enforced by
>> government. There wasn't much redistribution going on.
>
> You don't think those policies were, at bottom, intended to redistribute
> wealth and power?  To advantage one group at another's expense?
>
>> The Great Society, of course, used racial preferences, and a little
>> bit of redistribution, to keep the black population isolated and
>> voting Democrat. That mechanism continues.
>
> Indeed, and the harm goes far beyond mere money.  It has led to agency
> after agency, the racialization of everything, and a grievance culture
> that politicians have exploited since Rome's bread and circuses.

All of that has been understood through much of the history of 
civilization. Unfortunately, we are genetically predisposed to permit 
the loudest and most aggressive to take a shortcut to a position of 
dominance and then follow their lead.

Maybe we need more kerosene cans for our courageous leaders to whack 
around so we'll be safe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMjTSJR3M6M

-- 
Grizzly H.