Democrats

I mean, they're all like poor and gay and they act like that's the greatest thing in the world to be.

LOL. It's true.

That's because Republicans are raiding natural resources with their corporations so they can spend money on defense contractors who sell weapons to Israel

Dems think being rich and successful is evil.

Democrats think everyone should have a chance at getting rich and that the middle class should be expanding. The Republicans believe only the rich should get richer and that the middle class should be leeched off of until it's gone (which won't be long now).

Modern politics.

The Republicans are doing everything wrong. The Democrats are saying that they are doing everything wrong, but being the pussies that they are, won't do shit about it.

I'm poor, gay, and republican. Nice try though TC.

>>7
You are poor and gay, I'll give you that much...

When will you stupid fucks realize:

Democrats:  Do whatever the fuck they need to stay in office.
Republicans: Do whatever the fuck they need to stay in office.

None of them give a rat's ass about you or what you care about.

>>9

Dems have done more for the common people while in office than all the Republicans combined. And that's a fact.

>>10
Democrats are for the working man! Does anyone still believe that bullshit?

>>10
Common people?  Are you talking about the wetbacks and niggers who get a free ride through life with Affirmative Action and welfare?

Or are you talking about the working-class White men who pay for it all?

>>12
Yes, those wetbacks and niggers have such great lives

>>11
Yes, since it's a delusion that supports the Democrat base.  How else did over 50M morons vote for Kerry in 2004?  At least the Republican base aligns with its aims of keeping the rich richer and the poor poorer.  But the Dems?  Their leadership acts almost entirely in line with those Republican aims.

VOTING DEMOCRAT IS FAIL.

If you're going to vote Democrat, at least stop claiming you are doing it for the benefit of any working class person whatsoever.  You're only doing it so that the Jews controlling the economy get ever richer, as is the Republican plan.

>>13
Their IQs of 85 are not my fault and not my problem.  If they can't hack it in a modern society where there are problems that can't be solved with a spear, round them up and send them back where they came from.

They are parasites.  The White race owes them nothing.

>>15
Unfortunately, self-hating white libs don't feel that way and keep shoveling more of our money to them.

You tards DO realize 99% of these "niggers" are native-born U.S. citizens, right?  "Where they came from" is HERE.

Yeah, well, we needed cotton picking machinery at one time. Lincoln was a pussy and didn't put them back.

>>17
They came from Africa.  Send them back to Africa.  Or turn them into soap and candles, whichever is more economical.

I don't care where they go, as long as they go away.

>>19

White Americans came from Europe. Send them back to Europe.  Or turn them into soap and candles, whichever is more economical.

I don't care where they go, as long as they go away.

>>19
The U.S. Constitution clearly states that people born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens.  Change the U.S. Constitution or STFU+GTFO+FOAD, you fucking gaylord.

>>21
That doesn't mean their parents are US citizens. The kid should get a passport and either the parent raises the kid in their country or they hand them over to the government to be trained from infancy to be warriors.

>>22
The Blacks in the USA have had many generations of nativity.  Hence, you're making no point whatsoever in line with the other dippity-doos who think that Blacks have to be shipped "back" to Africa.  Shipping ANY native Black to Africa makes about as much sense as shipping me back to Germany.

Racists don't care about this logic, of course.

>>22

If you ship the parents back to wherever, who's going to raise the kid? You?

>>24
No, the fuckstick OP apparently thinks there's going to be a huge system of social welfare for doing that.  Or, lots of Whites will take these Black children in via adoption, which doesn't happen now since Whites don't want Black kids.

Racism doesn't have to make sense.

>>23
Their parents didn't come here willingly so they are not real Americans.
>>24
Either the parents take them back to their own country and raise them there and when they are 18 they can come to America. Or the baby is raised by the US state to be mindless super-soldiers of tomorrow.

>>23
I don't care.  They are vicious subhuman beasts incapable of civilization and a $700 billion dollar a year net liability to the economy.  They have "ethnically cleansed" the cities the White race built and turned them into crumbling Turd World shitholes indistinguishable from any African "city" of tin roofed shacks with mud streets, except for the remaining pavement and street lights that they can neither repair nor replicate.

I want them gone.  Back to Africa or up the chimneys.  They have worn out their welcome.  We owe them nothing.  It's time to show them the door.

>>27
WOO FOR STORMFRONT WOOOO

>>26
Their parents didn't come here willingly so they are not real Americans.
You fail in basic reading comprehension, to wit:

"many generations of nativity"

According to your own standards, the paperwork has been started to effect your deportation back to your homeland.  And good riddance to yet another stupid whigger who can't even understand perfectly comprehensive written English.  Good luck back in your native land (Denmark or wherever whiggers traditionally come from).

>>27
That you "care" or not is IRRELEVANT.  Like I said before, change the U.S. Constitution or STFU+GTFO+FOAD, you fucking gaylord.

>>30
Make me, niggerlover.  Like I said before, niggers are animals and only humans have rights.  That you can't respond rationally to this is IRRELEVANT (caps lock is cruise control for cool, woo!).  But it does show that you're a rich white college kid whose only exposure to niggers is watching reruns of the Cosby Show.  I think a visit to South Chicago would be pretty educational for you.

I also happen to notice you like to use the word "gay" a lot.  Is this perhaps a topic of special interest to you?

>>31
I don't have to make you do ANYTHING, gaylord.  Once you cross civil rights and oppress people in violation of their rights as clearly recognized in the U.S. Constitution, the POLICE will be there to gun you down like the despicable dog you really are.

So, we're still back on the topic that remains true despite your whining to the contrary:  Change the U.S. Constitution or STFU+GTFO+FOAD, you fucking gaylord.

Or you could just arm yourself and go NUTS, so we can identify you early for the Extermination Program planned for violent racists everywhere.  Please PLEASE arm yourself, please PLEASE start trying to evict Blacks ... since I'd love to put that particular Final Solution in effect on your soon-to-be-dead ass.

>>32
And I say, again--and I notice that you haven't even attempted to refute this--that H. sapiens africansis is an anthropoid ape of dubious sentience, sometimes capable of mimicking some aspects of human behavior but certainly not human.  Their behavior proves it day in and day out.  Turn off the Jewtube and go outside for a walk, kid.  Get on the Planet of the Apes tour bus marked "Greyhound" and visit Harlem and Detroit and Gary, Indiana.  Be sure to bring plenty of bananas and shiny trinkets for the colorful locals.

As for the Constitution, it has been a dead letter since before anyone here was born.  Do you think you have a First Amendment right of free association?  Try renting a basement apartment in your home and put up a sign that says "no niggers need apply," and you and your Bill of Rights get back to me.  Do you think you have a Second Amendment right to military-grade arms for defense of yourself and the state?  Go apply for a Class III license and price some pre-1986 M16s, and you and your Constitution get back to me.

See, the doctrine of the "evolving, living Constitution" means, at base, that there is no Constitution at all, and good old Judge Jewberg can make it up as he goes along and wipe his ass on the moldy old piece of paper that Jefferson and Madison wrote.  The problem here, if it is a problem and not an opportunity, is that this works both ways.  I say this as an observer of history.  And if I say that the social contract is between the state and White men, and the state is obligated to deal with niggers as dangerous vermin, who can tell me my reasoning is wrong?  If there is no Constitution, there are no rules at all, not even "caps lock means I'm right and you're wrong."  Can you dig it?

Also, are you coming on to me, with all this "gaylord" talk?  I don't swing that way.

By the way, does your mommy know you're making death threats on the Internet with her computer?

>>9
we have a winner.

>>33
Your self-PWNAGE is massive.

There is no such thing as "H. sapiens africansis".  We are ALL Homo Sapiens Sapiens.  YOU = PWND.

The U.S. Constitution is not a dead document.  It is still the law of the land.  YOU = PWND.

Promising to shoot your rioting, racist ass is not a death threat.  It's a promise of justice.  YOU = PWND.

You.  Gay.  Lord.

...so, you have no response at all other than to chant "gay-gay-gay-gay-gay-gay" and repeat these simpleminded threats and Christer slogans?

*sound of crickets chirping*

PROTIP:  assertion and vigorous handwaving do not constitute debate, not even when you add in Tourette's Syndrome.  Would you like to try again?

>>36
Gaylord, my response in >>35 consisted of 5 lines.  Only one line mentioned your sexual proclivities.  On line-count ALONE, you ignored 80% of my response.  On word count, it's more like 98%.

The problem here is YOU.  You've been proven wrong in so many dimensions that a graph of it would look like a sea anemone.  You have ZERO basis for your racism.  You are just a racist fool running off at your sewer-hole mouth as if making such statements constitutes TRUTH.

P.S.  Google us up this "H. sapiens africansis" you claim exists.  FACT:  There is no such species.  All Blacks are Human.  H. Sapiens sapiens.  And you just got PWNT so badly that you'd better call up a doctor to have a look at your wound.

>>37
Cry moar.  Or talk about penises some more.  It's clear you're in over your head.  You haven't had a cogent response yet.

Let me give you another chance.  Tell me, if niggers are human, how come they never developed the wheel?  Or a written language?  Or built a city with stone walls?  Or forged a metal tool?  How come they never wove cloth, domesticated an animal, or practiced agriculture until the Arabs taught them how a few centuries ago?  Having to learn something as basic as making cloth with a handloom from sandniggers is like being unable to feed yourself or tie your shoes until the Down's Syndrome kid across the street takes pity on you and shows you how.

Remember, the definitions of species are at best rather subjective and often politically loaded.  Your homework is to Google for the work of noted geneticist M. X. Rienzi, particularly his 2003 paper "Facing Facts: Racial Realities," in which he demonstrates that niggers and chimpanzees share over twenty identified genes not found in humans.  Many have condemned his work as "racism," but no one has found any flaws in his data or his conclusions.

But you won't do this, of course.  I predict that you will pop back up and make more death threats and talk about penises some more.  Amirite, guise?

>>38
The MOARKRYG here is yours, gaylord.

BIOLOGY.  Blacks are Human since they interbreed quite well with other Humans, producing entirely viable offspring.  Any genetic differences found are well within normal variances of DNA in Humans.

CULTURE.  Africa was doing well enough as a agricultural continent before Whitey came in with his colonialism.

At any rate, your "H. Sap. Afric." myth went down in resounding flames and you've got nothing to back it up with.  You have no biological reason.  You have no cultural reason.  You simply have no reason that doesn't spring forth from your intrinsic racism.

AND ... you've yet to explain how you ignored about 98% of my words in my response >>35 in order to falsely conclude I have "no response".  98% seems like an appalling high rejection rate for perfectly comprehensible English.  Can you explain your unwarranted rejection rate ... I mean, other than your intrinsic racism?

P.S.  Still looking forward to shooting you when you try to attack Blacks to deny their civil rights, you racist fuck.  That isn't a threat -- it's a promise that justice will be done.

Watching RedCream troll liberals is entertaining. He makes them waste their time and he doesn't typify any of the groups I'm associated with.

American Journal of Human Genetics, issue #56, 1995, says niggers and chimpanzees share over twenty identified genes just on chromosome 13Q that Humans do not have.

You were saying?

Facing Facts: Racial Realities

MX Rienzi

Genetic studies can provide much knowledge, and some of the newer technologies are quite powerful and useful. However, some of the older and more basic studies are quite interesting as well, and some shed important light on racial and species differences. I'd like to talk about two here.

The more important of the two is Deka et al., Am. J. Human Genetics 56, pgs. 461-474, 1995. This study looks at some genetic markers and compares the genetic distances of eight human populations (Samoans, North Amerindians, SoutAmerindians, New Guineans, Kachari [Mongolids], Germans, more generalized Caucasians, and Sokoto Negroes from Nigeria [Nigerian sub-Saharan African Negroes]) to each other and to chimpanzees. The data were analyzed two ways - with Nei's standard genetic distance, and with modified Cavalli-Sforza distance.

Which group was genetically closest to chimpanzees? The answer for both methods was the Nigerian Negro group. Using Nei's method, the Nigerian-chimp distance was 1.334 +/- 0.375, by far the closest value (second closest was the Kachari value of 1.527 +/- 0.493). To be fair, and show we are not knee-jerk "Eurocentrics" hiding data, the group farthest from the chimps was the South Amerindians (1.901 +/- 0.529); however the Germans (1.865 +/- 0.506) and the more general Caucasians (1.860 +/- 0.497) were right behind them (and given the +/- values, virtually overlapping). Looking at the Cavalli-Sforza method, the Sokoto Nigerians were again the closest to chimps (0.539) by a large margin. The farthest were again the South Amerindians (0.712), with the Germans (0.680) and general Caucasians (0.667) being a very close third and fourth behind the South Amerindians as well as Samoans (0.711) and North Amerindians (0.697). So, while the two methods give slightly different orders, in both cases the Nigerians are by far the closest group to the chimps. Once again, given the first method, these sub-Saharan Africans were at 1.334 while all the other groups ranged from 1.527-1.901, and given the second method they were at 0.539 while the other groups ranged from 0.643 (Kachari again) to 0.712. Thus, based on these data, the sub-Saharan African group is genetically closest to chimps. The authors state the following about "neighbor-joining trees" based on these data, using the chimps as the "outgroup":

"...the SO [Sokoto Nigerian - my note] population is the furthest from all the other human populations."

Indeed, these genetic data are consistent with the work of J. Irish, reviewed here, demonstrating that sub-Saharan Africans are dentally more similar to extinct and extant apes, and to extinct hominids and australopithecines, than are any other human population. The genetic data and the dental phenotypic data match perfectly.

Some may find it unfortunate that all these data seem to correlate with certain racial stereotypes. However, we must view facts - however harsh - with honesty. And if that includes recognition that certain groups may be slightly more distant from chimps than are Whites, so be it. Of course, White groups have "on their side" the verdict of history as to their accomplishments compared to other groups; the European extended phenotype is second to none. However, we can imagine that other less accomplished groups may find these data very unsettling. That is unfortunate; nonetheless, it does not change the facts.

The data can be looked at in other ways as well. One can compare the relative genetic distance between two human groups to that between those human groups and chimps, and thus calculate the former as a percentage of the latter. According to the Nei method, the German-Nigerian distance (0.238) is a full 12.8% of the German-chimp difference, while using the Cavalli-Sforza method the German-Nigerian distance (0.168) is a full 24.7% of the German-chimp distance! And for Caucasians-Nigerians vs. Caucasians-chimps the numbers using these two methods are 13.9% and 24.9%, respectively!

These data - however you crunch the numbers, and however liberals may cry that it is all being "misinterpreted" - are quite fascinating and shed important light on questions of racial differences, racial realities, and the consequences of racial miscegenation. It also points out that determining sub-Saharan African admixture (as well as other admixture) via established technology (here, and here) is of significant importance to us.

The other paper that I would like to mention (briefly) is that of Kimmel et al., Genetics 143, pgs. 549-555, 1996. Here eight human populations - including Caucasians, Mongolids, and sub-Saharan Africans- were studied to determine their relative genetic distances. The only real surprise here (not a surprise is that Germans and Nigerians are again very distant, and that various Caucasian groups, including the Germans, are close together) is the (relatively large) genetic distance between the Chinese and Japanese, which some uninformed folks may view as virtually "identical." . The distance between those two East Asian groups (using relative measurements different than that of the Deka et al. work) was 0.029. That is a full 72.5% of the distance (0.040) between Germans and the Bhramins (Asian Indians) of Uttar Pradesh, and is even 8.5% of the German-Nigerian distance (0.342). Not all East Asians are identical, although other data (e.g., Nei and Roychoudhury's classic 1993 paper) do show a relatively close Japanese-Korean relationship. Different areas of China may show different distances to other Asian groups as well, of course. In any case, the stated intention of future ABD tests to distinguish between Chinese and Japanese origins may indeed be possible, given the Kimmel et al. data.

In summary, racial differences are quite real, and the implications of these differences must be considered, regardless of how startling these implications may be.

Addendum I

The following is a list of the [human] chromosome 13q (that which was studied in the Deka et al. paper) alleles which are found in both Nigerians and chimps and NOT found in any of the other population groups studied:

FLT1 - 156 and 176
D13S118 - 184
D13S121 - 160 and 180
D13S193 - 127 and 137
D13S124 - 179

And that is all from just a study of 13q alone!
One must carefully consider these data, indeed.

It's been millions of years since we last had a common ancestor with chimpanzees, I don't think this is relevant.

>>42
Only if when you say "we" you mean the White race.

The presence of those genes in both populations requires either parallel evolution and ongoing speciation or a very widespread cultural taste for bestiality.  Or both.

Blacks and Whites breed utterly true to the line, hence they are the same species.  However, no breeding is possible between Humans and any other primate.

That's where all this silly micro-measuring FAILS.  Blacks are entirely within the genome of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.  DEAL WITH IT, RACEFAGS!

>>44
No breeding is possible between Humans and any other primate?

You can prove this assertion, right?  Some models suggest any of the African great apes could interbreed with humans, though for obvious reasons no one dares to put this to empirical test.

So what's your source for this assertion?

Also, how'd all them monkey genes get into all them niggers?  Either they're fucking the monkeys or niggers are a separate primate branch which diverged from the true human line half a million years ago or thereabouts.  Given the abundant empirical evidence (inability to create the wheel, the penchant for cannibalism, the IQs around 55) I lean to the latter hypothesis, but which is it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee

Perhaps niggers are just humanzees.  It would explain a lot.

Horses and donkeys can produce offspring, yet horses and donkeys are different species.  Lions and tigers can produce offspring--and ligers are usually fertile and breed true thereafter--yet lions and tigers are, we are told, separate species.

I know you're a troll.  But you're not even pretending to play this game very well.  Not very good at this, are you?

A few exceptions only prove (test) the rule.  And what the fuck is wrong with your reading comprehension?  Blacks are entirely within the genome of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.  You might as well say that since their noses are wider than Caucasians, they are a different species.  (Clue:  You can't.)  Physical elements and genetic elements don't mean that Blacks are a different species.  They are just a pointless and cosmetic variance on the Human genome.  The genome is DEFINED as having these variances ... and yes, that includes your disgusting pale features, White boy.

As for the wheel and eating habits, Blacks use wheels just fine, and their eating habits among civilized nations are entirely in line with cultural norms.  You may as well claim Whites are a different species by themselves since they carry the genocide gene ... due to their tendency to obliterate people wherever they go.

WHY ARE RACISTS SO FUCKING DUMB?!?!  You want Blacks to be classified as animals so fucking badly that you'll stoop to any low level of argument to gain ground.  Blacks are Human.  DEAL WITH IT.

Blacks are human, true. But they are on the lowest end of the human scale. They are the last in the line that seperates us from animals...

>>46
Again, FailCream has failed to answer questions put directly to him.  Try harder.  Answer me.  If niggers are truly Human and not humanzees, why do they carry all those chimp genes?  Answer me.

If they are truly Human and not humanzees, why did they never create the wheel?  Why did they never create a written language?  Why are their IQs only around 55?  We can see by simple observation that they are simpleminded and vicious, with a taste for one another's flesh as well as Human flesh.  How can this be, if they are Human?  Chimpanzee genes and Human genes are 98.5% identical.  Will you declare chimpanzees human next, and demand that the US government begin printing welfare checks and issuing voter registration cards for the chimps at the zoo?  Answer me, FailCream.

>>48
Your facts are infallible and after a step back to look at my actions logically I can see clearly now everything you said is correct. I apologise for my earlier behaviour, I just could not bring myself to believe something that is contrary to everything I have been brought up with.