Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Olaf

Members
  • Content Count

    648
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Olaf

  1. Don't see it that way. My uber bleeding heart Obama lap dog of a father (love him as I do) is going bonkers over this guy and he's 75. Of course, they're both old, liberal, Jewish guys. People tend to root for candidates that remind them of them.
  2. Who's doing all the killing? What do I look like, Columbo? Does it take Columbo or just someone who's honest? From your own linked article: "At approximately 12:11 p.m., 21-year-old Amari Jenkins of Southeast D.C. was fatally shot in front of the St. Luke Roman Catholic Church on the 4900 block of East Capitol Street NE. And just hours later, just after 3:30 p.m. on the 1300 block of Congress Street SE, a woman, a teenager, and a boy were all shot. The woman, 31-year-old Tenika Fontanelle of Southeast, died of her injuries, while the two juvenile boys were transported to the hospital and are in stable condition. One of the juvenile boys transported to the hospital was arrested and charged in Fontanelle's murder." Here's another article:
  3. and if anyone can suss out a black guy it would be you. Correct. I'm also good at spotting Chinamen.
  4. The white people in those positions earned them. What percentage of white people are doctors, lawyers, and CEOs?
  5. King looks mixed and his account of a maternal affair is plausible.
  6. Stop being your typical self, and at least try to be fair. You know full well that I didn't I didn't suggest, "No wonder he killed those nine people.' Nor did I say the sytem is actually rigged against Roof. I said, "that kind of reaction is what helps fuel people like Roof because they feel that nobody is listening to their concerns, the system is rigged against them." Can you understand the difference between reality and perception, Timmy? Are blacks on the whole out to get white people? No. Did Roof perceive that blacks on the whole were out to get white people? Yes. Perception, not reality. motivated Roof. You're always harping about the prevalence of white racism. Is white racism as widespread and all encompassing as you believe? No. But that perception shapes your views, as well as millions like you. Perception is often stronger than reality in shaping views. And you'll criticize Roof, but you're doing the very thing that helps make people like Roof. You'll write endlessly (and I do mean endlessly) about how we need to listen the concerns of this minority group or that minority group, but when it comes to listening to the concerns of a white person before they become more extreme, "Sorry, we can't listen you. And, well, we'll mock you." Of course, they'll then turn to an audience they feel hears and shares their concerns. This isn't rocket science, Tim, but I'm not surprised you can't figure it out. Oh I figured it out the first time. If only me and other people would stop and really LISTEN to the whiny victimhood complaints of white racists like Roof, perhaps they wouldn't go around killing people.Strikes2Olaf gonna strikes2olaf. You should get a Jonessed/Strikes2k IP alert meter so you know when they are following you around. Then again, you really just have to post and they arrive live a fart at a burrito shop. Look up the page, bro. It was Tim who popped in to take the cheap shot at me, not the other way around. Kind of like you popping into a thread last night to take a cheap shot at me; and, poof, you just appear here again for the same purpose. So, really, who has the personal obsession here, Doc? If you're going to just make stuff up, it helps to be smart enough to wait a few pages so that people can't just look up and know that you're wrong. Anyway, feel free to post another stalking response. I have to run out on this beautiful Friday night. Have a good one.
  7. Stop being your typical self, and at least try to be fair. You know full well that I didn't I didn't suggest, "No wonder he killed those nine people.' Nor did I say the sytem is actually rigged against Roof. I said, "that kind of reaction is what helps fuel people like Roof because they feel that nobody is listening to their concerns, the system is rigged against them." Can you understand the difference between reality and perception, Timmy? Are blacks on the whole out to get white people? No. Did Roof perceive that blacks on the whole were out to get white people? Yes. Perception, not reality. motivated Roof. You're always harping about the prevalence of white racism. Is white racism as widespread and all encompassing as you believe? No. But that perception shapes your views, as well as millions like you. Perception is often stronger than reality in shaping views. And you'll criticize Roof, but you're doing the very thing that helps make people like Roof. You'll write endlessly (and I do mean endlessly) about how we need to listen the concerns of this minority group or that minority group, but when it comes to listening to the concerns of a white person before they become more extreme, "Sorry, we can't listen you. And, well, we'll mock you." Of course, they'll then turn to an audience they feel hears and shares their concerns. This isn't rocket science, Tim, but I'm not surprised you can't figure it out.
  8. There are plenty. They just don't get national media attention. Why the disgust with a simple truthful statement? Honestly, that kind of reaction is what helps fuel people like Roof because they feel that nobody is listening to their concerns, the system is rigged against them, and they become even more extreme as a result. Here's an example of a horrific murder where black killer was very frank about why he targeted white women. The matter didn't get national media attention:
  9. Thanks, #######. Where is the Clinton alias? Dead? ETA: Yeah looks like Clinton was permabanned, shocking. Your racist, empty, and ridiculously bigoted posts aren't lost on me. #####. Hillary or Bill?
  10. Leave it to Dr. Detroit to try to derail a thread with personal attacks when he doesn't agree with a viewpoint. We've only seen that like, what, five million times.
  11. This Huffington Post author agrees with the sentiment behind that article, and she details her own struggles.
  12. A diagnosis of Rachel's issues... The Internalized Racism of White Leftists June 17, 2015 by Daniel Greenfield After Rachel Dolezal graduated from Howard University, a historically black college that is 95% black making it one of the least diverse schools in the country, she sued for racial discrimination alleging that she had been denied a teaching assistant position and financial aid because of her race. She told her black adopted brother that the college had assumed she was black when she had applied. According to her brother, “She used to tell us that teachers treated her differently than other people and a lot of them acted like they didn’t want her there.” That experience might have made someone else racist, but Rachel Dolezal internalized the racism she experienced at Howard. And her brother states that it was what led her to become “self-hating”. After that, she started being “hateful to white people.” The road from being hated to self-hatred and then to joining the hater group is the dynamic of racism. The racism that Rachel Dolezal experienced at Howard created a conflict between her self-image and her political ideology. By trying to ‘become’ black, Rachel tried to destroy her image. She accepted the left’s idea that whiteness was evil and reconciled her sense of self with her politics by changing her race. Her solution is implicit in the idea of white privilege. Like so many black women in another era, Rachel internalized the idea that there was something wrong with her race. It’s easy to poke fun at her absurd masquerade, but underneath the tanning lotion and wig is a more disturbing breakdown, not just in one woman’s mental state, but in the way that the left hijacked the civil rights movement to spread hate. At the intersection of black racism and leftist politics is the dehumanization of white people. To understand the process that could produce someone as screwed up as Rachel Dolezal, we need to look back at Jane Elliot; the wicked stepmother of diversity training. Elliot’s technique was to emotionally abuse students in ways reminiscent of fringe cults and Soviet self-criticism sessions which break down an individual’s sense of identity by publicly attacking her sense of self. Elliot’s infamous “Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes” technique involved separating people with blue eyes and emotionally abusing them to “cure” them of their racism. What “Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes” lacked in effectiveness, it more than made up for in malice. Jane Elliot’s racist child abuse was embraced by leftists and eventually became the keystone of diversity training. In session after session, diversity trainers following in Elliot’s violently hateful footsteps singled out blond and blue-eyed women for abuse in public. There’s no way to know if Rachel Dolezal ever attended one of those sessions. The incredibly non-diverse Howard University, bookended on the least diverse college rankings by two other black schools, would probably not have attracted Elliot or her pupils. But Dolezal had almost certainly watched movies of Elliot’s racist antics and accepted her message. And by then it didn’t matter. The idea that white people were the problem and that abusing them was justified in the service of tolerance and progress had become the essence of social justice. Or as Jane Elliot put it, “white people invented racism.” Destroy white people and you destroy racism. The “Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes” exercise is no longer just a way for a twisted woman to abuse others, but permeates every area of leftist politics and culture. Its underlying idea, that racial progress requires abusing white people informs everything from “white people” memes to White House policy. The left gave moral sanction to black racism and then its own radical activists joined in the frenzy. The insane place that Dolezal comes from is the same one in which progressive hipsters strive to outdo each other with “white people” memes that would be denounced as racist if targeted at any other group. It’s the one in which the only group it’s truly safe to make racist jokes about is white people. Much as black colorism targeted blackness, the white colorism of leftists makes whiteness into its target. White people are encouraged to view “whiteness” with contempt and to leave it behind for “diversity.” In culture, the two are considered opposite poles with “white” being bad and “diverse” being good. Anything from the plays of Shakespeare to a television show can be dismissed as bad for being “white.” So far black people have yet to be cured of internalized racism (the doll test still tends to produce the same results) but some white people have internalized racism. Black children still choose the white doll, but adult products of the social justice system like Rachel Dolezal neurotically reject the white doll and then smash it into pieces on the floor while trying to smear bronzer on their faces. And society is not any better off because there are now two races suffering from internalized racism. The racism that Rachel Dolezal experienced did not lead to more tolerance because racism never cures racism; it only creates more racism. There have been white people like bandleader Johnny Otis who identified as black out of a love for black culture. But Otis’ enthusiastic “black by persuasion” had little in common with Dolezal’s twisted art filled with the racial fetishization of suffering black men and her own transformation into a caricature of a black woman while policing the racial identities of her students. Rachel Dolezal’s blackness inhabited the left’s claustrophobic racial space in which white people are evil oppressors and black people are oppressed victims. Like Jane Elliot, Rachel Dolezal discovered that rejecting whiteness allowed her to do anything she liked in the name of social justice. Her newly acquired black skin privilege allowed her to endorse violence and fake hate crimes. If good and evil were bound by color, then nothing she did as a white woman could be good and nothing that she did as a black woman could be bad. By switching race, she had transcended good and evil. Her exposure only proved it. As a black woman, Rachel Dolezal got away with faking hate crimes. It was only when she was exposed as a white woman that she got into trouble. It wasn’t the lying that was the problem. It was her race. Rachel Dolezal’s attempt to physically pass for a black woman took internalized racism to an extreme, but the activist ranks of the left are filled with white men and women who talk much like her, delivering the same hateful rants about “white privilege” and justifying the #BlackLivesMatter race riots. Internalized racism has become the engine of white leftism. Rachel Dolezal is diversity’s greatest triumph; a member of the “non-diverse” group who internalized racism so thoroughly that she tried to become black. Racism has gotten so bad that there are now white people passing as black people. We can’t make progress by fighting racism with racism. Racial divisiveness isn’t civil rights. Under Obama, not only are race relations worse, but so is the economic status of black people. Abusing white people does not lift up black people. At best it creates freaks like Rachel Dolezal who hate white people so much that they begin wearing blackface while ranting about black power and white privilege. Rachel Dolezal made many left-wingers uncomfortable because she embodied the absurdity of political correctness and the dark side of diversity. Her insane behavior is the outcome of an insane ideology. The social justice warriors rushing out their hot takes about her white privilege miss the central tragic point that her bizarre behavior was the logical outcome of their ideology taken to its inevitable extreme. If the end result was insanity, that was because their racial ideology was insane.
  13. Maurile never said that the biological differences are significant. He noted that the DNA differences are minute among all humans, but those DNA differences slightly increase between clusters that we've come to identify as race. Now look at this article from Scientific American: As you can see a minute difference in DNA creates significant differences. Isn't is plausible then that while the DNA differences between races may not be enough for scientists to label those groups races or subspecies under the scientific definition of those terms, there's enough DNA differences between "races" for humans to be able to identify less significant differences between the groups but differences nonethless? I mean obviously we can identify the phenotypic traits caused by DNA differences between between the races such as Mogoloid epicanthic folds or Negroid hair, and we see that DNA differnces lead some races to have a greater biological disposition to certain diseases and viruses than other races.
  14. The NAACP doesn't care. If you look at an online picture of the founders of the organization, half of them were white. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/8585055512365155/. And she resigned her position, they didn't fire her (although I don't really see how she could have continued in a leadership role in Spokane after all this). And mentioned several times earlier in this thread, being AA has never been a requirement for NAACP membership. Yes, a disproportionate number of the NAACP founders were Jewish, but what percentage of NAACP leaders over the last half century have not been black? If we're going to use the same period that you did to support an argument, than we could also say that the Democrat Party is the party of the Southern white segregationist. Times change. From an earlier post in this thread: http://thehill.com/b...erself-as-black UPDATE, 12:00 p.m.: The NAACP has released the following statement concerning the Rachel Dolezal scandal: For 106 years, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has held a long and proud tradition of receiving support from people of all faiths, races, colors and creeds. NAACP Spokane Washington Branch President Rachel Dolezal is enduring a legal issue with her family, and we respect her privacy in this matter. Ones racial identity is not a qualifying criteria or disqualifying standard for NAACP leadership. Great, you recylced the same line you bolded earlier, but that line does nothing to adress the question you're ducking. Since I judge people more by their actions than their words, please answer the highlighted question.Sorry, I don't feel like getting into an extended debate with an alias and I have already taken this discussion further than I should have. Sorry to inconvenience you by asking for facts.
  15. The NAACP doesn't care. If you look at an online picture of the founders of the organization, half of them were white. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/8585055512365155/. And she resigned her position, they didn't fire her (although I don't really see how she could have continued in a leadership role in Spokane after all this). And mentioned several times earlier in this thread, being AA has never been a requirement for NAACP membership. Yes, a disproportionate number of the NAACP founders were Jewish, but what percentage of NAACP leaders over the last half century have not been black? If we're going to use the same period that you did to support an argument, than we could also say that the Democrat Party is the party of the Southern white segregationist. Times change. From an earlier post in this thread: http://thehill.com/b...erself-as-black UPDATE, 12:00 p.m.: The NAACP has released the following statement concerning the Rachel Dolezal scandal: For 106 years, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has held a long and proud tradition of receiving support from people of all faiths, races, colors and creeds. NAACP Spokane Washington Branch President Rachel Dolezal is enduring a legal issue with her family, and we respect her privacy in this matter. Ones racial identity is not a qualifying criteria or disqualifying standard for NAACP leadership. Great, you recylced the same line you bolded earlier, but that line does nothing to adress the question you're ducking. Since I judge people more by their actions than their words, please answer the highlighted question.
  16. The NAACP doesn't care. If you look at an online picture of the founders of the organization, half of them were white. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/8585055512365155/. And she resigned her position, they didn't fire her (although I don't really see how she could have continued in a leadership role in Spokane after all this). And mentioned several times earlier in this thread, being AA has never been a requirement for NAACP membership. Yes, a disproportionate number of the NAACP founders were Jewish, but what percentage of NAACP leaders over the last half century have not been black? If we're going to use the same period that you did to support an argument, than we could also say that the Democrat Party is the party of the Southern white segregationist. Times change.
  17. The article notes that the author. "Max Mills is a 25 year old Texan with a degree in Computer Science." Between the highlighted line and the author's credentials, why should we take the author's "scientific" findings as infallible? And if we do accept his "scientific" findings, the author bases his conclusion that transgenderism has a basis in scientifcally reality while "wrong skin" syndrome does not have a basis in scientific reality on a 2010 study. So just a few years ago, prior to that alleged scientific proof, was it also fair to question the legitimacy of Jenner's claims?
  18. You must have Rachel's tendency to fabricate stories about the group you don't like because I've only seen Conservatives poking fun at this hilarious story.LOL. Right. The conservatives are having a field day with this. It's vindicating all their fears. OK, share the anger.
  19. You must have Rachel's tendency to fabricate stories about the group you don't like because I've only seen Conservatives poking fun at this hilarious story.LOL. Right. The conservatives are having a field day with this. It's vindicating all their fears. OK, share the anger.
  20. You must have Rachel's tendency to fabricate stories about the group you don't like because I've only seen Conservatives poking fun at this hilarious story.
  21. Rachel is an obviously insane person who despite that insanity became president of her local NAACP chapter, a college professor of African-American studies, and someone who the local media sought out as an expert on race matters. Yes, her adopted race gave her benefits she otherwise would not have had.
  22. "Please know I will never stop fighting for human rights and will do everything in my power to help and assist including, but not limited to, carving swastikas in work doors, sending photos of lynchings to my workplace, and any other hoax that will bring attention to the cause." "It's about justice," she wrote in a Facebook post. Isn't fabricating hate crimes which you're hoping will make another group of people look evil and criminal kind of the oppsite of justice? Nailed it Olaf, as usual.What I've found interesting in all of this is the complete lack of coverage about this aspect of the story. The first CNN story I saw on Friday dedicated to this didn't even mention the investigation going on into her inventing these hate crimes. Not even one word about it. I get the fact that the freak show aspect of the story takes center stage, but to not even mention it? It's almost as if Liberals don't even think this type of stuff is all that bad. Even more hoaxes and tall tales are being uncovered as people delve into Rachel's past. Here'e yet another recently discovered Rachel classic...
  23. "Please know I will never stop fighting for human rights and will do everything in my power to help and assist including, but not limited to, carving swastikas in work doors, sending photos of lynchings to my workplace, and any other hoax that will bring attention to the cause." "It's about justice," she wrote in a Facebook post. Isn't fabricating hate crimes which you're hoping will make another group of people look evil and criminal kind of the oppsite of justice?