RE: is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary?

RE: is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

CaptainSex -> RE: is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary? (6/25/2009 11:42:36 AM)
The crackers own the majority of institutions, yet feel persecuted? Please! While I am a nationalist (Canadian!) I do however appreciate the fact that people choose my country to work and live in. BNP are no different from the Nazi party.

rulemylife -> RE: is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary? (6/25/2009 12:38:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crush Sure, you can have an "X-only" party. Just expect there to be some outcry against it. Bald-headed men, unite! If you aren't genetically bald (less than 5000 hairs) then we don't want you in the crew! No shavers. No depilliators. Only naturally bald men. Segregation is segregation. Society may frown on it, but it is still going to happen in large and in small ways. (LEFTIES UNITE FOR A BETTER PAIR OF SCISSORS!) There may be some merit to that if there was ever widespread discrimination against bald men. What you are arguing against are organizations started to combat segregation and trying to now say they are segregationists.

Jack45 -> RE: is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary? (6/25/2009 3:15:39 PM)
quote: The fact is that the Democratic party is made up of lots of different people, and we’re all minorities in our party. That’s the way it’s been for a long, long time. We’re the party of opportunity. So the demographic trends favor the Democrats. If you look at folks of color, even women, they’re more successful in the Democratic Party than they are in the white, uh, excuse me, in the [laughs] Republican Party. National Public Radio on Friday, August 15, 2008, Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee The Freudian slip! Dean is saying the GOP can have white male America. The inexplicable immigration laws that are destined to make Whites a minority in their own land within 20 years were never voted upon by the American people, they were never asked if they wanted to be replaced. I don't think they will go away without a fight. Do you?

Crush -> RE: is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary? (6/25/2009 4:09:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Crush Sure, you can have an "X-only" party. Just expect there to be some outcry against it. Bald-headed men, unite! If you aren't genetically bald (less than 5000 hairs) then we don't want you in the crew! No shavers. No depilliators. Only naturally bald men. Segregation is segregation. Society may frown on it, but it is still going to happen in large and in small ways. (LEFTIES UNITE FOR A BETTER PAIR OF SCISSORS!) There may be some merit to that if there was ever widespread discrimination against bald men. What you are arguing against are organizations started to combat segregation and trying to now say they are segregationists. ex: NAACP for your point. Bald men do get discriminated against, but sometimes discriminated for. After all, we know that it is an increase in testosterone that causes most baldness.... (Yeah, I know...not the same testosterone....) There is significant cultural discrimination against Lefties...we just deal with it. What a concept. ed to add: I don't really care if people want to segregate themselves or not. It is when they cross the "fist to face" line that matters. Or to quote Gump: "Stupid is as Stupid Does."

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125