“I love being a Black Man”

Level 8

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#798 May 10, 2013
8thWonderOfTheWorld wrote:
She shouldn't be trying to sell his stuff. He won't buy her a 450k house when he has already bought her five houses worth 25million. How greedy can you be?
That's what I'm saying. This all about his mother's ego. She found out that part of their dissolved divorce settlement was her mother getting a new home. So she wants a new home. smh

These athletes families will bleed them dry. Then turn around an say to them. You need to learn to say No.

Level 3

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#799 May 10, 2013
Capree wrote:
<quoted text> First of all Bria Myles is a dark skin black woman so most you colorstruck brothers aren't going crazy over her. So Bria likes white men so let the world be warned. But I don't see her just marketing herself to black men for money.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8wm6wgm1B1...
First of all, yes black men are, secondly, she is only marketed towards black men and is completely unknown outside of some in the aa community. Please wake up.
Sister Mary Spike

Marina Del Rey, CA

#800 May 10, 2013
Sadbuttrue wrote:
<quoted text>MACEO
GO SEE A MENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST!
I DON'T KNOW TOO MANY 60 YEAR OLD MEN WHO TALK TO YOUR OWN ONLINE PROFILES 6 HOURS PER DAY!
YOUR A WEIRD RECLUSIVE FOOL!
No, only YOU do, Magoo....Best to take your own advice....Give that little tea party in your head the day off or take it to someone who can cure this fixation you have with Maceo....He must have made a real impre8ssion on you for you to devot this much energy to him on a daily basis....smh....
Sister Mary Spike

Marina Del Rey, CA

#802 May 10, 2013
Sadbuttrue wrote:
<quoted text>MACEO
GO SEE A MENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST!
I DON'T KNOW TOO MANY 60 YEAR OLD MEN WHO TALK TO YOUR OWN ONLINE PROFILES 6 HOURS PER DAY!
YOUR A WEIRD RECLUSIVE FOOL!
Only you do, Magoo....This Maceo must have left a real impression on you to devote so much of your time to posting to everyone else (who are NOT Maceo).....Take your own advice and give the tea party in your head the day off....smh....
Masud_S_Hoghughi __

London, UK

#803 May 10, 2013
Sister Mary Spike wrote:
<quoted text>
Only you do, Magoo....This Maceo must have left a real impression on you to devote so much of your time to posting to everyone else (who are NOT Maceo).....Take your own advice and give the tea party in your head the day off....smh....
...its like niccuz say.........its all about the dollar dollar billz yo.......
London

Powell, OH

#805 May 10, 2013
910disaster wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
5 houses worth 25 mil?
smh
I haven't read that anywhere. I don't believe that. Plus the mom didn't take his money to begin with. She allegedly asked him for the money for the house and he offered half. She turned down the money and so far is still buying the house.
London

Powell, OH

#806 May 10, 2013
Swade wrote:
If a mom is entitled to her sons millions because she raised a successful person are they also responsible for their child support payments, alimony, or other accrued debts if she raises a dead beat?
Society does socially shun women who raise deadbeats. Don't we get a glimpse of that now with the backlash bw get for raising so many deadbeats?? Hoodrat, ghetto trash, baby mama (whether she's married or not), etc, etc. So women do pay when they raise losers.

But parents are entitled to be taken care of by children they raised because most parents raise their kids to have some measurement of success. Most parents wants their kids to go the right way and ultimately find happiness and peace for themselves regardless of how much money they make. Garbage man, professional athlete, banker, janitor etc. The profession doesn't matter.
Uncle Ben

Pikesville, MD

#807 May 10, 2013
If u can play b-ball at a high, professional level you can barbecue live babies on your front lawn and no one will say anything.
Uncle Ben

Pikesville, MD

#808 May 10, 2013
Most BW have failed at raising their kids properly. The evidence is all around us and it ain't good.
London

Powell, OH

#809 May 10, 2013
910disaster wrote:
<quoted text>
You misunderstand my meaning.
Not every reaction is considered NORMAL. What is considered NORMAL depends soley on the initial action.
Not true. Reacting to an action in and of itself is normal. We are not talking about anything else at this point except that reaction to an action is normal. That was my initial claim. For every action, there is reaction. Completely normal.
910disaster wrote:
<quoted text>

In this case what is said will dictate the reply, HOW it is said will further dictate the reply. See? Every reaction isnt normal.
This isn't about how ..It's simply about the reaction to an action, which is normal. Whether they are cordial, angry, rude, loud, quiet, meek, solemn, happy, sad..it doesn't matter, there will still be a reaction because that is normal. Even if you ignore them and walk away, that is still a reaction to an action.
910disaster wrote:
<quoted text>

Someone cuts me off in traffic, I jump out with a gun and start popping off. Action and reaction but the reaction isnt normal. Are you saying that to have a reaction is normal, this I agree with but thats not what you initially said
<quoted text>
Um, yes, that is what I initially said. I said reacting is normality.
910disaster wrote:
<quoted text>

Ok you gave this oranges scenario to compare to the apples we were discussing and now it seems you are lost.
A BM bashes an IRBW (stepping on foot), IRBW reaction is to bash back (ouch)= You are now part of the problem...problematic.
Nonsense! I'm SIMPLY REACTING in this case, WHICH IS NORMAL. It is very dangerous to allow bashing to go unchecked btw, which is overall why reacting to an action is normal, it's normality. As I've said, you are going straight to the solution and doing what many do and only get upset when bw act human and act normal. The problem was the action to begin with, me reacting to the problem is nothing short of normal.

As in my previous example, what you are suggesting boils down to someone stepping on my foot (let's just say purposeful- a purposeful action) and then instead of me saying ouch, I chop my foot off instead and blame my foot for being in the way, for being part of the "problem." It's nonsense what you are suggesting Disaster. What you are saying, isn't normal.
910disaster wrote:
<quoted text>

Running towards confrontation cant be considered normal.
If it's confrontation, one reacting to the confrontation is normal. Reacting to an action is normal.
910disaster wrote:
<quoted text>
My point was...A BM bashes an IRBW (stepping on foot), IRBW reaction is to a-ignore or b-conversate instead of bash back (oww instead of ouch)= non problematic and normal
<quoted text>
How one chooses to react is an INDIVIDUAL choice. I said before, morals, laws, etc go in to HOW someone reacts to an action. Everyone isn't going to react the same to an action.
910disaster wrote:
<quoted text>
A supremacist is a racist.
True. Racists are extreme supremacists. Supremacists however move quite differently than a racist.
910disaster wrote:
<quoted text>

A supremacist considers his race superior and others beneath. WTF? Do you always vouch for the enemy?
I have awareness, not enemies. If I had enemies, the good book says I'd then have to love them and I'm not about to do that.

And supremacists work to prove they are better because of their race. There are black, white, Asian and everything in between supremacists. They will marry and date outside of their race. In fact, they are the ones mainly doing it because genetic annihilation is the ultimate hate move.
London

Powell, OH

#810 May 10, 2013
910disaster wrote:
<quoted text>

Cleary lots of blacks do what? Damn London, where do you live? I have never seen or heard of such things. No, opinions have nothing to do with being negative etc...and opinion is just a pov. You made it negative.
Im just...I cant anymore....lol!!!
You are making my head hurt.
Who determines what is negative? If I say I like the color blue but red is ugly, will the color blue call me negative?

“Back on cloud 9 :)”

Level 6

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#811 May 10, 2013
London wrote:
<quoted text>
-Ok...lets go to where this started. I said...
"No offense, but of course you dont have a problem with it! You're part of the problem. You see SOME BM generalizing BW, responding to some experience they've had with an IRBW and you...an IRBW... respond, once again generalizing all BM... the circle of bad behavior continues."
-To which you replied
"Reaction is normality; not problematic.
If someone steps on your foot and you say ouch, are you then part of the "problem"? "
Now you have brung oranges into a conversation about apples. I try to play along by adjusting your example to fit the current topic.
-I say...
"Depends on what the reaction is to. Not all reactions are normal nor non problematic.
If the problem is people saying ouch...then why not change the reaction to "oww" once your foot is stepped on or move out the way? Get it? Be a part of the solution, not the problem."
-Your next reply really throws me because now your discussing Newtons law...why?
"No. This is incorrect. For every action, there is reaction. Period. Reaction doesn't depend on the action. Reaction is simply what it is..a reaction to an action. It's cause and effect."
-You also say...
"All reactions are normal. For every action there is a reaction."
This has nothing to do with HOW you react and it being normal and/or problematic.
Same comment you say...
"Reactions to actions is extremely normal. People who don't adjust to actions are either foolish and/or have a mental incapacity to react."
Again...This has nothing to do with HOW you react and it being normal and/or problematic. Then you go into how the word ouch isnt the problem etc, etc...at this point we are on 2 different things because you stop comparing your foot example to BM & BW bashing and focus solely on the damn foot! lol
-I catch that we have gotten off topic & lost. After I gave my traffic example to further explain what I meant by this, I ask...
"Are you saying that to have a reaction is normal, this I agree with but thats not what you initially said " Yes, to have a reaction IS NORMAL. But not every reaction can be classified as normal. It depends on the initial action. I realized I might need to further explain and did so on post # 770. For a person to have a reaction to something is normal...we agree BUT what the reaction is depends on the action....the extent of normality also depends on the action. Ask yourself, what does society consider normal?
-You reject my separation of the 2...
“Not true. Reacting to an action in and of itself is normal. We are not talking about anything else at this point except that reaction to an action is normal. That was my initial claim. For every action, there is reaction. Completely normal.” But thats not what the conversation was about!
You also say...
“This isn't about how ..It's simply about the reaction to an action, which is normal. Whether they are cordial, angry, rude, loud, quiet, meek, solemn, happy, sad..it doesn't matter, there will still be a reaction because that is normal. Even if you ignore them and walk away, that is still a reaction to an action.” How are you going to change it midway? lmao! Whether reacting is normal or not wasnt the point I was making. I said HOW you react to initial bashing matters. So when this began, it was about HOW til you decided to give a physics lesson.
Not once did I state that the reaction didnt occur due to an action. To have a reaction is normal. No...all types of reactions can not be considered normal or non problematic. If that were true the jails would be empty.

“Back on cloud 9 :)”

Level 6

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#812 May 10, 2013
London wrote:
<quoted text> Who determines what is negative? If I say I like the color blue but red is ugly, will the color blue call me negative?
Here you go with another silly example that has nothing to do with nothing and will only get us completely off topic again.
Lets stick to the conversation shall we?
Society considers what is negative...what is normal...what is taboo.
Lucy Liu

Austin, TX

#813 May 10, 2013
Every time I see Kobe Byant and his wife Vanessa he is always helping the Hispanic community. Does he help the African American community or is he another O.J. Simpson?

“Back on cloud 9 :)”

Level 6

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#814 May 10, 2013
London wrote:
<quoted text> And supremacists work to prove they are better because of their race. There are black, white, Asian and everything in between supremacists. They will marry and date outside of their race. In fact, they are the ones mainly doing it because genetic annihilation is the ultimate hate move.
Really London!!! OMG!
I know there is supremacismin all races but THEY ARE NOT THE ONES WHO DATE OR MARRY OUTSIDE OF THEIR RACE! WTF?
So, you think a white supremacist would marry a BW and procreate just to "destroy the black gene"? You are truly clueless and it isnt funny anymore. I told you I have a thing about stupid women...

Level 3

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#815 May 10, 2013
910disaster wrote:
<quoted text>
Really London!!! OMG!
I know there is supremacismin all races but THEY ARE NOT THE ONES WHO DATE OR MARRY OUTSIDE OF THEIR RACE! WTF?
So, you think a white supremacist would marry a BW and procreate just to "destroy the black gene"? You are truly clueless and it isnt funny anymore. I told you I have a thing about stupid women...
Thank You. You haven't begun to read some of the stupid and asinine shyt she comes up with. Almost everything she types is some nonsense concocted in her head, far far away from the truth. Sometimes when I read her comments, I find myself wondering if there is some sort of diagnosis or prognosis for her state of mind. One thing for sure, it's not normal. Oh, that's right, who gets to determine what's normal?!?LOL

Oh, and she's gonna be celebrating kicking your butt in this thread later. She thinks she has won all her debates, but if you scroll through her previous arguments with other posters, you will see she hasn't won any of them. That's just how delusional this lady is.
Sister Mary Spike

Marina Del Rey, CA

#816 May 10, 2013
Blathering loutish London meets another match.....and.....NOW I remember IT....the other freaky half of the 'carol'(conspiracy theorist) comedy team....still spewing the same nonsense....little newsflash, London....I couldn't care less if you show your racist arse out here in public towards me or my child....YOU are one of the sickest racists on this site (and one of the most deluded)....You and your equally deluded Topix trollop squad need to find real (productive) lives OFF this forum....still sayin'....
Cap Black

Huntsville, AL

#817 May 10, 2013
910disaster wrote:
<quoted text>
Really London!!! OMG!
I know there is supremacismin all races but THEY ARE NOT THE ONES WHO DATE OR MARRY OUTSIDE OF THEIR RACE! WTF?
So, you think a white supremacist would marry a BW and procreate just to "destroy the black gene"? You are truly clueless and it isnt funny anymore. I told you I have a thing about stupid women...
This is the same women that told us in the monogomy thread, "children dont have their parents DNA".What an air head.

“Back on cloud 9 :)”

Level 6

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#818 May 10, 2013
Cap Black wrote:
<quoted text>This is the same women that told us in the monogomy thread, "children dont have their parents DNA".What an air head.
LMAO!
I dont know why I expected better this time around.
She starts out coherent, then strays off topic and next thing ya know she's poppin off nonsense.
Smh. Lesson learned.
London

Memphis, TN

#819 May 10, 2013
910disaster wrote:
<quoted text>
-Ok...lets go to where this started. I said...
"No offense, but of course you dont have a problem with it! You're part of the problem. You see SOME BM generalizing BW, responding to some experience they've had with an IRBW and you...an IRBW... respond, once again generalizing all BM... the circle of bad behavior continues."
-To which you replied
"Reaction is normality; not problematic.
If someone steps on your foot and you say ouch, are you then part of the "problem"? "
Now you have brung oranges into a conversation about apples. I try to play along by adjusting your example to fit the current topic.
-I say...
"Depends on what the reaction is to. Not all reactions are normal nor non problematic.
If the problem is people saying ouch...then why not change the reaction to "oww" once your foot is stepped on or move out the way? Get it? Be a part of the solution, not the problem."
-Your next reply really throws me because now your discussing Newtons law...why?
"No. This is incorrect. For every action, there is reaction. Period. Reaction doesn't depend on the action. Reaction is simply what it is..a reaction to an action. It's cause and effect."
-You also say...
"All reactions are normal. For every action there is a reaction."
This has nothing to do with HOW you react and it being normal and/or problematic.
Same comment you say...
"Reactions to actions is extremely normal. People who don't adjust to actions are either foolish and/or have a mental incapacity to react."
Again...This has nothing to do with HOW you react and it being normal and/or problematic. Then you go into how the word ouch isnt the problem etc, etc...at this point we are on 2 different things because you stop comparing your foot example to BM & BW bashing and focus solely on the damn foot! lol
-I catch that we have gotten off topic & lost. After I gave my traffic example to further explain what I meant by this, I ask...
"Are you saying that to have a reaction is normal, this I agree with but thats not what you initially said " Yes, to have a reaction IS NORMAL. But not every reaction can be classified as normal. It depends on the initial action. I realized I might need to further explain and did so on post # 770. For a person to have a reaction to something is normal...we agree BUT what the reaction is depends on the action....the extent of normality also depends on the action. Ask yourself, what does society consider normal?
-You reject my separation of the 2...
“Not true. Reacting to an action in and of itself is normal. We are not talking about anything else at this point except that reaction to an action is normal. That was my initial claim. For every action, there is reaction. Completely normal.” But thats not what the conversation was about!
You also say...
“This isn't about how ..It's simply about the reaction to an action, which is normal. Whether they are cordial, angry, rude, loud, quiet, meek, solemn, happy, sad..it doesn't matter, there will still be a reaction because that is normal. Even if you ignore them and walk away, that is still a reaction to an action.” How are you going to change it midway? lmao! Whether reacting is normal or not wasnt the point I was making. I said HOW you react to initial bashing matters. So when this began, it was about HOW .
I haven't gotten through all of this yet. However before responding fully...my main point to you is that you MUST first acknowledge that reaction to an action is natural. Can you at least do this first?

You are immediately jumping to resolution conflict etc. That means you aren't first acknowledging the action which caused the reaction and that isn't problem solving but rather that is scapegoating. This is the mentality of those who oftentime blame those who have been victimized.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
African-American women are the world's most bea... (May '09) 7 min Miguel is the man 592
Jesus Christ was a black Jew. Double low Race f... 7 min alex 186
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 7 min African AE 120,752
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min Tinka 1,233,359
BM desiring WW means that whites are SUPERIOR t... 10 min stayinferior 98
Why Do People Often Assume Light Skin Guys To B... (Oct '09) 12 min ohwelldawg 7
attai1 a truly nice person or a hidden subdued ... (Feb '13) 16 min Tyrone 2,141
Van Sertima debunked! Afronazis Drowning in Tears! 35 min UruEuWauWauTHePhagg 396
Blacks Are Biologically Superior To Whites (Sep '12) 53 min lightzz 299
All women prefer white men 1 hr Aphex 4,664
why do white people hate other races so much 2 hr NotSoDivineMsM 427
More from around the web