Comments
2,181 - 2,200 of 2,870 Comments Last updated Sunday Aug 10
The White Man

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2385
Jul 6, 2013
 
Title of this thread is pretty obvious. Whats not to hate?
Paul is dead

Pleasantville, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2386
Jul 9, 2013
 
Johnny wrote:
<quoted text>
__________
Awhile back on this thread, you stated that you "thought" that Paul McCartney "may" have been murdered sometime in early 1967.
Where? what post! Prove your charges.
Paul is dead

Pleasantville, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2387
Jul 9, 2013
 
Johnny wrote:
Paul is dead ----- You said "I have said sometime in September, O ctober, or November 1966".---- True.
In a couple of your previous posts which you have addressed to me, you have stated that you "thought" that it may have happened in September, 1966.
In a couple of your other previous posts which you have addressed to me, you have stated that you "thought" it may have occurred in October, 1966.
In a few of your other previous posts which you have addressed to me, you said that you "thought" that it may have happened back in November, 1966.
So, the charges which you are throwing up.---- You aren't definitive.
You appear to be confused.
You are coming across as being confused, yet again.
The date of patsy was contrived to be Wednesday,November 9, 1966; but personally because these are Satanists, and Luciferians; it more then likely happened on Sohween, ie Halloween..Trick or treat. It happened in the Autmnal season of 1966. Huh, I believe Autumn begins at the Fall Solstice of September 21st? ends December 20th? Am I correct one who knows all? not speculates, or thinks, but knows..O all wise one?

It was You who said no Northern states owned slaves because they were the 'free' states. This is what you said.

I said no, all states owned slaves,excepting Pennsylvania, actually it was Vermont that was the only truyl free state.

The former,yours, was the bigger mistake; the latter, mine, the smaller mistake.

This is how it's been all along, you make blunders big enough to drive a mac truck through, I on the other hand, have made small insignificant mistakes, which have never taken away from my main points, which have always been 'Cogent,''Coherent,' and showing some level of native intelligence.

You one the other hand, spit out points, facts, and statistics, many factual, many questionalbe, but hardly ever cogent, coherent, or making any real sense at all; in other words; you constantly miss the point.
dad of 3

Portland, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2388
Jul 9, 2013
 
I think you are way off base here, and a bit out of line-I don't hate my wife at all, and in fact I think it's extremely beautiful and hot when she's with one of our black friends during our mfm and mfmf play times!
Paul is dead

Pleasantville, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2389
Jul 9, 2013
 
Johnny wrote:
<quoted text>
__________
Nope.
The United States Civil War broke out because of these 4 factors.---
1. The big bankers of the North. Being in rivalry with the big bankers of the South.
2. The big businessmen of the North. Being in rivalry with the big businessmen of the South.
3. The big bankers & big businessmen of the North wanting the territory of the United States West.
4. The big bankers & big businessmen of the South wanting the territory of the United States West.
After the United States Civil War ended.---
The newly freed African Americans were to be used as a very cheap labor source in agriculture & in industry.
Possibly, as a voting bloc.
From 1865 till 1964.----- The United States had Jim Crow laws. There were many laws on the books. Which denied African Americans many, many rights.
This shows that slavery wasn't at the forefront of the United States Civil War being fought.
This shows that African Americans fate & well being was NOT at the forefront of the United States Civil War being fought.
Manifest Destiny began with the acquisition of the Louisiana Purchase. The west was wide open, and American bankers didn't call the shots then. Military men did, and they were all, without exception, both North and South, educated at West Point New York, in the North. The South was rich agriculturally, they didn't have the economic, nor the industrial might of the North.'Big' bankers in the South would have considered it pure folly to tangle with Northern banking interests, and Northern bankers felt in no way threatened by Southern bankers, working together they made a mint of money from the slave trade. New York City was the leading city in importing slaves, all the way up to 1861; a fact, not a fiction. The west was wide open to Northerners, and Southerners, and would benefit the country as a whole to emigrate west. Maine held slaves till 1835, Pennsylvania till 1847/48 thereabouts. The country knew the constitution better in that day and age, as well as the bill of rights. It was always, always the Southern states that stressed 'States rights,'the loudest according to individual ans states rights as espoused in the said Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. It was Charlteston, South Carolina who refused to end stavery that ended in the firing on Fort Sumter, April 4th, 1961; indeed, and infact the Southern states all fell like dominoes in secession against the Union afterward. All and every problem between North and South could have been worked out at a bargaining table, save one...Slavery.

Slavery was indeed, and infact the primary, and pivotal factor that led to secession starting in South Carolina; and than the other, political, economic, and social factors and differences between North and South fell into place.

If slavery had ended in 1861; then there would have been no need for a Civil war ending in hundreds of thousands of deaths, and millions of non-fatal causalties.

You need to get your facts straight pal.
Paul is dead

Pleasantville, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2390
Jul 9, 2013
 
TO MANHATTAN JOHNNY:

Johnny, you say show some respect; okay.
I do feel some remorse insulting you the way I do, heh hahha but sometimes I enjoy it hahaehe haha.
Sorry, I laugh easy, and when people make sport of me, I like to make a target out of them.

Sorry bud; good luck to you and your family.

Re: White women with black men.

Honestly, no bullshit. I would really be embarrassed about getting uptight about a black dude and a white chick who really dig each other. In other words it really aint none of my business. Live and let live; and God bless America.

On the other hand Black men, and white women doesn't stink does get on my nerves. Step aside everybody King Black man, and Queen White woman have arrived; I'm bowing my knee sorry, it rubs against my American nature.

I believe we overthrew the King and Queen over 237 years ago!

Otherwise, everybody do you.
Paul is dead

Pleasantville, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2391
Jul 9, 2013
 
Whoops! gotta learn to proof read!

Black men and white women who don't think their poop stinks!

I think really stinks!

And I ain't bowing my knee to n-o-b-o-d-y!!!!

Otherwise do you!

God Bless America!
Paul is dead

Pleasantville, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2392
Jul 9, 2013
 
The king is dead!

Long live America!
James Paul Mccartney dead

Pleasantville, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2393
Jul 13, 2013
 
Johnny wrote:
Paul is dead ---- You said "He was replaced by William Campbell".---- Nope, Paul McCartney wasn't.
Awhile back on this thread, when we were blogging about this, I listed the reasons which pointed out why there was absolutely NO way in which that was possible.---- That the person was NOT any William Campbell.
I'm not going to re-type my previous points.
You said "As far as you being so respectful to me, you've labeled me 'incoherent', mildly retarded'".---
In our many blog discussions & debates, I have stated several times, that you appear to be incoherent.
I never stated that you were mildly retarded.
I asked you if you were mildly retarded.
James Paul Mccartney was not standing in the photo shoot outside of Abbey Road Studio December 20th, 1966; and yet it was advertised as the fab four.

A fact not a fiction. James Paul Mccartney was nowhere to be found, not conspiritorially; but actually and factually, around early Septmeber 1966, till late December, 1966; a full 3 or more months. Actual, and most factual. He re-appeared in the said December 20th, 1966, photo-shoot.

Pre-Autmn 1966 James Paul Mccartney, and post December 20th, 1966, referring to said photo-shoot ofcourse, James Paul Mccartney's are not the one and the same person.

Is today's Paul Mccartney the Mccartney of Sgt. Peppers? absolutely! 150% correct to use your phraseology. Of Magical Mystery Tour? 150% correct !Same Mccartney of the White Album? of Abbey Road? of Let It Be?

All a resounding 150% correct!!!! Yes yes! absolutely one and the same person!

So, what's the problem then?

And here it is O most wise one!

James Paul Mccartney, an insufferable lefty! by his own words mind you! not ambitexrous, jet black hair, hazel brown eyes,(a unique type of dark brown eye color,) 5'8 3/4 inches tall is not to be found in any of those post 1966 mentioned above albums! He was already murdered and buried by then.

You cannot alter the truth with your rebuttals. It's okay that you disagree, God bless America.

But you cannot debunk what is actual truth; sorry pal, you're wrong as is usal.
James Paul Mccartney dead

Pleasantville, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2394
Jul 13, 2013
 
Johnny wrote:
<quoted text>
__________
Yep, it sure was so.
No, Lee Harvey Oswalds cheek wouldn't (It didn't) have gun powder residue on it.
The reasons why Lees cheeks didn't have the gun shot residue from that Italian Carcano rifle was because of these factors.----
1. The ammunition which Lee used. It was older ammunition.
2. How Oswald held that rifle.
3. The position of Lees face, when he pulled the trigger.
And here is the most friggin rediculous rebuttal you've posted yet.

1.) If he knew the 'ammo' was so old,and wouldn't exude gun shot residue in its discharge, then why would he have to be so careful to hold the rifle away from his cheek; or his face had to be turned away at some type of odd angle when he took the shot? hahaha friggin assinine!

2.) If said ammo was too old to have enough GSR to cause residue to seep into the pores of his skin,(serious enough to be given the warm paraffin test, which he was given and passed!)then how could the bullet(s) travel hundreds of feet and make a 1 3/4 by 4 inch diameter hole in the back of Mr. Kennedy's skull, and take off the whole right occipital front of his skull, and destroy half of his brain!?, which a 52mm bullet issued from a 91/38 carcano/carbine couldn't do anyway even with newly minted bullets! or fresh gun powder! O most wise one! hahaha!
And old or new ammunition has nothing to do with nothing. Whether or not he used freshly minted bullets or not, enough gunpowder used to do that much damage(force of discharge from gun powder propelled for discharge of firearm,) would leave 'ample' amounts of gun powder residue!

3.) The postion of Lee's face when he pulled the trigger? Really? hahaehe, wow! They could've used you as a member of the Warren Commission report team. Oops my baddy, but then you would have had to have been an Illuminist? Huh, are you? Moreover, this is the most important day in assassinator Oswalds life. He was a good shot, a marksman according to his Marine records. His right eye, he was right handed, is what? an inch or so above his right cheek? He'd have that rifle butt snug to his cheek to take a proper eye's aim.

Okay, okay maybe he decided to shoot left handedly, maybe, but I doubt it.

He would have never been able to take a sure shot.

Further, I honestly don't know if he was given a paraffin test for both cheeks or not.

It doesn't matter, you have Oswald, making the most important shot of his life, holding the rifle away from his cheek, to avoid gun shot contamination, with his face turned away at some type of wierd angle, again to avoid GSR from seeping into his facial pores, and using old ammuniton! Hahaha!

Maybe you're the one who is mentally challenged! hahahaha.

You're above 3 points are in no way cogent, or coherent my friend.

You'll never beat me in an arguement; you know why don't you?

Not because I'm a great orator, Nooooo!

Just because I tell the ......

TRUTH!!!!!!
James Paul Mccartney dead

Pleasantville, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2395
Jul 13, 2013
 
Yes, I don't proofread, there's an above insignificant grammatical error.

'You're above 3 points,' should've been 'Your above 3 points.'

And this is how it's been all along; grammatical,spelling errors, and omits doesn't take away at all from my many cogent points.

Again Websters partial definition of Cogent: Telling, convincing in presentation.

Yours on the other hand Johnny, cogent? really?
James Paul Mccartney dead

Pleasantville, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2396
Jul 13, 2013
 
Johnny wrote:
<quoted text>
__________
Nope.
The United States Civil War broke out because of these 4 factors.---
1. The big bankers of the North. Being in rivalry with the big bankers of the South.
2. The big businessmen of the North. Being in rivalry with the big businessmen of the South.
3. The big bankers & big businessmen of the North wanting the territory of the United States West.
4. The big bankers & big businessmen of the South wanting the territory of the United States West.
After the United States Civil War ended.---
The newly freed African Americans were to be used as a very cheap labor source in agriculture & in industry.
Possibly, as a voting bloc.
From 1865 till 1964.----- The United States had Jim Crow laws. There were many laws on the books. Which denied African Americans many, many rights.
This shows that slavery wasn't at the forefront of the United States Civil War being fought.
This shows that African Americans fate & well being was NOT at the forefront of the United States Civil War being fought.
Manifest Destiny to take full effect, beginning with the Louisiana Purchase, needed Southern and Northern peoples to move west, because the population centers were mainly in the North, the North was in no way threatened by Southerners going west. It was expected and encouraged for all Americans to go west; hence New Yorker Horace Greely's exclamation: " Go west young man, go west!".
Southern Bankers would've considered it sheer folly to interfere with Northern banking interests, besides that, the banker didn't run the show the way the military did. And in this time period, Gen. Robt E. Lee, was not a Confederate general, but a member of the Union's military industrial complex, educated at West Point, in the North, as were all Norhtern and Southern military men.

Like I said previously, any problems between North and South could have been worked out the bargaining table. Yes, there were problems between the two very different cultures of the North and South.

The Industrial age came to the North, and commerce and money making in the North, without the use of slaves, was booming. Added to this are the Abolitionists, who found the G-rand O-ld P-arty, ie the Republican party; so it was easier for Northern States to give up slavery.

Slavery was so institutional in the South, and considered vital, that instead of giving up its slaves as was expected,the State of S.C., on December 20,1860, decided to secede from the Union, from the City port of Charleston. A month later, January 19th, 1961 to be exact, The island, Naval fortification/Garrison known as Ft. Sumter was fired on.

The official date of Civil War between the states was April 12th, 1861 - May 10th,1865.

Slavery was the pivotal issue regarding secession from the Union in Charleston, South Carolina December 20th,1861.

When S.C. seceded, all the Southern states fell into secession like dominoes.

Slavery was key in Secession from the Union, in the original State that seceded from the Union, South Carolina.

All facts no fictions.
Paul is dead

Pleasantville, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2398
Jul 14, 2013
 
Johnny wrote:
<quoted text>
__________
Nope.
The United States Civil War broke out because of these 4 factors.---
1. The big bankers of the North. Being in rivalry with the big bankers of the South.
2. The big businessmen of the North. Being in rivalry with the big businessmen of the South.
3. The big bankers & big businessmen of the North wanting the territory of the United States West.
4. The big bankers & big businessmen of the South wanting the territory of the United States West.
After the United States Civil War ended.---
The newly freed African Americans were to be used as a very cheap labor source in agriculture & in industry.
Possibly, as a voting bloc.
From 1865 till 1964.----- The United States had Jim Crow laws. There were many laws on the books. Which denied African Americans many, many rights.
This shows that slavery wasn't at the forefront of the United States Civil War being fought.
This shows that African Americans fate & well being was NOT at the forefront of the United States Civil War being fought.
South Carolina,from the City of Charleston, seceded from the Union some say December 20th, some say December 24th, 1960; doesn't matter.

January 9th, 1861 Rebel troops fired on a ship carrying supplies to island garrison/fortification Ft. Sumnter, in Charleston Harbor.

I was correct originally, again Rebel troops fired directly on Ft. Sumnter, April 4th, 1861.

Secession boils down to 2 theories.

1.) States rights; always most vocally expressed by Southern States, that is States south of the Mason/Dixon line; border between Pennsylvania and Maryland; all facts no fiction.

2.) Slavery. The Abolitionists founded a new party out of Wisconsin, the GOP, heh the Repbulican party. Slavery outgrew its usefulness in the North. Vermont was the only Northern state to never have slaves; the Industrial age had replaced slavery in the North.

South Carolina vociferously demanded that its States right to continue slavery be observed. Slavery was indeed, and infact a pivotal issue; when you take into account that an Abolitionist-Republican had been elected to the presidency of the United States
in November 1860, which led to the secession of S.C. a month later in December.

Slavery wasn't the only cause, I never said that! I said it was a pivotal issue and primary cause of secession of Southern States.
Paul is dead

Pleasantville, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2399
Jul 14, 2013
 
TO MANHATTAN JOHNNY:

The Grand Old Party, ie the Republican Party was founded in 1854 by Abolitionists to combat the Kansas/Nebraska act.

The man behind the K/N act was none other then Mr. Lincolns Democratic party rival in 1860; Stephen Douglas.

Douglas wanted to both expand Slavery and Railroads as far inland west as possible.

He was an Illinois Democrat Senator, a Yankee if you will, who was pro-slavery.

This idea of yours that the North wanted to monopolize the west at the expense of the South is ludicrous to say the least.

Here is a Northern white man, Douglas, who wants to expand slavery, which is on its way out in most Northern states, save New Hampshire, and New Jersey; both of which didn't give up its slaves until the Civil War's end May 10th, 1865.

Despite what you have said about Mr. Lincoln previously; with the election of Abraham Lincoln came the commitment of the Republican party to abolish slavery altogether in the North and South. Remember, the Republican party was founded by Abolitionists! FACT! NOT FICTION!

This is what led to secession my friend.

It wasn't a power struggle between North, and South per se; no it was more a power struggle between Abolitionists and Slavers, that resulted in a Civil war between North and South; primarily.

Ofcourse there were cultural differnces between North and South; and yes it was Southerners vocally expressing States rights that were against many policies of the Federal Government.

By 1860, The Federal Government was being directed by the Abolitionist created party, the Republican.

It's plain commonsense; use it sometime, you mind like it.

Oh by way Johnny, 9-11 was most definitely an inside Job by the Illuminati within, and without our country.

Paul really is dead;

and Lee Oswald didn't murder our beloved John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
Ellia

Wilson, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2400
Jul 14, 2013
 
Well, I can understand the point. feeling getting beat. You know white just loss the size LOL
Godfather

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2401
Jul 14, 2013
 
I didn't
black guy

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2402
Jul 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

I am a black guy from Chicago looking for a white woman.Yahoo account twins_abbey@Yahoo.com or text me 7737960792.
I needs white luv

Pleasantville, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2404
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gis me a whites womens or give me def!
Doctor REALITY

Little Rock, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2405
Jul 21, 2013
 
I'm going to be REAL with you, America. I'm really AMAZED by many black male-white female relationships in America. With many of them, there's just SOMETHING that doesn't seem RIGHT with many of those relationships, and I'm not talking about something as VAIN as mere 'skin color'. I mean, you hardly EVER see beautiful African American women with white men, but black men-white women relationships are almost as common as pennies, nickels, and dimes. Why is that?? Let me tell you something, America, Satan the devil is a MASTER DECEIVER. And if you think he's not an 'Evil Cupid' when it comes to putting people together in relationships that are NOT of God, and are destined to create domestic turmoil and disarray..THINK AGAIN. Am I saying that mixed-race relationships are WRONG?? No, I'm not. But I am saying that if you're not CONSULTING the Lord Jesus Christ about ANY relationship that you're considering getting involved in, you'd better think twice, and a third time, because Satan is the Great Deceiver, and your unhappiness means EVERYTHING to him. Just keepin' it REAL.
Doctor REALITY

North Little Rock, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2406
Jul 21, 2013
 
Doctor REALITY wrote:
I'm going to be REAL with you, America. I'm really AMAZED by many black male-white female relationships in America. With many of them, there's just SOMETHING that doesn't seem RIGHT with many of those relationships, and I'm not talking about something as VAIN as mere 'skin color'. I mean, you hardly EVER see beautiful African American women with white men, but black men-white women relationships are almost as common as pennies, nickels, and dimes. Why is that?? Let me tell you something, America, Satan the devil is a MASTER DECEIVER. And if you think he's not an 'Evil Cupid' when it comes to putting people together in relationships that are NOT of God, and are destined to create domestic turmoil and disarray..THINK AGAIN. Am I saying that mixed-race relationships are WRONG?? No, I'm not. But I am saying that if you're not CONSULTING the Lord Jesus Christ about ANY relationship that you're considering getting involved in, you'd better think twice, and a third time, because Satan is the Great Deceiver, and your unhappiness means EVERYTHING to him. Just keepin' it REAL.
Yes, Satan is in the business of bringing people together who are not right for each other. That's why people should make it their focus to let the Lord find the right person for them. Otherwise, you're on your own against the devil. And the REALITY is that you simply CAN'T beat an enemy of your soul who has been 'in the business' of destroying human hopes and lives for over six thousand years on this earth.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••