Private donors although I have a feeling that if private donations were earmarked whites only there would be some sort of government intervention. Definitely would be trashed by the narrative loudly
Private donors but being administrated by the city. The city has no business participating in this.
Try to get a tax exemption and a charitable donation for a white only private school. Rules for thee, but not for me.
Where are you finding black-only private schools?
The issue is giving tax deductions for a racist program.
Obtuse act or do you think he was serious?
In this case I think he was setting up a strawman to assphuck. Rather than defend the racial giveaway program he wanted me to admit that I didn't know of any black only private schools - which wasn't what the debate was about. It's about a government subsidized racial discrimination. I'd ask GRG to define black for AA purposes, but that's a third rail no leftard wants to deal with.
It takes a remarkably dumb motherfucker to pop into a thread where I very unambiguously criticized this policy and assume that I'm in favor of AA.
It takes an equally dumb motherfucker to read what he said and think that he was claiming you support AA. He was just asking you to define "black" for AA purposes.
Why would I define it if I don't support it? You're struggling today.
Because maybe you're not a Kunt? Do you have to support AA in order to define how "black" is defined by leftist who do support it?
Yes actually. One of the central criticisms of AA is that defining recipients is a fool's errand. But since you claim it's possible, what's your definition?
It's not my definition. It's how the left defines "black" for purposes of AA. You're really struggling today. Because they are Rat party members they come from a long line of racists who feel that skin color is everything and that the "old one drop rule" the old-time racists used to use to discriminate against blacks can now be used to assist blacks. Therefore Obama is "black" and if Obama was married to a white woman his kids will still be "black."
And it only took about four posts of back and forth for you to shoehorn that rant in. A lot of people tend to agree with you. They just also want you to shut the fuck up.
Private donors although I have a feeling that if private donations were earmarked whites only there would be some sort of government intervention. Definitely would be trashed by the narrative loudly
Private donors but being administrated by the city. The city has no business participating in this.
Try to get a tax exemption and a charitable donation for a white only private school. Rules for thee, but not for me.
Where are you finding black-only private schools?
The issue is giving tax deductions for a racist program.
Obtuse act or do you think he was serious?
In this case I think he was setting up a strawman to assphuck. Rather than defend the racial giveaway program he wanted me to admit that I didn't know of any black only private schools - which wasn't what the debate was about. It's about a government subsidized racial discrimination. I'd ask GRG to define black for AA purposes, but that's a third rail no leftard wants to deal with.
It takes a remarkably dumb motherfucker to pop into a thread where I very unambiguously criticized this policy and assume that I'm in favor of AA.
It takes an equally dumb motherfucker to read what he said and think that he was claiming you support AA. He was just asking you to define "black" for AA purposes.
Why would I define it if I don't support it? You're struggling today.
Because maybe you're not a Kunt? Do you have to support AA in order to define how "black" is defined by leftist who do support it?
Yes actually. One of the central criticisms of AA is that defining recipients is a fool's errand. But since you claim it's possible, what's your definition?
It's not my definition. It's how the left defines "black" for purposes of AA. You're really struggling today. Because they are Rat party members they come from a long line of racists who feel that skin color is everything and that the "old one drop rule" the old-time racists used to use to discriminate against blacks can now be used to assist blacks. Therefore Obama is "black" and if Obama was married to a white woman his kids will still be "black."
And it only took about four posts of back and forth for you to shoehorn that rant in. A lot of people tend to agree with you. They just also want you to shut the fuck up.
Sorry no hablo Kunt. You asked me for a definition I gave it. You were asked for a definition and you dodged all while preforming some sweet jackass dance about not being able to provide a definition unless you support AA.
If you're troubled by the number of posts it takes to get an answer I suggest you start answering questions and stop dodging them.
Private donors although I have a feeling that if private donations were earmarked whites only there would be some sort of government intervention. Definitely would be trashed by the narrative loudly
Private donors but being administrated by the city. The city has no business participating in this.
Try to get a tax exemption and a charitable donation for a white only private school. Rules for thee, but not for me.
Where are you finding black-only private schools?
The issue is giving tax deductions for a racist program.
Obtuse act or do you think he was serious?
In this case I think he was setting up a strawman to assphuck. Rather than defend the racial giveaway program he wanted me to admit that I didn't know of any black only private schools - which wasn't what the debate was about. It's about a government subsidized racial discrimination. I'd ask GRG to define black for AA purposes, but that's a third rail no leftard wants to deal with.
It takes a remarkably dumb motherfucker to pop into a thread where I very unambiguously criticized this policy and assume that I'm in favor of AA.
It takes an equally dumb motherfucker to read what he said and think that he was claiming you support AA. He was just asking you to define "black" for AA purposes.
Why would I define it if I don't support it? You're struggling today.
Because maybe you're not a Kunt? Do you have to support AA in order to define how "black" is defined by leftist who do support it?
Yes actually. One of the central criticisms of AA is that defining recipients is a fool's errand. But since you claim it's possible, what's your definition?
It's not my definition. It's how the left defines "black" for purposes of AA. You're really struggling today. Because they are Rat party members they come from a long line of racists who feel that skin color is everything and that the "old one drop rule" the old-time racists used to use to discriminate against blacks can now be used to assist blacks. Therefore Obama is "black" and if Obama was married to a white woman his kids will still be "black."
And it only took about four posts of back and forth for you to shoehorn that rant in. A lot of people tend to agree with you. They just also want you to shut the fuck up.
Sorry no hablo Kunt. You asked me for a definition I gave it. You were asked for a definition and you dodged all while preforming some sweet jackass dance about not being able to provide a definition unless you support AA.
If you're troubled by the number of posts it takes to get an answer I suggest you start answering questions and stop dodging them.
I'm not one for amateur diagnoses, but your activity really does scream autism. The constant need for protracted arguments about every who-gives-a-shit angle of a political issue is just a glaring symptom.
Private donors although I have a feeling that if private donations were earmarked whites only there would be some sort of government intervention. Definitely would be trashed by the narrative loudly
Private donors but being administrated by the city. The city has no business participating in this.
Try to get a tax exemption and a charitable donation for a white only private school. Rules for thee, but not for me.
Where are you finding black-only private schools?
The issue is giving tax deductions for a racist program.
Obtuse act or do you think he was serious?
In this case I think he was setting up a strawman to assphuck. Rather than defend the racial giveaway program he wanted me to admit that I didn't know of any black only private schools - which wasn't what the debate was about. It's about a government subsidized racial discrimination. I'd ask GRG to define black for AA purposes, but that's a third rail no leftard wants to deal with.
It takes a remarkably dumb motherfucker to pop into a thread where I very unambiguously criticized this policy and assume that I'm in favor of AA.
It takes an equally dumb motherfucker to read what he said and think that he was claiming you support AA. He was just asking you to define "black" for AA purposes.
Why would I define it if I don't support it? You're struggling today.
Because maybe you're not a Kunt? Do you have to support AA in order to define how "black" is defined by leftist who do support it?
Yes actually. One of the central criticisms of AA is that defining recipients is a fool's errand. But since you claim it's possible, what's your definition?
It's not my definition. It's how the left defines "black" for purposes of AA. You're really struggling today. Because they are Rat party members they come from a long line of racists who feel that skin color is everything and that the "old one drop rule" the old-time racists used to use to discriminate against blacks can now be used to assist blacks. Therefore Obama is "black" and if Obama was married to a white woman his kids will still be "black."
And it only took about four posts of back and forth for you to shoehorn that rant in. A lot of people tend to agree with you. They just also want you to shut the fuck up.
Sorry no hablo Kunt. You asked me for a definition I gave it. You were asked for a definition and you dodged all while preforming some sweet jackass dance about not being able to provide a definition unless you support AA.
If you're troubled by the number of posts it takes to get an answer I suggest you start answering questions and stop dodging them.
I'm not one for amateur diagnoses, but your activity really does scream autism. The constant need for protracted arguments about every who-gives-a-shit angle of a political issue is just a glaring symptom.
Stick to running interference for Yellow, you suck at pretty much everything else. Btw, if you really want to diagnose something diagnose the type of person who would call someone else a "dumb motherfucker" all because they misread what someone else was asking of them. And then when their error was pointed out to them they demanded that the person who pointed out their error, answer the question they were dodging. What exactly does that "scream" to ya Kunt?
Private donors although I have a feeling that if private donations were earmarked whites only there would be some sort of government intervention. Definitely would be trashed by the narrative loudly
Private donors but being administrated by the city. The city has no business participating in this.
Try to get a tax exemption and a charitable donation for a white only private school. Rules for thee, but not for me.
Where are you finding black-only private schools?
The issue is giving tax deductions for a racist program.
Obtuse act or do you think he was serious?
In this case I think he was setting up a strawman to assphuck. Rather than defend the racial giveaway program he wanted me to admit that I didn't know of any black only private schools - which wasn't what the debate was about. It's about a government subsidized racial discrimination. I'd ask GRG to define black for AA purposes, but that's a third rail no leftard wants to deal with.
It takes a remarkably dumb motherfucker to pop into a thread where I very unambiguously criticized this policy and assume that I'm in favor of AA.
It takes an equally dumb motherfucker to read what he said and think that he was claiming you support AA. He was just asking you to define "black" for AA purposes.
Why would I define it if I don't support it? You're struggling today.
Because maybe you're not a Kunt? Do you have to support AA in order to define how "black" is defined by leftist who do support it?
Yes actually. One of the central criticisms of AA is that defining recipients is a fool's errand. But since you claim it's possible, what's your definition?
It's not my definition. It's how the left defines "black" for purposes of AA. You're really struggling today. Because they are Rat party members they come from a long line of racists who feel that skin color is everything and that the "old one drop rule" the old-time racists used to use to discriminate against blacks can now be used to assist blacks. Therefore Obama is "black" and if Obama was married to a white woman his kids will still be "black."
And it only took about four posts of back and forth for you to shoehorn that rant in. A lot of people tend to agree with you. They just also want you to shut the fuck up.
Sorry no hablo Kunt. You asked me for a definition I gave it. You were asked for a definition and you dodged all while preforming some sweet jackass dance about not being able to provide a definition unless you support AA.
If you're troubled by the number of posts it takes to get an answer I suggest you start answering questions and stop dodging them.
I'm not one for amateur diagnoses, but your activity really does scream autism. The constant need for protracted arguments about every who-gives-a-shit angle of a political issue is just a glaring symptom.
Stick to running interference for Yellow, you suck at pretty much everything else. Btw, if you really want to diagnose something diagnose the type of person who would call someone else a "dumb motherfucker" all because they misread what someone else was asking of them. And then when their error was pointed out to them they demanded that the person who pointed out their error, answer the question they were dodging. What exactly does that "scream" to ya Kunt?
Comments
If you're troubled by the number of posts it takes to get an answer I suggest you start answering questions and stop dodging them.