Looked into old meanings of 'bait": From this, we got in Shakespere's time "bear baiting," the 'sport' in which dogs were set to fight a chained bear. This leads to the more modern usage referring to vicious, unfair attacks. Thus Julius Streicher was known as 'the Jew-baiter Number One.' Similarly, race-baiters attack persons of the race they despise.
I have it on good authority that al Sharpton has that very definition inside his little black book of racist actions to use in keeping his relevance to society intact.
Look above. You are not using the term correctly. You have twisted the meaning. Why do you suppose that is? http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2005/09/race-baiting.html
Generally, people are killed because murderers are armed with guns and meddle with the law so that it is safe to bully and murder. That is why the American murder rate is way beyond anything known in the civilized world.
After the killing of Lee Rigby in London, with bystanders doing nothing, and police also powerless, I really wonder about those "rates". If Rigby's killer had tried that in Florida, he wold have been a pile of mincemeat, and Rigby would still be alive.
Jesus - you weirdoes are total nutters, aren't you? You'd have prefered twenty people to be killed, just like a normal weekend in Lyncher's Landing back home, eh? You are much nuttier than anyone we ever have here, even those who slowly spell out the Sun and the Mail to their pigs.
This post stands as evidence of YOUR nuttiness. Where do you get 20 people being killed ? Dude. If I were there, I would have offed that jihadist creep with one hollowpoint shot to the chest. Done deal. Nobody hurt (except the terrorist) and Lee Rigby still alive..
Because, as you know, the American extremists are loud-mouthed, incompetent, bullying racist clowns who are much more likely to hit a passing group of children than the dark-skinned person they feel they have the right to lynch or murder. Half-witted scumbags should be in jail, and certainly never allowed to be armed. - - - Updated - - - Because, as you know, the American extremists are loud-mouthed, drunken, incompetent, bullying, racist clowns who are much more likely to hit a passing group of children than the dark-skinned person they feel they have the right to lynch or murder. Half-witted scumbags should be in jail, and certainly never allowed to be armed.
Well, in your callow, unsophisticated, naive, unpolished, foolishly, criminal-accomodating country, instead of having armed citizens (or even armed police), if a criminal nut went around flashing large knives, and attempting to kill somebody in broad daylight, in front of numerous bystanders, he could actually get away with such a despicable act, couldn't he ? Oh wait, we need not ask, because the question has already been answered, hasn't it ? Yes, with the murder of Lee Rigby (and no doubt countless others). Luckily, for us in America, we have long progressed beyond the primitive stage of allowing marauding murderers to bloody up our streets. Maybe over in the UK, you guys could go back to wearing your old suits of armor, you think ? Probably a lot of them lying around in some museum storage rooms.
Two people behaved as most of you do regularly, apparently, except you murder your thousands with incompetently-fired bang-bangs as you pretend to be insane lynchmob cowboys fighting George 111, who's dead. You nutters kill four times as many people as we do. Try using your toes as well as your fingers: the total should come to twenty, unless you've shot some of them off.
Feel better now ? Saves money on the valiums perhaps. Now you can go back to your dartboard (which doubles as a map of the USA.) Just be careful. Lots of jihadists roaming around (you could throw rocks at them)
Keep checking it's well padded, kid, and don't shoot your feet off before you stuff your bang-bang up your donkey!
My opinion: If being white is the greatest accomplishment that a person can take pride in, that person has failed as a human being. White people (like myself) have been responsible for more genocides, mass murders and subjugation of our neighbors than any other race. We've accomplished great things, particularly in the last fraction of history, primarily because they/we took all the advantages possible. We have reached the greatest heights, but also sunk to the lowest depths. If you consider the good AND the bad, I'd say we break even with just about everyone else.
I dont think he said it was his greatest accomplishment did he? About the same as everyone else hey, which countries offer you the most freedom? Id say the white Western ones rank high up there, and there are measurable statistics we can look up if need be. No doubt there both good and bad, you have it at even, other self loathing types put it at a net loss (but still surprising live in the West...hmmm) and others put it ahead.
The theory I go for is that the development of capitalism meant that those who had been the automatic recipients of charity and all sorts of help from the rich were neglected and starved. Guilt made the big chiefs see their hunger and despair as the 'evil eye' or whatever drivel their sick imaginations suggested. Real paganism was really very far back in Britain, you know: according to legend we were converted by Joseph of Arimathea, and it was certainly before we kicked the Romans out (according to Zosimus anyway) in 410.
No, but he thinks it is an accomplishment. Being white is no accomplishment. At best it's pure dumb luck.
It's very telling that the Salem witch trials came to a screeching halt when the spirit seers stopped fingering just poor folk, and started trying to take on the elite. "Witch persecution," as long as confined to low-status persons, is just a way to oppress the rabble, both useful and gratifying to persons of tyrannical bent. I bet right now you could get pretty close to a majority of the legislature in Kansas to vote for criminalizing witchcraft....
Sorry, I must have missed the posts where he rambled about how proud he was of his career, his family, his education, or any other accomplishments... The fact that we have historically taken the most strategically advantageous and resource-rich areas by wiping out any indigenous population has more to do with our ownership of "first-world democracy" than any intellectual or moral superiority. I don't loathe myself, because I personally have nothing to do with the actions of white people in generations past. That's the point: it's foolish to base any portion of your own self worth on commonality of superficial physical characteristics you share with people in history. If I had the same eye color, hair color or physical build as Henry Ford or Thomas Edison, should I feel personal pride as a result of their accomplishments? Of course not. So why is skin pigmentation different?
