What Is The Most R****t State In America??? (Page 3): You remind me of Neighbor barking dog...

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

wilpharm wrote:

you are the only one in a twit and too stupid to realize it...ride em, stumpy

You remind me of Neighbor barking dog

wilpharm Loc: Oklahoma

dirtpusher wrote:

You remind me of Neighbor barking dog

you neighbors dog has tons more intelligence than you...You are just jealous..

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

wilpharm wrote:

you neighbors dog has tons more intelligence than you...You are just jealous..

Arf arf arf

wilpharm Loc: Oklahoma

dirtpusher wrote:

Arf arf arf

good boy, stumpy, now go lie down and quit bothering folks...BTW when is your owner gonna deal with your coprophagia??

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

wilpharm wrote:

good boy, stumpy, now go lie down and quit bothering folks...BTW when is your owner gonna deal with your coprophagia??

Arf arf says the barking dog wilpy

Tex-s

SharpShooter wrote:

Is it Texas?
Maybe Florida?
How about Montana?
Seems r****m and guns go together somehow.
Can we use guns as a predictor?
Maybe high concentration of KKK members?
Maybe the state you live in?
What state is most r****t???
SS

"R****m" or "r****t" are buzzwords used to label and slander, nothing more. Very few educated Americans are engaged in truly r****t thought or behavior, behavior that promotes a notion that one race is biologically inferior to another. The IQ debate, for example, just like supply and demand relationships and just like sexual dimorphism in mammals, is settled science and not subject to debate. Where people earn the 'r****t' epithet is when they apply reasonable preferences, likes, dislikes, and decision making algorithms to make choices that end up offending someone else.

As a social experiment, you decide if the following thought process is inherently r****t:

A 20 year old college girl takes a job waiting tables at a popular night spot. The job is good, the money very good, and the hours acceptable. The only trouble is that she is working in a high crime area of town and she fears for her safety at hours around midnight as she walks to her car, which, by rule of her employer, must be parked in the lot about 75 yards away from the front door.

R****t?

Is it r****t if the adjacent neighborhood is a predominantly black neighborhood?
Predominately hispanic?

Is it r****t if the young lady herself is black or hispanic?

There are 'activists' who look to assign EVERY decision of others it's most negative motivation imaginable. This is where the labels come out and why they are useless.

Another to evaluate as 'r****t' or not. I say with 100% conviction that the two greatest indicators that a community/state/nation are headed to social cataclysm are:
1) families in the community/state/nation abandoning the active practice of religion (and the moral framework espoused therein)
2) families that do not have two parents raising the children together.

Before you answer though, note I did not specify a religion when I said 'religion'. If you immediately assumed anything, that's on you. My actual view is that Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, etc (assuming a non-militant faction of course) all have moral codes that benefit a society and that abandoning those is simply progress in a bad direction.

Also note that I did not specify WHY there are not two parents at home, nor did I specify that 'parents' must be male female. Again, assumptions are your issue, not mine.

I maintain there is ZERO hint of r****m in my thoughts as written, but if I, as a white guy, apply that thought to both communities in Appalachia and inner cities, why is it suddenly r****t in one place but not another? And why is it NOT r****t if Thomas Sowell says the exact same thing about both communities? I say it's because the label of 'r****t' is a cudgel as opposed to a useful tool of debate.

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

Tex-s wrote:

"R****m" or "r****t" are buzzwords used to label and slander, nothing more. Very few educated Americans are engaged in truly r****t thought or behavior, behavior that promotes a notion that one race is biologically inferior to another. The IQ debate, for example, just like supply and demand relationships and just like sexual dimorphism in mammals, is settled science and not subject to debate. Where people earn the 'r****t' epithet is when they apply reasonable preferences, likes, dislikes, and decision making algorithms to make choices that end up offending someone else.

As a social experiment, you decide if the following thought process is inherently r****t:

A 20 year old college girl takes a job waiting tables at a popular night spot. The job is good, the money very good, and the hours acceptable. The only trouble is that she is working in a high crime area of town and she fears for her safety at hours around midnight as she walks to her car, which, by rule of her employer, must be parked in the lot about 75 yards away from the front door.

R****t?

Is it r****t if the adjacent neighborhood is a predominantly black neighborhood?
Predominately hispanic?

Is it r****t if the young lady herself is black or hispanic?

There are 'activists' who look to assign EVERY decision of others it's most negative motivation imaginable. This is where the labels come out and why they are useless.

Another to evaluate as 'r****t' or not. I say with 100% conviction that the two greatest indicators that a community/state/nation are headed to social cataclysm are:
1) families in the community/state/nation abandoning the active practice of religion (and the moral framework espoused therein)
2) families that do not have two parents raising the children together.

Before you answer though, note I did not specify a religion when I said 'religion'. If you immediately assumed anything, that's on you. My actual view is that Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, etc (assuming a non-militant faction of course) all have moral codes that benefit a society and that abandoning those is simply progress in a bad direction.

Also note that I did not specify WHY there are not two parents at home, nor did I specify that 'parents' must be male female. Again, assumptions are your issue, not mine.

I maintain there is ZERO hint of r****m in my thoughts as written, but if I, as a white guy, apply that thought to both communities in Appalachia and inner cities, why is it suddenly r****t in one place but not another? And why is it NOT r****t if Thomas Sowell says the exact same thing about both communities? I say it's because the label of 'r****t' is a cudgel as opposed to a useful tool of debate.

"R****m" or "r****t" are buzzw... (show quote)

Bone spurs is a true r****t.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

SharpShooter wrote:

Is it Texas?
Maybe Florida?
How about Montana?
Seems r****m and guns go together somehow.
Can we use guns as a predictor?
Maybe high concentration of KKK members?
Maybe the state you live in?
What state is most r****t???
SS

Without question, California or New York. Where else in this grand country are there so many with so much, but still work hard to keep the poor and disadvantaged in their place ( read poor schools strangled by the unions, high taxes, hand outs rather than teaching job sk**ls, etc) Enough said.

Or if guns are an indicator, I would say Illinois, due to the density of guns in Chicago.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

dirtpusher wrote:

You remind me of Neighbor barking dog

That dog has to be either a chihuahua or a pekinese

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Tex-s wrote:

"R****m" or "r****t" are buzzwords used to label and slander, nothing more. Very few educated Americans are engaged in truly r****t thought or behavior, behavior that promotes a notion that one race is biologically inferior to another. The IQ debate, for example, just like supply and demand relationships and just like sexual dimorphism in mammals, is settled science and not subject to debate. Where people earn the 'r****t' epithet is when they apply reasonable preferences, likes, dislikes, and decision making algorithms to make choices that end up offending someone else.

As a social experiment, you decide if the following thought process is inherently r****t:

A 20 year old college girl takes a job waiting tables at a popular night spot. The job is good, the money very good, and the hours acceptable. The only trouble is that she is working in a high crime area of town and she fears for her safety at hours around midnight as she walks to her car, which, by rule of her employer, must be parked in the lot about 75 yards away from the front door.

R****t?

Is it r****t if the adjacent neighborhood is a predominantly black neighborhood?
Predominately hispanic?

Is it r****t if the young lady herself is black or hispanic?

There are 'activists' who look to assign EVERY decision of others it's most negative motivation imaginable. This is where the labels come out and why they are useless.

Another to evaluate as 'r****t' or not. I say with 100% conviction that the two greatest indicators that a community/state/nation are headed to social cataclysm are:
1) families in the community/state/nation abandoning the active practice of religion (and the moral framework espoused therein)
2) families that do not have two parents raising the children together.

Before you answer though, note I did not specify a religion when I said 'religion'. If you immediately assumed anything, that's on you. My actual view is that Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, etc (assuming a non-militant faction of course) all have moral codes that benefit a society and that abandoning those is simply progress in a bad direction.

Also note that I did not specify WHY there are not two parents at home, nor did I specify that 'parents' must be male female. Again, assumptions are your issue, not mine.

I maintain there is ZERO hint of r****m in my thoughts as written, but if I, as a white guy, apply that thought to both communities in Appalachia and inner cities, why is it suddenly r****t in one place but not another? And why is it NOT r****t if Thomas Sowell says the exact same thing about both communities? I say it's because the label of 'r****t' is a cudgel as opposed to a useful tool of debate.

"R****m" or "r****t" are buzzw... (show quote)

If we accept (i’m agnostic regarding it at this time) that r****m in no way motivated your monologue, that isn’t evidence that you are correct.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Tex-s wrote:

"R****m" or "r****t" are buzzwords used to label and slander, nothing more. Very few educated Americans are engaged in truly r****t thought or behavior, behavior that promotes a notion that one race is biologically inferior to another. The IQ debate, for example, just like supply and demand relationships and just like sexual dimorphism in mammals, is settled science and not subject to debate. Where people earn the 'r****t' epithet is when they apply reasonable preferences, likes, dislikes, and decision making algorithms to make choices that end up offending someone else.

As a social experiment, you decide if the following thought process is inherently r****t:

A 20 year old college girl takes a job waiting tables at a popular night spot. The job is good, the money very good, and the hours acceptable. The only trouble is that she is working in a high crime area of town and she fears for her safety at hours around midnight as she walks to her car, which, by rule of her employer, must be parked in the lot about 75 yards away from the front door.

R****t?

Is it r****t if the adjacent neighborhood is a predominantly black neighborhood?
Predominately hispanic?

Is it r****t if the young lady herself is black or hispanic?

There are 'activists' who look to assign EVERY decision of others it's most negative motivation imaginable. This is where the labels come out and why they are useless.

Another to evaluate as 'r****t' or not. I say with 100% conviction that the two greatest indicators that a community/state/nation are headed to social cataclysm are:
1) families in the community/state/nation abandoning the active practice of religion (and the moral framework espoused therein)
2) families that do not have two parents raising the children together.

Before you answer though, note I did not specify a religion when I said 'religion'. If you immediately assumed anything, that's on you. My actual view is that Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, etc (assuming a non-militant faction of course) all have moral codes that benefit a society and that abandoning those is simply progress in a bad direction.

Also note that I did not specify WHY there are not two parents at home, nor did I specify that 'parents' must be male female. Again, assumptions are your issue, not mine.

I maintain there is ZERO hint of r****m in my thoughts as written, but if I, as a white guy, apply that thought to both communities in Appalachia and inner cities, why is it suddenly r****t in one place but not another? And why is it NOT r****t if Thomas Sowell says the exact same thing about both communities? I say it's because the label of 'r****t' is a cudgel as opposed to a useful tool of debate.

"R****m" or "r****t" are buzzw... (show quote)

I suppose Lester Maddox was just a manufacturers rep for a pick handle manufacturer? Donald Trump’s “s**t hole countries” remark had to do with plumbing. David Duke, and others, have simply discovered that white sheets as clothing makes the most sense in the climate of the southern states (and Arizona). Can you believe that some actually see these as evidence of r****m? Preposterous, right?

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

BobHartung wrote:

Without question, California or New York. Where else in this grand country are there so many with so much, but still work hard to keep the poor and disadvantaged in their place ( read poor schools strangled by the unions, high taxes, hand outs rather than teaching job sk**ls, etc) Enough said.

Or if guns are an indicator, I would say Illinois, due to the density of guns in Chicago.

If you actually have familiarity with some of these areas you may have something to say, otherwise you are just raking a dump out the wrong end. I’m fairly familiar with CA from about mid state north. On a relative basis I think we are pretty enlightened racially. On an absolute basis, we could do much better. We do have some pockets that are pretty embarrassing, leading me to believe that if your experience with a state mainly involves a small area, you may know a lot less about that state than you think you do.

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

thom w wrote:

That dog has to be either a chihuahua or a pekinese

Tea Cup

wilpharm Loc: Oklahoma

thom w wrote:

That dog has to be either a chihuahua or a pekinese

like dirtbag (stumpy) you suffer from coprophagia also!!!

cessnalvr Loc: West virginia

California