Soto is a typical liberal racist.

Hey, bitch read the law first!

The old phrase, “know your audience” comes to mind here. She should have read the polls, and realized that about 70% of Az’s approve of the law.

Well, let’s make sure all clergymen and women (sorry for the latter, Michelle, but I’m trying to be inclusive here) fully understand the law and preach the Gospel in a fashion consistent with 70% of the Arizonan’s ideological beliefs or fears. The tenants of the Gospel and the principles of our Consitution should always be taught with polling numbers in mind.

Forgive me. I meant “tenets”.

“Soto is a typical liberal racist.”

You are a typical idiot apparently.
———————————-
Now it is obvious Megyn Kelly doesn’t remember anything about her graduation. I remember my graduation, we got a right-wing ethicist to speak, this was a high school graduation. The speeches are about topical issues generally, and then ending it with the best wishes message. The fact that they boo’ed is pathetic, especially when the general message was “Take your powers of reasoning, evaluating, analyzing, arguing, criticizing everywhere”.

Snipzor says:
May 24, 2010 at 3:05 pm

“Soto is a typical liberal racist.”

You are a typical idiot apparently.”

Your a typical scumbag lib . Your like the “lib” rocket they had at NASA- it wouldn’t work and ya couldn’t fire it!

The Real Royal King says:
May 24, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Well, let’s make sure all clergymen and women (sorry for the latter, Michelle, but I’m trying to be inclusive here) fully understand the law and preach the Gospel in a fashion consistent with 70% of the Arizonan’s ideological beliefs or fears. The tenants of the Gospel and the principles of our Consitution should always be taught with polling numbers in mind.

Well I don’t know about you, but I’m taught to obey the laws fo the land.

I’m nit picky, really I’m sorry, but it’s “You’re”, not “Your”. You trolls should at least have proper spelling if you want to seem the least bit genuine.

0/10

“Well I don’t know about you, but I’m taught to obey the laws fo the land.”

So I suppose if the year were 1962, would you obey the Jim Crow laws? This is about the year when people realized it was really wrong… well people of the north anyways, and it was still on the books. If you were in a state that had these “separate but equal” laws, would you stand by and obey them like a good citizen? Would you obey institutional racism? Just as you stand by and obey institutionalized sexualism?

Snipzor says:
May 24, 2010 at 3:12 pm

I’m nit picky, really I’m sorry, but it’s “You’re”, not “Your”. You trolls should at least have proper spelling if you want to seem the least bit genuine.”

Its called “anal, and yes you’re an anus!

Snipzor says:
May 24, 2010 at 3:17 pm
“Well I don’t know about you, but I’m taught to obey the laws fo the land.”

So I suppose if the year were 1962, would you obey the Jim Crow laws? This is about the year when people realized it was really wrong… well people of the north anyways, and it was still on the books. If you were in a state that had these “separate but equal” laws, would you stand by and obey them like a good citizen? Would you obey institutional racism? Just as you stand by and obey institutionalized sexualism?

Well since there is no racism involved in this law, your anology doesn’t have any merit. Question for you, why aren’t you harping on Obama to change the federal law? The problem the left has in regards to this is that no one is buying the lies you and the leftist media have peddled since the law was passed.

It specifically out laws racial profiling. This “associate professor” is just another moonbat, almost as bad as the neocons.

California has almost the same precise legal wording in their CA Penal Code section 834b.
“The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status. (2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States. (3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity. (c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.”

Watch out for King, he’s going to make false claims about racism. Like the professor, King and other libs/neocons want to divert, distract and distort the fact that this law is about ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION and adverse effects of people who refuse to follow legitimate laws.

Actually Michelle, I went off topic there. I could have gone into the whole argument that the law only targets non-whites and not immigrants or illegal immigrants, but I didn’t. But rather I asked if you would follow institutionalized racism of the 1960′s just as you adhere to institutionalized sexualism right now. I wasn’t making an analogy, I was asking you if you would really obey the laws of the land if they included institutionalized racism or sexism or sexualism or institutional discrimination.

I’ll answer your irrelevant and vague question only if you answer mine.

Watch out for King, he’s going to make false claims about racism. Like the professor, King and other libs/neocons want to divert, distract and distort the fact that this law is about ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION and adverse effects of people who refuse to follow legitimate laws.

Yes and the fact that the folks haven’t been buying what they are peddling is driving them absolutely batty!

Snipzor says:
May 24, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Actually Michelle, I went off topic there. I could have gone into the whole argument that the law only targets non-whites and not immigrants or illegal immigrants, but I didn’t. But rather I asked if you would follow institutionalized racism of the 1960’s just as you adhere to institutionalized sexualism right now. I wasn’t making an analogy, I was asking you if you would really obey the laws of the land if they included institutionalized racism or sexism or sexualism or institutional discrimination.

I forget Snip, were there more Republicans or Democrats on board for the Civil Rights Act again? If you don’t know, just ask Robert Byrd.

“I forget Snip, were there more Republicans or Democrats on board for the Civil Rights Act again? If you don’t know, just ask Robert Byrd.”

Well first off, you’re confusing ideology with party affiliation. If it really was party affiliation, then explain how all the supposed racists of the south decided to move north while all the non-racists of the north decided to move south. The fact is that both parties changed in the 1960′s, and by the 1970′s, the republican party adopted the southern strategy while the democratic party attempted to take in the social progressives ideology (I say attempted because they’re failing hard at it). Why do you think the republican party always gets the southern states? Because they adopted the southern strategy, a move to hold certain racist positions borrowed from the Jim Crow laws in order to get racists of the south. Before the 1960′s, both parties were actually pretty racist, but after the Civil Rights Act, that pretty much all changed.

Now answer the question.

How is it racism to expect people to enter the US as per our laws? It’s not, that’s the case. However people like Snipzor and King want to use fear and scare tactics to divert and distract our attention. The Arizona law, which is very similar to a 2007 Virginia law, is a result of the federal governments refusal to enforce legitimate immigration laws. It is also the result of large amount of people who refuse to obey laws.

None of this would be needed if Obama, or Bu$h before him, had actually went after employers who knowingly hire illegals and circumvent employment laws. Start throwing employers in jail, and/or give large fines, and you will see many illegals going bye bye.

Snipzor-

“I was asking you if you would really obey the laws of the land if they included institutionalized racism or sexism or sexualism or institutional discrimination.”

LOL

Yes Snippy, in your worldview, all whites want to do is live to oppress non-whites.MichelleF did, you tell Snip about the secret meetings that whites attend on Wednesday’s to discuss the next grand project on how to discriminate against people?

just as you adhere to institutionalized sexualism right now”

Oh gees, Snip, I heard about 70% of the blacks in CA where for Prop 8! Ouch!

You are such a funny racist!

“How is it racism to expect people to enter the US as per our laws?”

The quote above is a strawman argument, why? Because I’m not saying that and King is not saying that. Nice try though, but in order not to be perceived as a twat, you need to actually address our statements.

MichelleF, Notice how he completely ignored the fact that the most senior Senator, and Democrat is Senator Byrd of West Virginia. Old Byrd is a former Klans man and a respected member of the Democratic party.

My answer is in this county, if you don’t like the laws, then you work to change them.

Happy Reading LNR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Helms

Snipzor says:
May 24, 2010 at 3:36 pm

“Well first off, you’re confusing ideology with party affiliation. If it really was party affiliation, then explain how all the supposed racists of the south decided to move north while all the non-racists of the north decided to move south. The fact is that both parties changed in the 1960’s, and by the 1970’s, the republican party adopted the southern strategy while the democratic party attempted to take in the social progressives ideology.”

Yawn! Typical lib talking points- Byrd stayed a Dem and he and other Dems filibustered the ’64 CRA!!

Nice revisionist history.

Oh gees, Snip, I heard about 70% of the blacks in CA where for Prop 8! Ouch!

You are such a funny racist!

Remember, if you are black, you CAN’T by definition be a racist.

“My answer is in this county, if you don’t like the laws, then you work to change them.”

That’s a pretty crappy answer. Let me ask again. If there was mass discrimination in your area, would you work against it? And if it were institutionalized, would you obey it? Or would you fight against it? That is all I ask, would you risk your social status to denounce social conservatism (Institutionalized discrimination)?

Personal attacks aside, the Arizona law specifically forbids racial profiling. I know you can’t comprehend this because libs/neocons keep distorting the law. Additionally, law enforcement officials can’t just stop someone and ask for their “papers,” that is forbidden as well. The stop has to be for a legitimate purpose such as a traffic stop.

“Remember, if you are black, you CAN’T by definition be a racist.”

First off, you fail. The example you used was homophobia, not racism. And second of all, I love your strawmen arguments. It’s as if the entire conservative movement is made up of Scarecrows from the Wizard of Oz, and the people who grasp at its straws. If we want to talk about religious homophobia, then we will. Until then, stay on topic.

Start throwing employers in jail, and/or give large fines, and you will see many illegals going bye bye.
—

True. You will see, as well, businesses shutting down. Why is it that Republicans don’t support immigration reform? Certainly not because of their inherent fondness for Hispanics. Cheap labor is the answer. I’m not in favor of the present arrangement, but you truly cut off immigration, legal, illegal or either, and we have a complete economic collapse in the US, far greater than the Great Depression or W’s Cataclysm.

Of course, Michelle’s son’s Real Madrid’s soccer team will be gone as well, and, frankly, we Norte Americano hombres are soccer-challenged.

“Personal attacks aside, the Arizona law specifically forbids racial profiling. I know you can’t comprehend this because libs/neocons keep distorting the law. Additionally, law enforcement officials can’t just stop someone and ask for their “papers,” that is forbidden as well. The stop has to be for a legitimate purpose such as a traffic stop.”

Would a cop ask a white person for his/her papers and then jail them for not having their papers? No bloody way, that would never happen… let me say it again, that never happens.

Oh, and snippy:

the CRA?

“The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the “Southern Bloc” of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell: “We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states.”

“On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays.”

It’s not institutional racism. It’s a law that allows law enforcement officials, upon a legal stop and with reasonable suspicion, to question a person about immigration status. Besides, it’s already federal law that immigrants are required to have their immigration documentation on them at all times.

Throwing around words like “institutional racism” and “Jim Crow” is just more fear mongering and scare tactics.

Geez, LNR, then why don’t we pass laws prohibiting the police from beating people to death? I’m sure if the police knew it was prohibited, they’d stop doing it.

By the same token, young Hispanic and African-American males are much more likely than young White males to be arrested for loitering, public nuisance and traffic violations in Plano, Texas. Why don’t we prohibit racial profiling in Plano? I’m sure the police would stop doing it.

“to question a person about immigration status”

So I suppose a non-white native born American citizen has to come up with immigration papers he/she does not have then, so they don’t go to jail. Or birth papers. Again, white people are not effected by this law and will never be effected.

Throwing around words like “institutional racism” and “Jim Crow” is just more fear mongering and scare tactics.

—

Indeed, and without historical basis, since these things never happened in our country.

You ought to go to work for the Texas Board of Education and rewrite history. Of course, they have been neutered effective 1 January 2011, so I suppose that train has left the station.

“Would a cop ask a white person for his/her papers and then jail them for not having their papers? No bloody way, that would never happen… let me say it again, that never happens.”

Have you been to Mexico? It’s full of white looking Mexicans. You are simply just a race hustler employing a tired and weak argument because you have no other argument.

Sandra Soto along with other college professors do not live in the real world. Once you graduate you are free to tell your professors they are full of sh*t, until then it is best to agree with them.

Snipzor says:
May 24, 2010 at 3:48 pm
“Personal attacks aside, the Arizona law specifically forbids racial profiling. I know you can’t comprehend this because libs/neocons keep distorting the law. Additionally, law enforcement officials can’t just stop someone and ask for their “papers,” that is forbidden as well. The stop has to be for a legitimate purpose such as a traffic stop.”

Would a cop ask a white person for his/her papers and then jail them for not having their papers? No bloody way, that would never happen… let me say it again, that never happens.

ANYONE who is stopped has to show a driver’s license, brown, black, white or purple. If you don’t have one, there is your reasonable doubt to check their current status. The left wants to paint cops as racist with NO proof of it. The are just pre-emptively racist. It doesn’t work that way in this country.

Snipzor says:
May 24, 2010 at 3:50 pm

“to question a person about immigration status”

So I suppose a non-white native born American citizen has to come up with immigration papers he/she does not have then, so they don’t go to jail. Or birth papers. ”

He can come up with a driver’s license or a Visa or a Green card or a social security card.

BTW, the FEDERAL LAW requires that immigrants carry their documentation AT ALL TIMES!

Of course, Michelle’s son’s Real Madrid’s soccer team will be gone as well, and, frankly, we Norte Americano hombres are soccer-challenged.

K I’m sure you are trying to be funny here, but in reality, you make NO sense. Maybe I could send my son your way for some tutoring lessons.

“paint cops as racist with NO proof of it.”

You’ve obviously never been in NYC ;)

Well, Snipzor, I’ve got to say, I speak German, and if you drop me in the middle of the Hauptbahnhof in Hamburg or the West Bahnhof in Wien, you couldn’t tell I wasn’t German or Austrian (unless I flashed a brilliant smile and my whitened American teeth glimmered too brightly). So, on my next trip to Arizona, I intend to take my passport to be able to prove I am 100% American. I am sure I am every bit as subject to detention and deportation as any Juan Obregon born and bred in Tempe.

Snipzor says:
May 24, 2010 at 3:55 pm

You have been asking questions, snippy.

Here is one for you: Do you support the Federal Immigration Laws?

You’ve obviously never been in NYC ….

Or, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Houston, Birmingham, Satl Lake City, Philadelphia, &c, &c.

Yawn…more fear mongering, race baiting and scare tactics via King and snip. Those are your only real arguments, which are hollow to say the least.

“Yawn…more fear mongering, race baiting and scare tactics via King and snip. Those are your only real arguments, which are hollow to say the least.”

I haven’t even got an answer from an unrelated question directed to an unrelated statement Michelle made! It seems more like you have no means of responding to any legit questions asked.

The Real Royal King says:
May 24, 2010 at 3:58 pm

You’ve obviously never been in NYC ….

Or, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Houston, Birmingham, Satl Lake City, Philadelphia, &c, &c.”

Or how about Oakland where blacks marched in support of a paroled convict who killed 3 policemen?

http://americanandproud.net/2009/03/supporters-of-cop-killer-in-oakland/

JohnSimpson says:
May 24, 2010 at 3:57 pm

Snipzor says:
May 24, 2010 at 3:55 pm

You have been asking questions, snippy.

Here is one for you: Do you support the Federal Immigration Laws?

Liberty – Not Redistribution says:
May 24, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Yawn…more fear mongering, race baiting and scare tactics via King and snip. Those are your only real arguments, which are hollow to say the least.

—

I have to say your name change didn’t freshen your arguments, nor did help you to make the leap from being an Amerikan to an American.

Snip, this guy sounds like you:

(03-25) 20:36 PDT Oakland — About 60 people marched and rallied in Oakland on Wednesday to condemn the police and honor Lovelle Mixon, who was killed by Oakland police after he fatally shot four officers Saturday.

“OPD you can’t hide – we charge you with genocide,” chanted the demonstrators as they marched along MacArthur Boulevard, near the intersection with 74th Avenue where Mixon, 26, a fugitive parolee, gunned down two motorcycle officers who had pulled him over in a traffic stop. He killed two more officers who tried to capture him where he was hiding in his sister’s apartment nearby.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/25/MNDD16N9VP.DTL#ixzz0osagRtse

Snippy and the King:

Do you support the Federal Immigration Laws?

King,.
Your contant accusations of racism are a little stale themselves.

The Real Royal King says:
May 24, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Well, Snipzor, I’ve got to say, I speak German, and if you drop me in the middle of the Hauptbahnhof in Hamburg or the West Bahnhof in Wien, you couldn’t tell I wasn’t German or Austrian (unless I flashed a brilliant smile and my whitened American teeth glimmered too brightly). So, on my next trip to Arizona, I intend to take my passport to be able to prove I am 100% American. I am sure I am every bit as subject to detention and deportation as any Juan Obregon born and bred in Tempe.

Hey, when you were in Germany, did you have to show your passport at all or did they just let you wander in without showing it?

JohnSimpson says:
May 24, 2010 at 4:11 pm

Snippy and the King:

Do you support the Federal Immigration Laws?”

It seems snippy and King are having their Rand Paul moments.

LOL

JohnSimpson says:
May 24, 2010 at 4:15 pm

JohnSimpson says:
May 24, 2010 at 4:11 pm

Snippy and the King:

Do you support the Federal Immigration Laws?”

Man that shut up those libs!

Look. she s shouldn’t have commented on the law. This is about the grads and what advice she could
part in them. Going off on an tangent about her view of an law she didn’t like was inappropriate and
wrong.

JohnSimpson says:
May 24, 2010 at 4:11 pm

Snippy and the King:

Do you support the Federal Immigration Laws?”

Man that shut up those libs!

—

Well you framed a moronic question that was intended to be self-serving but which failed. I support the CONCEPT of Immigration Laws at the federal level. AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, only, since once you’re in, you’re in. I doubt want what happens in Texas dictated by a bunch of xenophobes in Arizona anymore that I think Texas construction companies which have always driven lax enforcement in Texas, to dictate the approach for the rest of the country. Do I support the CURRENT immigration laws? No. Demonstrably, they don’t work. I chuckle and chortle each time I hear some rightist say that the current Arizona law merely embodies federal law. Brilliant! It doesn’t work, so let’s do it here, too. Brilliant, I say.

Hey, when you were in Germany, did you have to show your passport at all or did they just let you wander in without showing it?

—

That’s moronic even for you, Michelle. The better question, more applicable to your much beloved ridiculous xenophobic Arizona law is: Once you got in Germany, did you have to show your passport when you went from Luebeck to Muenchen? No, I didn’t.

In fact, I never showed my passport in Germany. I entered the EU in Wien, and I showed my passport to Austrian frontier officials.

MichelleF says:
May 24, 2010 at 4:11 pm
King,.
Your contant accusations of racism are a little stale themselves.

—

I fully intend to stop discussing racism when racism is vanquished from our land.

xenophobes

King, you seem not to know the differnce between being a xenophobe and being against ILLEGAL immigration. Your lies of racism don’t work anymore, but I applaud you for repeatedly trying. Ok I don’t applaud you, it’s pathetic.

I have to say Fidoohki, as one who graduated during the Vietnam years, when virtually every commencement speech dealt with the war, this didn’t bother me. I always find free speech exhilirating, and I wonder why others are so threatened by it.

The Real Royal King says:
May 24, 2010 at 5:05 pm
MichelleF says:
May 24, 2010 at 4:11 pm
King,.
Your contant accusations of racism are a little stale themselves.

—

I fully intend to stop discussing racism when racism is vanquished from our land.

Hey, can you start with racist race baiters Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, etc?

King, you seem not to know the differnce between being a xenophobe and being against ILLEGAL immigration.

—

Wink. Wink. Nod. Nod. Know what I mean? Know what I mean?

Hey, can you start with racist race baiters Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, etc?

—

Direct me to one of their comments here so I can do so, Michelle.

The Real Royal King says:
May 24, 2010 at 5:07 pm
I have to say Fidoohki, as one who graduated during the Vietnam years, when virtually every commencement speech dealt with the war, this didn’t bother me. I always find free speech exhilirating, and I wonder why others are so threatened by it.

I don’t believe the students who booed were scared of free speech, I think they were excercising it.

I’ve done it before but I’d be happy to do it again:

“The government lied about the Tuskegee experiment. They purposely infected African-American men with syphilis …” – Jeremiah Wright

“… what’s going on in white America, U.S. of KKKA – Jeremiah Wright (although it sounds like something you would say, King)

11, “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.” – Jeremiah Wright

Al Sharpton –
“White folks was in caves while we was building empires… We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.” — Rev. Al Sharpton in a 1994 speech at Kean College, NJ, cited in “Democrats Do the Dumbest Things

“Racism as a form of skin worship, and as a sickness and a pathological anxiety for
America, is so great, until the poor whites — rather than fighting for jobs or education –
fight to remain pink and fight to remain white. And therefore they cannot see an alliance
with people that they feel to be inherently inferior.” -Jesse Jackson

Sharpton is well known for the “Diamond Merchants” comment about Jews which eventually incited a rock-throwing demonstration and precipitated the stabbing death of a young Jewish man with his assailants shouting “Kill the Jew!” Sharpton never apologized.

Sharpton spearheaded the Tawana Brawley case in New York and relentlessly pursued what later turned out to be false accusations against a white police officer. Sharpton was successfully sued for slander and eventually paid a large judgment. Sharpton has never apologized for this either.

I don’t believe the students who booed were scared of free speech, I think they were excercising it.

—

And, they were given the opportunity to do it. I applaud that whole-heartedly. You see, Michelle, I see our speech protections as pure, pristine, absolute, beyond compromise. Speech which espouses a view different than my own is welcomed, far more than speech that supports my views. The former tests by principles, my tolerance. The latter provides an affirmation. Comforting, but not that important. In all candor, I would try to grow into such a view. It is lovely.

—–

I’ve done it before but I’d be happy to do it again ….

—

I’m afraid you were a bit too lazy to read again, Michelle. I didn’t ask for Breitbart or Wikipedia cut and paste jobs. My cat could do that. I said that the gentlemen were not here, and I could not respond to them. I have no reason to believe that any of them have much interest in what you say. Perhaps, a bit more in what I say, but even then, not that much.

OH, so if they aren’t here to comment, we can’t talk about them. WOW talk about a different set of rules for your racist friends. It’s getting harder and harder for you to spin, isn’t it, King?

To give you some measure of comfort in your painful frantic and frenetic thrashing about and in your obvious, shamed awareness of your own racism and xenophobia and scorn for so many of God’s favored creatures, I would say to the men, men who are schooled in the Gospel of the Lord, but are so like you, the same thing I say to you:

“You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

No need to thank me. We both know I am a mensch.

Waste of time, Michelle. I once gave the King a whole page of Farrakhan’s racist quotes about white people and asked the King if he would denounce Farrakhan’s racism. You’d have thought you were watching Dancing with the Stars. The King started in about how he wouldn’t ‘label’ Farrakhan, because he hadn’t spoken to him, or wouldn’t be speaking to him, or had spoken to him but wasn’t currently, or some such gibberish. Bottom line, if a black person is racist, the King will ignore it. It’s only white people that get his dander up.

(Look out. We might now be in store for his ‘yoke of oppression, jack of clubs, Isle of Man’ speech, in which he explains why it’s okay to hate white people.)

Three cheers for the students. I recall when my son graduated from college, a liberal reporter was the speaker who got roundly booed for criticizing Bush and Iraq. So despite the numerous attempts to indoc the kids in liberal ways, some still decide to keep a mind of their own.

Hip hip hooray.

King,
I’m afraid I have to agree with Writer here. You clearly have a deep hatred of white people and I don’t care to TRY to talk to someone who does any longer. I actually feel sorry for you. I would hate to go through life with that amount of hatred in my heart. You call me a racist, but I challenge you to quote ONE thing I’ve said that proves that. I am not, but couldn’t care less if you believe it or not. I think it’s just easier for you to believe every white person is so maybe it will justify your own hatred. Hopefully one day you can let it go.

These liberal professors silence the critics in their class by giving anyone who disagrees a bad grade. But this prof made the mistake of showing up at graduation, when the students already have their degrees and can’t be bullied anymore. The result was quite predictable. The students would also boo these professors in the classroom if they didn’t have to keep quiet in order to placate these ideologues.

The King started in about how he wouldn’t ‘label’ Farrakhan, because he hadn’t spoken to him, or wouldn’t be speaking to him, or had spoken to him but wasn’t currently, or some such gibberish. Bottom line, if a black person is racist, the King will ignore it. It’s only white people that get his dander up.

—

You are lying again, Righter. I specifically said that Farrakhan was not present, and I didn’t care to make remarks about someone no present. Why must you constantly lie about this? It seems so unimportant.

—–

MichelleF says:
May 24, 2010 at 5:42 pm
King,
I’m afraid I have to agree with Writer here.

—

I would expect racist, xenophobic morons to agree with one another.

However, I gave you the answer I should thing someone who proclaims herself a great Christian would find most informative and meaningful. In essence, I told you that I would tell these men, were they present, that I hold them in the same regard I do you. Given my well-known views of your beliefs and your ideology, could I have been any clearer? Could I have made a stronger condemnation?

But, your reasoning is most interesting. Because I love eggplant, I hate cauliflower. Who couldn’t see the wisdom in that?

Settle down. Embrace your children. Enjoy a cup of tea.

See what I mean, Michelle? The King can’t make comments about Farrakhan because he isn’t ‘present’. Ever see the King make comments about anyone else who wasn’t present? So I guess when the King is slamming Glenn Beck, or Bill O’Reilly, or Sarah Palin, they’re all sitting right there with him. LOL

felixw says:
May 24, 2010 at 5:49 pm
These liberal professors silence the critics in their class by giving anyone who disagrees a bad grade.

—

You must not have gone to college then. Some of my fiercest arguments were with professors who gave me my best grades. I had a Hobbesian theorist in ethics. I disagreed vehemently with almost everything he said. Yet, he was brighter than any Cartesian I ever read or with whom I ever spoke. Our arguments were legendary. I made an unusually high “A” and was invited to be his TA the next year. Bright people, confident in their own views are not so easily threatened.

Hey, King. You proclaim to be a Christian, too. What do they say in church about your hatred of white people? They say that’s okay, do they?

Doesn’t reverend wright also “claim” to be christian?

I couldn’t answer that Righter. We tend to talk about God’s people, not White people, African-American people, Hispanic people. But, we are a good, solid, loving, tolerant group of people, so the distinction which are so necessary in dealing with our flawed society and its flawed members seem unnecessary there. So will be the case in our nation some day, and how I welcome that day. To truly be the City on the Hill, not simply the City struggling nobly, valiantly, purposefully, grandly, but in botched starts and too frequent stops due to some of the workers, to be built on the Hill. Then, America becomes America in all its splendid fullness. We may be the grandest city with a view surpassing all others, but there is still work to be done. Would that you could share that vision.

Michelle, you’ve got to admit the King is getting so far out, he’s often as humorous as he is aggravating. Did you get a load of that comment that he can’t comment on someone who isn’t ‘present’? Oh, man.

MichelleF says:
May 24, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Doesn’t reverend wright also “claim” to be christian [sic]?

—

“You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

Rev. Wright is your brother, and you are my sister. The three of us fall far short in our Creator’s eye.

P.S. You’ll note that there was some dancing, but no denial that he does hate white people.

The Real Royal King says:
May 24, 2010 at 5:01 pm

JohnSimpson says:
May 24, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Do you support the Federal Immigration Laws?”

Man that shut up those libs!

—

Well you framed a moronic question that was intended to be self-serving but which failed. I support the CONCEPT of Immigration Laws at the federal level. AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, only, since once you’re in, you’re in.”

hahaaha- I knew it! You and snippy don’t support the current laws so why would you support new ones?

You are a dumb libby!

It is odd. In discussions about Rand Paul and integrated diners, the left screams “That’s the law, and it must be upheld!” But when it comes to Arizona and illegal immigration, they say f*** the law. Those wacky lefties.

Hey, the king says he supports the “concept” of immigration law. Hey, that’s what Paul said about the ’64 CRA law, libs!

All the Marys in Heaven, you are dense, Righter. My parents and siblings are White. My wife is. My children and children-in-law are White. My grandchild is White. Ted Kennedy was White. My sommelier is White. I could go on for ever. I am a loving and much beloved man. I love more White people than you’ll ever know. But, you may have a point. I am White, and I love myself for less than yo do yourself. So, for what it’s worth, yes I do deny it. Now, go eat your paste and contemplate the miserable life you have all because some better qualified African American man gets to drive the forklift while you sweep the floor.

Hey, that’s what Paul said about the ‘64 CRA law, libs!

—

That is what Paul said, John, and I do not believe Paul to be a racist. I also think Paul is generally well-spoken and that he has some good ideas. In a theoretical match-up between Chinless and Gutless Mitch McConnell and Paul, I’d vote for Paul.

—–

You and snippy don’t support the current laws so why would you support new ones?

—

Because a new, properly drawn law might work, perhaps. All the Marys in Heaven, that’s like saying you don’t like the design of a Chevrolet so why would you buy a Mercedes? What an odd thing to say!

The thread has definently, deteriorated, so I leave the further destruction to Righter, under the various names he posts, and to John. I still haven’t figured that one out.

King, anyone can claim anything on the internet. I’m going by your posts. Like the one where you said you can’t comment on Farrakhan because he isn’t ‘present’. That never seems to stop you from vilifying white people who aren’t ‘present’. And look at all your posts where you go out of your way to vilify whites by placing the word (White) in parentheses. Never see you doing that with any other race. How come? I still think you’re lying and you’re actually a black Muslim. In that context, at least the hateful tone of your posts makes some sense. If you are actually white, your degree of self-loathing must be bordering on psychotic.

I’ve apparently run the King off. Was it something I said?

King just admit it: You and snippy want open borders but you know the criticism you would engender for proffering such an ignorant position like that .

writer says:
May 24, 2010 at 6:40 pm

I’ve apparently run the King off. Was it something I said?

Perhaps you failed to address him with his just due, Writer.

As he said “I am a loving and much beloved man.”. We have learned from him on innumerable previous occasions that he is an urbane world traveler of consummate sophistication, a gourmand, multilingual, and a business executive who still finds time to study wildlife such as his thrilling recital of the mating coyotes. I am quite sure, from reading between the lines, that he is also a very humble man totally devoid of any preening self pretentious arrogance towards or disdain of we little folk here.

Perhaps he would honor us with his presence once more if we knaves and maids vow to make obeisance to him with a simple tug on the forelock or a curtsy with a deep head bow. I hope that would be sufficient to appease his obviously pathological need to be superior to all he encounters!

Royal King clearly you haven’t been following what is happening at college campuses in recent decades. A host of restrictions on freedom of speech have been imposed. A typical situation is Jonathan Lopez of Los Angeles City College who was given a failing grade and accused of hate speech because he quoted the Bible in class. And, yes of course (as always in these situations) the teacher was an ardent left-winger.

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4823

In 1990, around 75 colleges had restrictions on free speech. Today that number has grown to more than 300. In virtually every instance, these regulations have been implemented to silence conservatives. Quoting from the Bible is called hate speech. But quoting from Karl Marx or Fidel Castro is allowed in all cases.

TRRK, when these liberal professors get rid of all these controls on free speech, then I will believe your naive claims on how open they are to dissent. But until then, the facts are clear: American universities is run by leftwingers who do everything possible to silence those who disagrees with them.

trrk doesn’t deal in reality or truth. He types whatever supports his thought of the moment. He is bold in his lies and distortions and thinks this fools people. It never has and it never will. People will always, after varing lengths of time, walk away from trrk shaking their heads at the waste of skin.

King frothed:
“You are lying again, Righter. I specifically said that Farrakhan was not present, and I didn’t care to make remarks about someone no present. Why must you constantly lie about this? It seems so unimportant.”

Well you’ve made comments about Beck and Palin. They aren’t here. You just got caught in more lies.

writer says:
May 24, 2010 at 6:40 pm

I’ve apparently run the King off. Was it something I said?

—

My deepest apologies. I had a Board meeting. My I ask what in particular are whining, bleating and moaning about now?

“…Farrakhan was not present, and I didn’t care to make remarks about someone not present.”

LOL

King , had a meeting with a board alright, the board holding his shack together.