Virginia Flaggers supporters imply Alabama Governer is a "Nagger" and call Black attorney who removed toy flags "Trash", say he should be shot

(Image courtesy of Facebook)




"Nagger", is just a more, ummmm, politically correct way to say, well, you know



(Image courtesy of Facebook)



Nothing like a little dehumanization!



(Image courtesy of Facebook)




Last time I checked the punishment for stealing was not death, but what do you expect from uneducated Southerners? 



(Image courtesy of Facebook)




That's Virginia Flagger supporters for you. Would you expect anything less? After all, isn't it Susan Hathaway who has said nothing about Virginia Flagger Hubert Wayne Cash who thinks that: 



"Blacks are a worthless bunch of freeloading, dangerous, animals that should be put down like the dogs they are."



So why would a Virginia Flagger supporter think there is anything wrong with saying they believe a Black man should be shot for removing toy flags? Isn't that already the message that the Virginia Flaggers condone?





Restoring the honor!





Comments

  1. With so much genuine evil and inhumanity creeping across the globe (and into the US of A), people with their heads screwed on straight understand that what you are so obsessed with -- with such visceral hatred -- is way, way, way down the list of what's important. Also, with people expressing online similar opinions and/or making the same "recommendations" for everything from auto racing to interior decor to movies/actors to football to cooking, and the public understanding that it isn't to be taken seriously, you look seriously demented by comparison, ya know?

    Oh, the flags were grave memorials, not toys. Oh, and there was no violence committed -- not even damage to this guy's property, no theft reported from his home, his car not keyed, etc. -- to "violence" in your keywords is a baldfaced lie. How like you it is to lie! You seemingly can't get through a single post without doing it....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Visceral hatred"? You think me calling people out for implying that people are "Niggers" and shooting dead people is "visceral hatred"? I don't think your head is screwed on right.

      Delete
    2. I think your whole blog is a result of your visceral hatred. You take seriously things that are not credible threats, things that have a proven track record of NOT producing violence (regardless of how it has been played, Dylann Roof was not a Confederate heritage advocate) -- while those you champion by implication beat people up, steal, vandalize property, riot, murder, etc., etc., etc., and for which you offer only token disapproval ... when you're called on it. You can't see it, but others can. Plain as day.

      Delete
    3. No threat is credible until it is acted upon, that being said, no one has a crystal ball.

      What we find time and time again is that generally the nut cases that act out (while not necessarily crazy) do so after prolonged periods of being immersed in the online world of racist and violent rhetoric. When Dylann Roof has his day in court, I think we are going to hear about this very topic. Say, the Council of Conservative Citizens has been very, very quiet lately. I wonder why?

      Since we cannot predict the future, we have to be mindful that our words and actions are important.

      It's a free world. Confederates can speak their minds, we encourage it. Please, do keep talking!

      Delete
  2. You have to be careful these days, some people lose their jobs because they can't control their tongue.

    http://www.inquisitr.com/2476947/his-name-is-cayden-atlanta-man-fired-over-racist-facebook-post/

    I can assure you, words do have meaning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, tasteless in the extreme. Alas, free speech is, or used to be, a right secured by the Constitution and the government. America used to be the home of "I despise what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it." Obviously, some discipline was in order for this incident; I don't know the entire circumstances (and neither do you, and neither does anyone else getting their info from the internet) but based on what I saw here, I am uncertain that this required firing the employee.

      The main problem I have with issues like this is that they are tilted, slanted, one-sided, often in consequences, and certainly in the reporting. If a minority worker made disparaging remarks about a white co-worker's child, I suspect the response would have been different. No firings, and it wouldn't have made it to social media.

      Um... have I said anywhere that words don't have meaning? No. I need no assurances from you. And I certainly understand the meanings of your hate-words on this blog.

      Delete
    2. Did you have to ask permission to write that? I rest my case. Your deprivation of your 1A rights is a figment of your imagination.

      Delete
    3. That means nothing. Your whole blog is part of the PC effort to marginalize, chill, and eventually outlaw, certain subjects and modes of speech -- and marginalize (and outlaw) certain people, as well. As the fellow in Atlanta has learned.

      Delete
    4. We're well aware that reality doesn't matter to you.

      As for regulation on speech.

      1) You may not be aware but free speech is not a blank check. You cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater.

      2) If you're feeling like the Government may come after your free speech rights perhaps you have some introspection to do.

      Delete
    5. Yes, I'm aware you can't yell fire in a crowded theater....sheesh. I'm not as ignorant as most of your readers. That's not the type of speech targeted for suppression.

      You have this fantasy hate blog and talk about reality? You're both funny and pathetic at the same time.

      When are you gonna figure out that nobody cares about this crap you blog about except your fellow loony leftists?

      Delete
    6. Oh, btw ... "We're"???? You and who else?

      "Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we.'" ~Mark Twain

      Delete
  3. Quote, "No threat is credible until it is acted upon...."

    What utter hooey. In law enforcement, the military and similar institutions, threat evaluation is a science. Threats are evaluated for their CRED-UH-BIL-ITY. Their believability. The likelihood that they will be carried out. Sometimes a credible threat is made, and law enforcement or whoever thwarts it so it isn't acted upon, but that doesn't mean the threat wasn't credible.

    Then there are threats everyone knows aren't credible. On some MCM Faceook forums, I've seen people post things like, "He should be shot..." or "She should be horsewhipped" for chalk painting a Broyhill Sculptra console, or something. And nobody got bent out of shape because everybody knew it wasn't a credible threat.

    DHS considers threats to be credible if they come from a source that has been reliable in the past. Most of the "threats" you find on Facebook are not reliable. The sources haven't carried out threats before. A little detail you, alas, overlook.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not really sure what the point is that you are trying to make. I'm not here to evaluate what kind of a threat person A, or person B is. You have fun with that.

      Delete
  4. You're here to cast suspicion on innocent people. SOME innocent people.... To drum up hatred in others for people you don't like and don't approve of.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh yeah? Like who? Don't be afraid, give me an example.

      Delete
    2. You don't need an example. You know who you don't like.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Shaun Winkler becomes unglued over the Sons of Confederate Veterans "pet monkey"...

Virginia Flagger Hubert Wayne Cash: "I have learned that most but by no means all blacks are a worthless bunch of freeloading, dangerous, animals that should be put down like the dogs they are."

Infight The Right: Are Christopher Cantwell and Jason Kessler backstabbing buddyfuckers?