XPost: alt.atheism, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.republican   
   XPost: alt.politics.democrats.d, alt.politics.trump, alt.religio   
   .christian.roman-catholic   
   XPost: alt.politics, alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: NOT-SURE@ideocracy.gov   
      
   On 3/15/21 12:07 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:   
   > On 2/4/2019 12:07 PM, David Hartung wrote:   
   >> On 2/4/19 1:28 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:   
   >>> On 2/4/2019 11:16 AM, David Hartung wrote:   
   >>>> On 2/4/19 12:50 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2/4/2019 9:56 AM, David Hartung wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 2/4/19 9:36 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:   
   >>>>>>> Have you READ the original Mary Poppins by P. L. Travers books?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> "Mary Poppins"   
   >>>>>>> "Mary Poppins Comes Back"   
   >>>>>>> "Mary Poppins Opens the Door"   
   >>>>>>> "Mary Poppins in the Park"   
   >>>>>>> "Mary Poppins in Cherry Tree Lane"   
   >>>>>>> "Mary Poppins and the House Next Door"   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I did when I was in my early teens. (I also read all 82 of Erle   
   >>>>>>> Stanley Gardner's Perry Mason novels around the same time, but   
   >>>>>>> that is another topic.)   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> The first was written in 1934.  Do you think racism did NOT exist   
   >>>>>>> then?!   
   >>>>>>   
      
   Did democrats exist? If they did the racism did.   
      
      
   >>>>>> Racism exists now, and I have no doubt that Tavers' books   
   >>>>>> expressed the views of their day, but to claim that the rooftop   
   >>>>>> scene in the original movie was intended to be racist is absurd.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The issue, of course, is not whether or not it was "intended" to be   
   >>>>> racist.  It *is* racist, in that casual way that most racists are   
   >>>>> racist.  It doesn't have to be Bull Connor or George Wallace or   
   >>>>> Lester Maddox or James Eastland or John Stennis (all vile racists,   
   >>>>> all heroes of yours).   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I'm reminded of a dialogue from Huckleberry Finn.  Huck is talking   
   >>>>> with Tom Sawyer's Aunt Sally, who has mistaken Huck for Tom.  Huck   
   >>>>> is on the spot to explain why he ("Tom") is late arriving, and he   
   >>>>> lies and says the steamboat had a serious engine failure:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>     Huck:        "We blowed out a cylinder-head."   
   >>>>>     Aunt Sally:  "Good gracious!  Anybody hurt?"   
   >>>>>     Huck:        "No'm.  Killed a nigger."   
   >>>>>     Aunt Sally:  "Well, it’s lucky; because sometimes people do get   
   >>>>> hurt."   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Which chapter?   
   >>>   
   >>> Fuck off.  Read the book, or do a search for one of the lines of   
   >>> dialogue.   
   >>   
   >> I have read the book, and may actually have a copy at home. My   
   >> question is reasonable, your answer is not.   
   >   
   > No, shitbag, your question is not reasonable — it is 100% unreasonable   
   > sealioning.  You could EASILY find the chapter yourself if you had any   
   > legitimate interest in knowing it by doing a search on any one of the   
   > four quoted lines of dialog.  But you don't have any legitimate interest   
   > in knowing "which chapter."  None of your questions like "which   
   > chapter?" are ever legitimate.  They are nothing but sealioning and   
   > trolling.   
   >   
   > Fuck off and die.   
      
      
   What is illegal about racist entertainment? And like pornography, what   
   is the definition of racist? The Supreme Court said Pornography was NOT   
   definable but they would know it when they see it.  ;)   
      
   It seems like there is no definition for racist, it is what ever the   
   person hearing says it is.   
      
   And how would you ever know that Blacks were thought of by Democrat   
   Confederates as less than a person if we nixed all the language that   
   suggests it,  and how do you know that the author wasn't doing it on   
   purpose to point out the lack of humanity in Democrat Confederates?   
      
   To begin with it isn't "real racism" it's fictional racism.   
      
   Is it FICTION that Democrats want to erase or their own real HISTORY.   
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
   --   
   That's karma   
      
   Banning guns and de-funding police won't lower crime if you follow the   
   Democrats Rhetoric. *And their very own Democrat actions confirm* that   
   even *they believe they're lying* since they're doing the opposite *to*   
   *reduce any crimes "you" might commit against the Government* that they   
   control and apparently they *believe guns and fences and police* *will*   
   *protect* them from your crime and violence. So why won't those same   
   things protect you from crime and violence?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)