The words are bad enough without the histrionics that come with the video.

Remarks by President Biden and First Lady Biden Honoring the Lives Lost in Buffalo, New York, and Calling on All Americans to Condemn White Supremacy | The White House (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/05/17/remarks-by-president-biden-and-first-lady-biden-honoring-the-lives-lost-in-buffalo-new-york-and-calling-on-all-americans-to-condemn-white-supremacy/)

There is no other way to spin it than to say that a couple days after a terrible tragedy where a mentally disturbed individual (no I'm not speaking about the President yet ) gunned down 10 innocent victims ;the President used the opportunity (no crisis go to waste )to score political points .

Why did he go to Buffalo ? To date there have been 7 mass shootings in 2022 ;and 20 under his watch . And this does not include the countless shootings that goes on daily in America's inner cities .The shooters have been of all races ;killing and injuring people of all races . But it was the white shooter killing non-whites that got his attention .On the link above the White House header reads " Calling on All Americans to Condemn White Supremacy"


It must be that only whites commit “Domestic terrorism. Violence inflicted in the service of hate and a vicious thirst for power that defines one group of people being inherently inferior to any other group.”

He had all his talking point ducks in a row.
Censorship ... “You can’t prevent people from being radicalized to violence, but we can address the relentless exploitation of the Internet to recruit and mobilize terrorism.”
Gun control ...“We can keep assault weapons off our streets. We’ve done it before. I did it when we passed the crime bill last time. And violence went down, shootings went down.”

That belies the facts .
1 when so called "assault rifles " were banned gun violence did not go down ;homicide rates were unaffected .
2. Semi-automatic weapons are rarely used in murders .
3. The shooter chose NY State specifically because he knew his victims would NOT be armed because of NY's tough conceal and carry laws .

Buffalo Shooter Saw New York's Gun Laws As His Advantage (newsweek.com) (https://www.newsweek.com/buffalo-shooter-saw-new-yorks-gun-laws-his-advantage-1706982)

One day after Buffalo a mass shooting occurred in Laguna Woods Ca.The Victims were Taiwanese Americans and the shooter a non-white . Only 1 person died because the intended victims fought back ;captured and hog tied the shooter .

April 12 of this year a self-described Black nationalist wearing a gas mask threw smoke grenades in a NY City subway car .He then took out his Glock 17 9mm hand gun and started blasting away ,29 people were injured .....10 by gun fire 19 by smoke inhalation .Clueless and AG Garland were "briefed on the shooting " . What was Clueless' reaction ? He expressed gratitude to "all the first responders who jumped into action, including civilians who didn't hesitate to help their fellow passengers."
Brooklyn shooting: Seventeen injured in New York City subway station - BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61082792)

He did not get on his soap box and yell that Black Nationalism is the biggest terrorist threat facing the nation.

I could go on. But the point is that race is a factor in many killings. Most are not committed by white supremist. Clueless knows this .He also knows who his dwindling constituency is and is catering to them instead of trying to unite the country .

And of course other Dems DEMagoguing the issue . Here is the Schmuckster .

“Every time MAGA Republicans or pundits vilify wrongly immigrants and call them invaders, every time they falsely claim that millions of undocumented people cast ballots in our elections, and every time loud bigoted voices bemoan the disintegration of an imagined ‘classic’ America, the subtext is clear: these hard-right MAGA Republicans argue that people of color and minority communities are somehow posing a threat—a threat—to the American way of life.”
“This is replacement theory in a nutshell. It is a dangerous and a deeply anti-American worldview. It’s poisoning people’s minds who spend hours wandering the darkest wastelands of the internet.”

So now it is about half the country that is the problem .It was our opposition to unchecked immigration and open borders that caused the shooter to kill 10 Blacks at a Buffalo supermarket. A summary of his so called manifesto was indeed full of racist thoughts . But he did not confine it to that .He ranted about conservatives too .He called them eco-fascists .
Schmucky .... 10 killings in Buffalo is a terrible tragedy . So is the 60 per month in Chi town .

11 people were killed in the past two weekends in Chicago. In the news reports, it did not seem important to mention the race of the victims. In the relatively times when the shooter is arrested, it does not seem important to mention the race then either. Nor does it seem important to mention the type of gun used when a gun was used. Evidently those details only become important when there is political hay to be made. Notably, no one liberal made a speech decrying those deaths.

More tidbits from Biden's speech.


We need to say as clearly and forcefully as we can that the ideology of white supremacy has no place in America. Name anyone with any serious influence who says white supremacy is a good thing.


Our nation’s strength has always come from the idea — it’s going to sound corny, but think about it — what’s the idea of our nation? That we’re all children of God.Actually, that is not true. Still, it's interesting how liberal dems refer to God when it suits their purposes. How about the unborn? Are they "children of God" as well?


All children — life, liberty. Our universal goods, gifts of God. We didn’t get it from the government. We got it because we exist. We were called upon to defend them.So we are to defend "all children" unless, of course, they have yet to be born.

“We can keep assault weapons off our streets. We’ve done it before. I did it when we passed the crime bill last time. And violence went down, shootings went down.”That is clearly not true. That bill was passed in 94. It did not take AW off the street, but simply banned the sales of such weapons. Murder by gunfire rose from about 11,000 in 1999 to more than 14,000 in 2016, the final year of the Obama/Biden admin.

https://gun-control.procon.org/us-gun-deaths-by-year/

Name anyone with any serious influence who says white supremacy is a good thing.
Tucker Carlson.

So you're still in the business of writing fiction?

It's an absurd charge. TC has never said such a thing. It's just the usual liberal dem strategy. When the truth is inconvenient, then try something else. Of course if what you are saying is true, then it will be easy enough for you to document.

So you're still in the business of writing fiction?

It's an absurd charge. TC has never said such a thing. It's just the usual liberal dem strategy. When the truth is inconvenient, then try something else.
I'm writing non-fiction today. You must not watch him on Fox. Give it a try. You'll be horrified at the allusions and not too subtle suggestions with the phrasing he uses.

Nah. Still fiction. If you had the goods, you would post them. Shame. Why do liberal dems do this so much? "What I'm saying is true! I have no way of verifying it, but just take my word for it!" Well, after the wild tale you pursued last week, your credibility is shot.

You'll be horrified at the allusions and not too subtle suggestions with the phrasing he uses.

hilarious . whatever the progressive Dems accuse someone of ;it is they that are really doing it. Classic deflection. IE this idea of replacement theory . The first time I heard that sentiment was from prominent progressive Dems like Jesse Jackson who applauded the idea that whites would soon be a minority in this country .Now the Dems deflect and brand Republicans of using it to fear monger . I give the Dems credit .They gaslight with the best of them.

hilarious . whatever the progressive Dems accuse someone of ;it is they that are really doing it. Classic deflection.
You don't watch him on Fox News?

Of course not ! Have you ever seen me link to his commentary ? Carlson is to the right what Rachel Madcow is to the left . I watch the news on FOX if I happen to have the television on at that hour (which I rarely do ). My television is confined mostly to shows and movies I DVR ;or Yanks and NY Giants if they are available .
My news sources are what I get on the net mostly .Almost all television news is a waste of my time . When I do site a television source it comes from a third source . Like I would not waste an hour of my life watching 60 Minutes or the Sunday Morning talking head shows . But I will often link to them if the topic is germane to my discussions .

Then you know nothing about him, his style, what he vents about, what he promotes.

Oh I know his basic positions . But i put as much weight on them as anyone else's . As an example ;I know he and I have some similar views about the Ukraine war . Why is this about him ?
Unlike the progressive Dems ,Conservatives views are not monolithic . But I'll take the bait . Give me specific Carleson quotes about the Buffalo murders . I won't waste my time on generalities like

Name anyone with any serious influence who says white supremacy is a good thing.



Tucker Carlson.


Defend your position that Carleson thinks white supremacy is a good thing with quotes .

His stoking of fear of the "great replacement" (common white supremacist ideology that white people in the U.S. and worldwide are being “replaced” by growing immigrant, Jewish, and POC populations. They refer to this as “white genocide,” and many believe that, in the U.S., changing demographics are the result of a deliberate political ploy to increase Democratic voters):

TC -- “I know that the left and all the gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term ‘replacement,’ if you suggest the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots, with new people, more obedient voters from the Third World. But they become hysterical because that’s what’s happening, actually, let’s just say it. That’s true.”

TC has been quiet since the Buffalo murders. Continuing his rants now would be very transparent.

It is a statistical fact that non-whites will supplant whites in the USA soon if they haven't already done so. Is it an intentional Democrat policy ? Do you really think that is some kind of unintended consequence of the 1965 Hart-Cellar immigration act ? Do you really believe that the reforms were meant to bring more white European immigrants ?

TC wants whites to believe that.

I listen to TC from time to time. To suggest he advocates for WS is sheer nonsense. It's just the tired old liberal dem game of making accusations which cannot be supported by even a shred of evidence, and then not having the character to simply retract the statement.

I watch his "news" show a lot.

Exactly. And yet you can't provide a single link to back up this latest work of fiction.

Exactly. And yet you can't provide a single link to back up this latest work of fiction.
I did even better. I provided words that came out of his own mouth.

TC -- “I know that the left and all the gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term ‘replacement,’ if you suggest the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots, with new people, more obedient voters from the Third World. But they become hysterical because that’s what’s happening, actually, let’s just say it. That’s true.”First of all, you CLAIM those are his words, but considering your new career as a writer of fiction, then we can by no means be certain of that, especially considering that you provide no link to establish they are his words. But even then, there is no advancement of WS anywhere in that paragraph. The reference is clearly a claim, and likely a valid one, that the dems are leaving the southern border wide open in the hopes of allowing in millions of individuals who will someday gain the vote and see themselves as beholding to the dem party. That is certainly a legit point of view.

It is all an exercise in dog whistles. It is a fact that Dem immigration laws of the 1960s sponsored by the swimmer fueled a demographic shift. It is a fact that if it has not already occurred that whites will be a minority population soon (the longest projections are by the 2040s ). There is nothing racist in pointing out the facts. I don't know if we are there yet because there is no true accounting for how many illegals have crossed the border. Clueless championed it in 2017
Joe Biden: “ Whites will be an ABSOLUTE minority in America - that’s a source of our strength." - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgrliuQW_-Q)


Where the Dems plan falls flat is that they think it will give them a long-term electoral advantage. But the truth is that when policies are scrutinized, many of the populations emigrating into the US find Dem policies antithetical to their values.

Change the wording around to get rid of the dog whistles and you can find examples of Dems championing the very thing they claim is racist. Example . This from progressive publication 'Politico'......

For years, the Democratic Party has operated under one immutable assumption: Long-term demographic trends would give the party something like a permanent majority as the country as a whole grows less white and more urban.....

“The joke is that the GOP is really assembling the multiracial working-class coalition that the left has always dreamed of,” says David Shor, a Democratic polling and data expert who developed the Obama 2012 campaign’s internal election-forecasting system.

How 2020 Killed Off Democrats’ Demographic Hopes - POLITICO (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/12/2020-election-analysis-democrats-future-david-shor-interview-436334)

It only becomes racist when a twisted mind like the Buffalo shooter uses it was a pretext for violence.. Otherwise ;with different phraseology ,the Dems admit they have believed for a long time that the demographic shift caused by the immigration law changes of 1965 benefit their goal of a permanent Democrat voting majority .

If anything it is their presumptions that are racist . They presume patterns of behavior to use to their advantage . But in the long run their racist presumptions are false .
Contrary to their monolithic treatment by many Americans, including the political leadership of the Democrat plantation ,Latinos have always been very diverse; economically, culturally and in their ethnic and national origins. They were reliably Democratic for some time .But a number of new polls show Latino voters going more Republican .

Hispanic Voters Now Evenly Split Between Parties, WSJ Poll Finds - WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/hispanic-voters-now-evenly-split-between-parties-wsj-poll-finds-11638972769)

Hispanic voters lose faith in Democrats over inflation | Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/hispanics-lose-faith-democrats-over-inflation-us-elections-loom-2022-05-02/)

What Drives Latino Men to Republicans? - The New York Times (nytimes.com) (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/05/us/politics/latino-voters-democrats.html)

Opinion | While Democrats Debate ‘Latinx,’ Latinos Head to the G.O.P. - The New York Times (nytimes.com) (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/22/opinion/politics/latinos-democratic-party.html)

Column: Latinos going GOP in 2024 isn't that farfetched - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com) (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-12-23/latinos-more-conservative-2022-gustavo-arellano-column)

Why the Latino vote is a growing problem for Democrats (yahoo.com) (https://news.yahoo.com/why-the-latino-vote-is-a-growing-problem-for-democrats-090038533.html)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was born in Somalia as a Black Muslim woman. She saw how women were treated in Muslim countries and escaped to the Netherlands. She denounced Islam and is now atheist. That put a price on her head. She mastered the language and eventually became a member of Parliament. She moved to the US 2006 and has been a prominent spokesperson for various causes. Her take on the Buffalo shooting is a worthy read

Everyone in that room understood, as the attack in Buffalo demonstrated, that certain individuals are motivated by a loathing for black people. But this shouldn’t define us, let alone the country we live in. For black Americans to progress, we need to cast off today’s dependency on white guilt for recognition and support. What is the way forward if you accept that blacks in America are free? It is to have the courage to live that freedom. It means holding ourselves accountable for our behavior. It means learning to shape our destiny regardless of skin colour. And it means ignoring the divisive rhetoric propagated by those such as Patrisse Cullors, Kamala Harris and Ibram X Kendi

Buffalo and the myth of racist America - UnHerd (https://unherd.com/2022/05/buffalo-and-the-myth-of-racist-america/)

She is obviously a supporter of white supremacy. [SARC]

First of all, you CLAIM those are his words, but considering your new career as a writer of fiction, then we can by no means be certain of that, especially considering that you provide no link to establish they are his words.
You always spit on any links I post. Yes, TC said it, and, knowing what a fantastic googler you are, feel free to search with good keywords.

I also write non-fiction. Ask my publishers.

No, I will not do your work for you. Besides, if you had a link you would have posted it. I did do a search for that quote and came up with, unsurprisingly in my view, zero, so I feel very safe in saying that the quote you posted is about as reliable as what you posted last week.

As to your fiction, your latest episode renders a giant question mark beside anything you post. That was your doing so you'll just have to live with it. And lest you say I am being mean, I will go ahead and answer that serious discussions call for serious input and not just making it up as you go along.

Here is my search result. It is not supportive of your cause.

https://www.bing.com/search?PC=MQ03&q=%E2%80%9CI+know+that+the+left+and+all+the+gateke epers+on+Twitter+become+literally+hysterical+if+yo u+use+the+term+%E2%80%98replacement%2C%E2%80%99+if +you+suggest+the+Democratic+Party+is+trying+to+rep lace+the+current+electorate%2C+the+voters+now+cast ing+ballots%2C+with+new+people%2C+more+obedient+vo ters+from+the+Third+World.+But+they+become+hysteri cal+because+that%E2%80%99s+what%E2%80%99s+happenin g%2C+actually%2C+let%E2%80%99s+just+say+it.+That%E 2%80%99s+true.%E2%80%9D&FORM=MQ03DF

You can't find any links??!! PBS, NBC, WaPo, Politifact, Denver Post, etc., etc., etc. Do I have to pull you aside and teach you how to google with good keywords? (P.S. Do not mess with a career librarian regarding searching.)

You made a claim you cannot back up. That's a career librarian and her excellence in searching? Sure sounds like a made up quote that is simply not out there, but I will wait patiently.

I CAN back it up! Why can't you find it on your own? There are many links.

(And yes, I see through your whining. I used to be a teacher, am a parent.)

And again. You made a claim you cannot back up. That's a career librarian and her excellence in searching? Sure sounds like a made up quote that is simply not out there, but I will wait patiently.

tick-tock-tick-tock

And here's the worst part. Even if you could back it up, and it certainly seems you plainly cannot, you are still left with nothing. There is no "hooray" for WS in the "quote" you made up, I mean posted.

Unless you had the quote memorized, and you didn't, then you must have found it somewhere on the web. It would be the simplest thing in the world, especially for a genuine expert, to have simply posted the link. So I really don't know. As I said, even if the quote is genuine, and perhaps it is, it still does not show that TC is in favor of WS. I just don't see that at all.

who cares about Carlson ? It is the President's comments that were over the top divisive .
This is what Clueless should've said ....... "America is a fundamentally decent nation . You in Buffalo were victimized by a sick mentally disturbed man who at best represents a minute fringe part of the population . There are disturbed people from every corner of American political life from a white goons aiming at Blacks in Buffalo;to an overzealous supporter of Bernie Sanders who fired at Republicans playing softball , to a deranged Black man who drove through A Christmas Parade in Waukesha killing white Dancing grannies . I must apologize for neglecting to go to Waukesha to give comfort and ummm empathy since I am familiar with the tragedy of having family killed by a driver of an automobile, America is a multiracial, multiethnic multireligious multicultural society and a few deranged people will never be able to change that .To say otherwise is to sh*t on the greatest experiment in human diversity in history . I say shame on the pucilanimous POS who would exploit this tragedy for political purposes . Certainly my role as President of this great nation is to try to bridge political divides and to heal a nation in it's time of mourning .....not to pour gas on the fire .
Thank you and God Bless this great nation . My time is up and I must go and choose the ice cream flavor of the day. "

Unless you had the quote memorized, and you didn't, then you must have found it somewhere on the web.
If you google good keywords, BINGO!

tick-tock-tick-tock

You post a fake quote and then want someone else to look it up for you? Yep. Liberal dem for certain.

I never realized how helpless fellow Republicans can be. Makes me ashamed to call myself one, especially in light of their shameless truth bending.

tick tock tick tock

From my friend Jacob in Texas: "Basically, Republican parents want their kids to be as uneducated as possible because, the less a person knows, the easier that person is to manipulate."

yeah Republicans are bitter clinger ,deplorable , ulta-MAGA knuckle dragging neanderthal sub-human creatures who are unwashed ,uneducated racist rubes I've heard it all before . Did your friend emigrate to Texas from a dysfunctional Democrat run state ?

tick, tock, tick, tock

Thursday on the steps of the Capitol building, Rep. Joyce Beatty accused the mentally deranged shooter at a Korean hair salon in Dallas of being a replacement theory White Supremist.
"On Monday, three people in a Korean-owned hair salon in Dallas were gunned by yet another White supremacy replacement theorist,"

Dallas Police Arrest Suspect in Attack on 3 Korean American Women - The New York Times (nytimes.com) (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/us/dallas-shooting-asian-attacks.html)

Problem is ;the suspect is Black
Girlfriend: Dallas shooting suspect feared Asian Americans - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/dallas-police-suspect-arrested-in-koreatown-salon-shooting/2022/05/17/8958a4ea-d5ca-11ec-be17-286164974c54_story.html)

She called out Republicans for putting replacement theory into one of their campaign planks . That is a lie Republicans have done no such thing.

It's classic liberal dem strategy. First, by throwing open the southern border, they essentially import millions of what they perceive will become liberal dem voters, and then they play the race card against anyone who points that out. The know that the greater part of the media will play along with them in enticing the non-thinking crowd to accept that charge.

Why wouldn't southern border immigrants become Republican voters?

You would have to ask the Dems that . They are the ones who made that presumption That it has been part of their strategy to build a permanent Dem majority is undeniable It wasn't the Repubs using that rhetoric .It was the Dems

The Emerging Democratic Majority | Book by John B. Judis, Ruy Teixeira | Official Publisher Page | Simon & Schuster (simonandschuster.com) (https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Emerging-Democratic-Majority/John-B-Judis/9780743254786)

Their argument rests on the assumption that immigration, legal and illegal, will swell the ranks of Democrat voters and hasten the inevitable emergence of a permanent Democratic majority. But that was 2013 . It is not looking so promising anymore .
A Permanent Democratic Majority? | RealClearPolitics (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/15/a_permanent_democratic_majority_48926.html)

Why wouldn't southern border immigrants become Republican voters?I think they will ask themselves three questions.

1. Who let us cross the border illegally with no repurcusions?
2. Who, after letting us cross, changed endlessly about the need to give us a "path to citizenship?"
3. Who opened up the largesse of welfare programs to us?

They will see it in their best interest to vote dem.

Here is my search result. It is not supportive of your cause.

https://www.bing.com/search?PC=MQ03&q=%E2%80%9CI+know+that+the+left+and+all+the+gateke epers+on+Twitter+become+literally+hysterical+if+yo u+use+the+term+%E2%80%98replacement%2C%E2%80%99+if +you+suggest+the+Democratic+Party+is+trying+to+rep lace+the+current+electorate%2C+the+voters+now+cast ing+ballots%2C+with+new+people%2C+more+obedient+vo ters+from+the+Third+World.+But+they+become+hysteri cal+because+that%E2%80%99s+what%E2%80%99s+happenin g%2C+actually%2C+let%E2%80%99s+just+say+it.+That%E 2%80%99s+true.%E2%80%9D&FORM=MQ03DF
Obviously, you don't understand how bing works.

I have no doubt I could learn some things about search engines, but it also strikes me that finding SOMETHING is far preferable to finding NOTHING. At any rate you have, at present, no promised legal opinion. There was a wild tale you told last week, and now this week you have a supposed quote that doesn't even support your case to begin with and a startling, and yet predictable, inability to find said quote. So it just seems to have not been a good month for you.

The life of a liberal dem is hard. I sincerely wish you better luck next time. Developing a high regard for the truth would be a good start.

I'm a Republican -- ever since I first registered at age 18. Probably because I'm a PK, I'm a NICE and LOVING (Jesus said "love one another") Republican.

I'm so tired of your whining and unwillingness to do your own search. Here's one of many links:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-is-great-replacement-theory-and-how-does-it-fuel-racist-violence

Walks like a duck. Quacks like a duck...

As to the rest, congratulations on finding...nothing. Here is the relevant portion of your "link to nowhere".


In particular, Tucker Carlson, Fox News’ most popular personality, has pushed false views that are more easily embraced by some white people who are concerned about a loss of their political and social power.Sheer political speculation fueled, I imagine, by fear and hatred. BTW, I would love to know what "false views" they are referring to.


“I know that the left and all the gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term ‘replacement,’ if you suggest the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots, with new people, more obedient voters from the Third World,” he said on his show last year. “But they become hysterical because that’s what’s happening, actually, let’s just say it. That’s true.”Note that the word "white" is nowhere to be found in that quote. What TC said is clearly, patently true.


A study of five years’ worth of Carlson’s show by The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/30/us/tucker-carlson-gop-republican-party.html) found 400 instances where he talked about Democratic politicians and others seeking to force demographic change through immigration.Gasp! TC was telling the truth and did so on 400 occasions??? What a white racist he is!!

You see, this is how we know you are a liberal dem. Liberal dems frequently read what is plainly true and, in an effort to make an end-run around it, begin changing the subject. You have pegged yourself.

Now if you can apologize for the wild tale you told last week and give us that much promised legal opinion, then you will have made some progress.

I do have a question for you. Black Americans routinely encourage black voter participation in efforts aimed ONLY at black Americans. They provide rides, gather ballots, run TV commercials, and do other activities in an effort at getting out the black vote. Now I have no problem with that, but if it's OK for black Americans to want to enhance their political leverage, then why would it be wrong if white Americans did the same thing? As your article put it, "some white people who are concerned about a loss of their political and social power." Is it unusual for groups to want to maintain political or social power? Not saying that is what is happening, but would it be wrong?

Is it unusual for groups to want to maintain political or social power? Not saying that is what is happening, but would it be wrong?
It isn't unusual but it's wrong. We're all in this together and must work together in order to have the best life. E.g., I spent Thursday at a hospital, getting lab work done and being checked by my hematologist. I happily interacted with other patients and many staffers -- white, Black, Filipino, Chinese, Indian, from teens to oldsters in their 80s. Yes, we CAN all get along.


As to the rest, congratulations on finding...nothing.
You have a lot of problems reading and comprehending, don't you. Athos and I noticed that in the past.

Gene Lyons, one of my favorite newspaper columnists (a Southern guy!) wrote in his newest column yesterday:
***Republican thinkers today call it “replacement theory,” the notion that Democrats are scheming to subvert American democracy by importing nonwhite immigrants to support leftist ideology.

It’s the particular passion of Fox News’ Tucker Carlson. The New York Times has documented more than 400 mentions of the theory on his program since 2016 — keeping his audience of suspicious old coots sitting there anxiously clutching the TV remote.***

It isn't unusual but it's wrong.So you are opposed to organizations like BLM and other groups that emphasize black voting strength, or groups that appeal to the gay vote, or the female vote? Strange since you only seem to be opposed to it when it's allegedly coming from whites. Or for that matter groups that appeal to republican voters or democrat voters like you are also "wrong"? Serious question. It's an interesting topic.

Reading comp? The usual plea when your articles don't support your views. Athos? He seems to have fled the scene.

I just now added more to my post above.

Those groups shouldn't be necessary, but guess why they are. Are you opposed to Black voters, LGBT+ voters? Or a better question is, WHY are you opposed to their voting?

It’s the particular passion of Fox News’ Tucker Carlson. The New York Times has documented more than 400 mentions of the theory on his program since 2016 — keeping his audience of suspicious old coots sitting there anxiously clutching the TV remote.***But that's a flat lie. They did not document 400 instances of "the theory" on his program. Even your own article, which I quoted above, said otherwise.

So again. If what he is saying is true, then why is it such a problem? Do you simply not like the truth?


Those groups shouldn't be necessary, but guess why they are. Are you opposed to Black voters, LGBT+ voters?Now you're changing your tune. You said above that it was "wrong", but now it's suddenly "necessary". Is it wrong always?

I'm not opposed to anyone voting. It's the wonderful right of every American citizen. But you said groups were "wrong". Are they "wrong"?

This is what's wrong with so much of politics in America. Rational conversations cannot be had without accusations of racism or other insults being tossed about. "What? You said XYZ? Then you must be a hateful racist!!" It's really sickening.

I said, Mr. Literalist, that they're wrong because "We're all in this together and must work together in order to have the best life." Those groups were formed because whites were pushing them down and away.

So groups can be rightfully formed to advance common political agendas unless the groups are white? If, for instance, gay groups are lobbying for what they perceive to be in their own best interests, then how does that equate to all of us being in this together and working together?

So again. If what he is saying is true, then why is it such a problem? Do you simply not like the truth?
As Pilate asked, "What is truth?"


If, for instance, gay groups are lobbying for what they perceive to be in their own best interests, then how does that equate to all of us being in this together and working together?
Why do they have to lobby?

Hmm. You answered the question with a question. At any rate, why does any group lobby? They do it to advance what is, in their view, the best interests of the GROUP. Not the common good, but the group good. Isn't that what you said you were opposed to?

Are you now aligning yourself with Pilate?

Groups lobby and demonstrate because the whites (especially men) in power refuse to allow them a voice. Why weren't women allowed to vote? Oh yeah, the only true woman was a submissive wife and mother preoccupied with the home and family affairs.


Are you now aligning yourself with Pilate?
Well, you sure missed my point on that one! Gee whiz!

I think your point was valid at one time, but no more. Women do have the vote, anyone who wants to can vote, in some cases dead people vote, so voting is no problem. Voices are heard every election cycle. In Mississippi, for instance, there are more elected black local officials than in any other state in the country. The capitol city has a black mayor and a largely black city council.

I guess if I understand you correctly, everyone gets to have groups except for white people?

And especially white men?

The quote is from over a year ago . I tried to find the original transcript of the show or the video of that segment and could not . I don't know what context those words were used . But I repeat . The theory is a theory that the Dems invented and were happy to express it .

Just this week the theory was modified from the original

The original as expressed by the wack job shooter was that a Jewish cabal is bringing minorities into the country to replace white majorities. Variations of the theory replace a Jewish cabal with global elites. . Then the theory was again modified to say that it is a Dem strategy that racist whites (ie Republicans ) oppose .

The accusation serves a purpose. By conflating the conspiracy theories of maniacs like the Buffalo shooter with legitimate calls for border security and controls on illegal immigration, the left can smear all Republicans as white supremacists.

The Dems know that as French philosopher Auguste Comte said (paraphrase ) demography is destiny .It shapes communities ,economies and nations .As I already showed ,in the book ,'The Emerging Democratic Majority' ,the Dem assumption is that immigration, legal and illegal, will swell the ranks of Dem voters and hasten the emergence of a permanent Dem majority.. For years, they bragged that massive immigration would usher in a Dem majority .
So it is no secret . It is classic projection . They accuse Repubs of things they are guilty of.

Well, you sure missed my point on that one! Gee whiz!Actually, I felt you were just being your usual evasive self.

t it is a Dem strategy that racist whites (ie Republicans ) oppose .Yep. That's the objective.

I guess if I understand you correctly, everyone gets to have groups except for white people?
Nope, you did not understand me correctly. *sigh*

Groups should not be necessary for political leverage.

If you ever decide what you believe about groups and become able to express it cogently, then please get back with us.

For me, I can state my belief with ease. I don't like groups based on arbitrary attributes like gender or skin color. I do agree with groups who have a common belief or position on an issue and want to see it advanced. Pro-life groups, for instance, are made up of both genders, many different races, and many different religions. There are even atheist pro-life groups. Political parties fit in there as do gay groups and a number of others. But to say that I am white and I want to join a white group, then what issue are we advancing that could not be held by non-whites as well? So I'm not a fan of groups based on skin color.

If you ever decide what you believe about groups and become able to express it cogently, then please get back with us.
I did express it coherently. Wasn't that good enough for you?

If you ever decide what you believe about groups and become able to express it cogently, then please get back with us. This is how it's done.


For me, I can state my belief with ease. I don't like groups based on arbitrary attributes like gender or skin color. I do agree with groups who have a common belief or position on an issue and want to see it advanced. Pro-life groups, for instance, are made up of both genders, many different races, and many different religions. There are even atheist pro-life groups. Political parties fit in there as do gay groups and a number of others. But to say that I am white and I want to join a white group, then what issue are we advancing that could not be held by non-whites as well? So I'm not a fan of groups based on skin color.

I said there shouldn't be groups to advance a political agenda. We are together, one unit, working together to achieve the same goals.

I said there shouldn't be groups to advance a political agenda. We are together, one unit, working together to achieve the same goals.So do you think groups like BLM and others who advance political agendas and advocate for political candidates are, in your view, wrong?

I don't understand how you can say we are, "together, working together to achieve the same goals." Perhaps that is what we SHOULD be, but not sure why you think that is what we are.

I said there shouldn't be groups to advance a political agenda. We are together, one unit, working together to achieve the same goals.

Yes, but I'm asking you for a practical application. Groups like BLM, or pro-life/pro-abortion groups, or gay groups are wrong in your view? They are certainly all pursuing political agendas, aren't they? Should they exist, or would you say they are as wrong as a white nationalist group?

I'm just digging a little in order to understand your reasoning.

Yes, but I'm asking you for a practical application. Groups like BLM, or pro-life/pro-abortion groups, or gay groups are wrong in your view? They are certainly all pursuing political agendas, aren't they?
Such a literalist you are!

No, they aren't wrong; they shouldn't be necessary. Why can't we all get along, and constructively discuss our various needs and wants, come to a mutual understanding, and then an agreement or at least a compromise?

First you say, "I said there shouldn't be groups to advance a political agenda." Then you say, "No they aren't wrong; they shouldn't be necessary," which means that, in your view, they are necessary. So you are advancing two competing views. Groups that should not exist are allowed to exist since they are "necessary". But if that is true, then white groups must also be allowed to exist since, in reality, they are advancing political agendas just as the other groups you give passes to.

What compromise would you be wiling to accept in the abortion debate?

Your reading comprehension needs help.

***"I said there shouldn't be groups to advance a political agenda." Then you say, "No they aren't wrong; they shouldn't be necessary," which means that, in your view, they are necessary.***

NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT THAT MEANS!!!!! I'M NOT "ADVANCING TWO COMPETING VIEWS"!!!

In post 49 you said, "It isn't unusual but it's wrong." But just above you said, "No, they aren't wrong;" And in post 51 you said, "Those groups shouldn't be necessary, but guess why they are..." So you are very clearly saying they ARE necessary. That's the funny thing about words. They can be referenced by others at a later time.

I don't think the problem is my reading comp. Perhaps the problem is your writing comp. Perhaps you are attempting to say many things and yet say nothing, and thus elude being held accountable for you beliefs? In this case, you seem to have forgotten what you wrote earlier. Too bad.

It would be helpful for you to make a cogent statement of what you believe about this, a statement you are willing to stand on. So far that has not happened. I still think it would look something like this.


For me, I can state my belief with ease. I don't like groups based on arbitrary attributes like gender or skin color. I do agree with groups who have a common belief or position on an issue and want to see it advanced. Pro-life groups, for instance, are made up of both genders, many different races, and many different religions. There are even atheist pro-life groups. Political parties fit in there as do gay groups and a number of others. But to say that I am white and I want to join a white group, then what issue are we advancing that could not be held by non-whites as well? So I'm not a fan of groups based on skin color.

yawn !