Now there's another problem. Things that women won't swallow...
The Forbidden Zone For Blacks In 2007 (racism from Latinos on Blacks)
- Thread starter Tazmaniac
- Start date
Now there's another problem. Things that women won't swallow...
It usually works better if women learn to say, "after you,my dear", regardless of whoever they mean. Both possibilities work equally to their satisfaction.
It's been my experience that no matter the circumstances or order of operations, most women come out on the winning end of such an oral exchange.It usually works better if women learn to say, "after you,my dear", regardless of whoever they mean. Both possibilities work equally to their satisfaction.
Do you have any idea how freaking late it is here? 3:27AM for cryin' out loud. I gotta go to bed. Shubh raatri.
Go USA! BooYah!
Night.
Night.
what's modern..?
In the netherlands the concept originated in the 17th century.
Then there were waves where religion was monopolized, emancipated again etc.
Then there was the phenomenon of Pillarization. Each group lived the way they wanted and tolerated the others.
Maybe the natural state is there tolerance comes and goes.
Bells:
As Oniw17 made mention, my best friend of many years is a black man (actually, black/American Indian mix). I have no problem with black people, but I would have no problem if whites were killing black gang members.
The targetting of children is a bit vicious, to say the least. It speaks leaps and bounds for the mentality of these invaders.
As Oniw17 made mention, my best friend of many years is a black man (actually, black/American Indian mix). I have no problem with black people, but I would have no problem if whites were killing black gang members.
The targetting of children is a bit vicious, to say the least. It speaks leaps and bounds for the mentality of these invaders.
I haven't read the whole thread, but don't assume that this is one-sided.
In fact, don't assume that this situation was initially caused by Mexicans. I find it more likely that it was the other way around. Whitey on the black man's back, so he turns around to get on the brown man's back. Unfortunately for him, he didn't realize that the western hemisphere belongs to the latino race and soon will even outnumber whitey let alone the black man.
Habla espanol?
In fact, don't assume that this situation was initially caused by Mexicans. I find it more likely that it was the other way around. Whitey on the black man's back, so he turns around to get on the brown man's back. Unfortunately for him, he didn't realize that the western hemisphere belongs to the latino race and soon will even outnumber whitey let alone the black man.
Habla espanol?
By "natural" I mean the state that we evolved in and have not yet evolved out-of.
Everyone (by that I mean everyone on the planet) has an immediate reaction when a stranger shows up. It's an instinctual response evolved in all primates and you cannot control it. Your awareness becomes heightened and you become defensive.
This may only last a very short time and does not mean that you "hate" the stranger. It recognizes the fact that very often, strangers are dangerous. Especially strangers in larger groups.
By far (during our evolutionary history as primates), groups of strangers did not show up in your territory for afternoon tea and crumpets.
So, recognizing this should make any rational individual very suspicious of claims that it's just culturally specific behavior or can be changed by "policy" or laws or better parenting.
Most people do not, and will never, sit back and rationally analyze their visceral, evolved reactions to stimuli. Like salivating at the smell of food, or getting an erection at the sight of a female, or being fearful and defensive toward strangers.
Without some major change in our makeup, humans will never live in harmony with each other. The only solution I see (partial at best) is to do our best to foster the idea that the entire human race is your "group".
To that end, I see cultural diversity, religious scetarianism, and nationalism as absolutely detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity.
You do?
Why? If you smile at people you meet 9 times out of 10 they'll smile back.
Try it.
Sam, you are missing the general context of the statement. Plus, smiling is one of the most ancient instinctive threat displays among animals. The first thing you (or any primate) will do, especially upon meeting a stranger, will be to bare your teeth. Your first, instinctive reaction, is to say "Look out, I can bite you if you fuck with me".You do?
Why? If you smile at people you meet 9 times out of 10 they'll smile back.
Try it.
Obvoiusly it's much more effective if you're a lion, but the principle is the same.
You just have to accept it sam. You have fearful, racist, hateful tendencies built into the very essence of you. Learn from it and stop trying to pass off feel-good solutions as effective.
Yes. You do.
Weird backward culture.
India — Area - Total: 3,287,590 SQ KM
United States — Area - Total: 9,631,420 SQ KM
India -current population: 1121787906
US-current population: 298427969
violent crime rate:
The all India average is 18.4 per 100,000 for 2003.
http://keralapolice.org/crimestat/5.html
The US average is 475.8 per 100,000 for 2003.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Conclusion: You need more people.
Well sam, there's no point of comparison between the two sites. What is counted as a "crime"? How well are "crimes" reported in the two countries? Etcetera...
Is that a some kind of reply?
Ya' know, Sam, it's pretty fuckin' sad when you, of all people, try to make your own India look better by makin' a comparison to the nation that you hate most in the world!! ....LOL!
Ain't that sorta' like comparing heaven and hell, and trying to show that heaven is wonderful, by point out the crime rates in hell?? ..LOL!
By the way, I'm finding and reading more and more about the horrors of ethnic and racial and religious conflicts and tensions in India. It ain't, Sam, the paradise of compassion and understanding that you like to portray.
From some website I found:
Northeast India has witnessed protracted conflicts and displacements of thousands of people in the last few decades.
In Assam, in the last count, (August, 2004) a total of 37,677 families (2,37,768 people) were staying in makeshift camps in three of its western districts ~ Kokrajhar, Bongaigaon and Dhubri. These internally displaced persons are all but forgotten. The displacement in these areas has happened due to an ethnic community claiming exclusive rights over a space that it defines as its “homeland” on the ground that it is the “original inhabitant” of the land. By the same token, they have held that outsiders have no right to settle there. .....(and the article continues)
Another one:
Posted on Sun, Jan. 07, 2007
Violence in India leaves 21 more dead
Separatist rebels in northeast blamed for two days of bloodshed
By Wasbir Hussain
ASSOCIATED PRESS
GAUHATI, India - A second day of bloodshed in India's restive northeast took at least 21 lives Saturday, including 13 migrant workers shot while they slept and eight government employees killed by a land mine explosion.
On Friday, a series of attacks by suspected separatist rebels killed 35 other migrants and wounded at least 19 in Assam state's tea-growing districts of Tinsukia and Dibrugarh, officials said.
The attacks were the worst violence in the region in years and widely seen as an attempt by the insurgents to boost waning support among the impoverished area's indigenous peoples and to force the government to resume peace talks. .....(the article continues)
Baron Max