White-hating racists get Stormfront booted off the internet ! FIRST AMENMENT IS DEAD

[Bigdog]

Will you join?

No, unlike you, I'm not an Israel hating, Aryan Nation worshiping Socialist Pig.

 

[blackascoal]

So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.

You should stop hiding behind 'white.' Seriously. Claim another cause, but white ain't it.

Neither you nor Stormfront represent white people.

Check your own thread. Nearly all the posts against Stormfront are from WHITE PEOPLE.

When the goosesteppers show up at rallies, they'll be met by far larger crowds of WHITE PEOPLE.

When they show up .. :0) when they show up .. they'll be met by even larger crowds of AMERICANS.

This isn't an attack on white people .. it's an attack on racism, racists, and IGNORANCE.

 

[Buckly J. Ewer]

You should stop hiding behind 'white.' Seriously. Claim another cause, but white ain't it.

Neither you nor Stormfront represent white people.

Check your own thread. Nearly all the posts against Stormfront are from WHITE PEOPLE.

When the goosesteppers show up at rallies, they'll be met by far larger crowds of WHITE PEOPLE.

When they show up .. :0) when they show up .. they'll be met by even larger crowds of AMERICANS.

This isn't an attack on white people .. it's an attack on racism, racists, and IGNORANCE.

Well said.

 

[blackascoal]

You've got it backwards. YOU are the racist since you support affirmative action. I want jobs handed out on merit not skin color and thus i am the anti-racist.

He's white .. and you claim he's a racist.

Who does he hate? White people?

Would that not be a mindlessly ignorant thing to suggest?

 

[Buckly J. Ewer]

He's white .. and you claim he's a racist.

Who does he hate? White people?

Would that not be a mindlessly ignorant thing to suggest?

You are conversing with a mindless ignoramus...
What did you expect?

 

[dukkha]

non-violent speech is protected speech.
a lot of time not giving permits is used to shut down free speech on the basis
that a demonstration will lead to violence.
But free speech ( even vile speech) especially political speech is absolutely 100% protected speech

 

[blackascoal]

And yet you applaud affirmative action. You want jobs and college placements and college scholarships denied to white people.

Guess who the biggest supporters of Affirmative Action are?

WHITE PEOPLE.

It wouldn't even exist without larger numbers of WHITE PEOPLE.

Have you any idea how long Affirmative Action, Executive Order No. 10925, has been law? March 6, 1961, signed into law by JFK.

The year is 2017. :0)

 

[blackascoal]

non-violent speech is protected speech.
a lot of time not giving permits is used to shut down free speech on the basis
that a demonstration will lead to violence.
But free speech ( even vile speech) especially political speech is absolutely 100% protected speech

WRONG.

Vile hate speech that may lead to violence is not protected by anything .. nor should it be.

 

[dukkha]

WRONG.

Vile hate speech that may lead to violence is not protected by anything .. nor should it be.

the measure of violence is "imminent". Only if speech is being used to stoke imminent violence is it then not protected.

Imminent lawless action
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely

 

[Cypress]

You've got it backwards. YOU are the racist since you support affirmative action. I want jobs handed out on merit not skin color and thus i am the anti-racist.

Lot of bitterness there, mate. I have never had the slightest disadvantage in any way from having my white skin. The system is set up to ensure my success. If a white dude gets outcompeted in this world, the only reason is because he is a loser, a barely educated ignoramus, has an offensive personality, or a combination thereof. There's nothing about his skin color that would hold him back or disadvantage him. As far as I can tell, every single self-identified black poster on this board is better educated, more articulate, and probably makes more money than you. So, in my estimation your bitterness is utterly transparent.

As for affirmative action, I suggest you read case law and not Stormfront posts if you have the slightest genuine interest in informing yourself.

 

[tsuke]

this issue points out two very true things


1. net neutrality definitely needs to become law
2. liberals are faux free speechers, overall hypocrites

would net neutrality have done anything for this though? It seems to address speed throtling but has nothing to do with hosting?

 

[cawacko]

Lot of bitterness there, mate. I have never had the slightest disadvantage in any way from having my white skin. The system is set up to ensure my success. If a white dude gets outcompeted in this world, the only reason is because he is a loser, a barely educated ignoramus, has an offensive personality, or a combination thereof. There's nothing about his skin color that would hold him back or disadvantage him. As far as I can tell, every single self-identified black poster on this board is better educated, more articulate, and probably makes more money than you. So, in my estimation your bitterness is utterly transparent.

As for affirmative action, I suggest you read case law and not Stormfront posts if you have the slightest genuine interest in informing yourself.

Not all white people come from great backgrounds just as not all black or Hispanic people come from poor inner city backgrounds.

When it comes to AA we rarely hear numbers about whether the program is actually benefiting the people it purports to help.

We know for a fact that AA hurts Asian students. We know more black and Hispanic families are moving into the middle class. Do they still need AA or should it be based more on economics and the environment one grows up in?

 

[blackascoal]

the measure of violence is "imminent". Only if speech is being used to stoke imminent violence is it then not protected.

Imminent lawless action
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely

Have you been paying attention to events? Have you paid attention to how many times right-wingers have been denied permits to assemble for the very reasons that I stated? They've been denied because of the potential for violence.

The measure is the 'potential' for violence.

Should I post examples of that?

 

[Cypress]

Not all white people come from great backgrounds just as not all black or Hispanic people come from poor inner city backgrounds.

Oviously. Though I do not know what that has to do with my post, which was about skin color, not economics.

When it comes to AA we rarely hear numbers about whether the program is actually benefiting the people it purports to help.

For some reason, today there are more women, more minorities, more people from historically disadvantaged groups represented in business, government, and academia than in the 1950s. I think some substantial amount of that is due to social changes that came not only at the individual level, but through the legislative authority as implemented by courts and legislatures. I think AA was a part of that. Not sure if a conservative wants to believe it all happened spontaneously, mysteriously, and without the benefit of the law and legislation, but I would find that premise highly implausible.

We know for a fact that AA hurts Asian students. We know more black and Hispanic families are moving into the middle class. Do they still need AA or should it be based more on economics and the environment one grows up in?

No problem here, with talking about different ways that are demonstrably effective in advancing the goals of an equitable society. If we start with the presumption that capability and achievement are independent of skin tone (and those who don't believe that are by definition, racist), then our institutions - from business, to government, to academia - should generally look like the society it serves. In all its shades and genders.

 

[cawacko]

Oviously. Though I do not know what that has to do with my post, which was about skin color, not economics.



For some reason, today there are more women, more minorities, more people from historically disadvantaged groups represented in business, government, and academia than in the 1950s. I think some substantial amount of that is due to social changes that came not only at the individual level, but through the legislative authority as implemented by courts and legislatures. I think AA was a part of that. Not sure if a conservative wants to believe it all happened spontaneously, mysteriously, and without the benefit of the law and legislation, but I would find that premise highly implausible.



No problem here, with talking about different ways that are demonstrably effective in advancing the goals of an equitable society. If we start with the presumption that capability and achievement are independent of skin tone (and those who don't believe that are by definition, racist), then our institutions - from business, to government, to academia - should generally look like the society it serves. In all its shades and genders.

I got the impression you were saying white people who weren't economically successful were losers. Maybe I misinterpreted you statement and that's my bad if I did.

The question about AA and Universities is (and this would pertain to athletes and legacies as well) are we doing kids a disservice by putting them in schools for which they would not have otherwise qualified for? The ultimate judgement of that is graduation rates. For example I'm sure you're aware of Prop 209 I believe it was which basically outlawed the use of race in college admissions in California. UCLA had a much smaller percentage of black students enter as Freshman in the following years but the number of black students who graduated remained the same. One can get much deeper into these numbers and the reasons for them but the question remains, is it better to put someone in a school they didn't qualify for and have them drop out or go to a 'lesser' school and graduate?

I'm not sure why you threw conservative into your response. Should I be standing on my chair praising out loud the gov't for removing racist discriminatory practices it itself had put into place? It never should have been there to begin with.

 

[blackascoal]

I got the impression you were saying white people who weren't economically successful were losers. Maybe I misinterpreted you statement and that's my bad if I did.

The question about AA and Universities is (and this would pertain to athletes and legacies as well) are we doing kids a disservice by putting them in schools for which they would not have otherwise qualified for? The ultimate judgement of that is graduation rates. For example I'm sure you're aware of Prop 209 I believe it was which basically outlawed the use of race in college admissions in California. UCLA had a much smaller percentage of black students enter as Freshman in the following years but the number of black students who graduated remained the same. One can get much deeper into these numbers and the reasons for them but the question remains, is it better to put someone in a school they didn't qualify for and have them drop out or go to a 'lesser' school and graduate?

I'm not sure why you threw conservative into your response. Should I be standing on my chair praising out loud the gov't for removing racist discriminatory practices it itself had put into place? It never should have been there to begin with.

.. so an unequal and unjust society would have been better in your opinion?

Are you aware that the biggest beneficiaries of AA are white women .. BY FAR?

Did you know that?

I ask because here you are talking about black students .. who aren't even the ones who benefit from the program the most.

It demonstrates that you aren't as knowledgeable about the program as you think you are.

 

[cawacko]

.. so an unequal and unjust society would have been better in your opinion?

Are you aware that the biggest beneficiaries of AA is white women .. BY FAR?

Did you know that?

What are you referring to when you say wanting an unfair and unjust society?

I'm well aware white women are the biggest beneficiaries of AA. Look at enrollment in Universities today, there are millions more women than men in Universities.

 

[blackascoal]

What are you referring to when you say wanting an unfair and unjust society?

I'm well aware white women are the biggest beneficiaries of AA. Look at enrollment in Universities today, there are millions more women than men in Universities.

Yet you're talking about black students, not white women.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

I'm well aware white women are the biggest beneficiaries of AA. Look at enrollment in Universities today, there are millions more women than men in Universities.

And the brainless bimbos are getting degrees in Ancient Etruscan Mythology while the men get degrees in IT or engineering. Does it help women that they get degrees of no market value?

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

Lot of bitterness there, mate. I have never had the slightest disadvantage in any way from having my white skin.

Of course not since you are a welfare bum yourself. But if you ever decide to get a job you will find out the truth. Affirmative action is everywhere.