On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 11:01:27 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 1/3/2016 9:08 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 21:18:38 -0500, Alex wrote:

Keyser Söze wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 09:10:34 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 1/1/16 1:55 PM, John H. wrote:
...not run by Democrats?
--


Did you get a new dog whistle for Christmas, or are you trying for a
volunteer job in the Trump campaign?
You can't answer the question?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

I choose not to respond on point to your racist, dog whistle troll.



Yet you did respond, WAFA, and your omission says enough. You can't
debate it because John is right. Move on, Krause...

Appears he's 'seen the light'.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Who's seen the light? Which light? The heavenly light or Lucifer's
firelight? Or maybe some other light. Don't be obtuse like Krause. "-)

These:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NSIW1QNMj4

Remember?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On 1/3/2016 12:48 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 11:09:22 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 1/3/2016 9:46 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/3/16 9:10 AM, John H. wrote:

I looked again, but could find nothing approaching 'racism' in the
original question.
Does Democrat control of ghettos automatically spell racism in some
way? Perhaps some
of the other experts on 'racism' could chime in.
--


Blow that dog whistle, Herring.

Local democratic politicians presiding over every known large ghetto
area in America should not be construed to relate Democrats to racism.
It's just a coincidence.

Oh. I would think that fostering policies which keep the ghettos full *could* be
considered racism, especially if the ghetto occupants are black. I suppose Krause
considers use of the words ghetto and Democrat together is automatic 'racism'.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Probably Krause associates black and ghetto together. Whether that's
racist, I don't know.

On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 13:19:40 -0500, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 1/3/2016 12:48 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 11:09:22 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 1/3/2016 9:46 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/3/16 9:10 AM, John H. wrote:

I looked again, but could find nothing approaching 'racism' in the
original question.
Does Democrat control of ghettos automatically spell racism in some
way? Perhaps some
of the other experts on 'racism' could chime in.
--


Blow that dog whistle, Herring.

Local democratic politicians presiding over every known large ghetto
area in America should not be construed to relate Democrats to racism.
It's just a coincidence.

Oh. I would think that fostering policies which keep the ghettos full *could* be
considered racism, especially if the ghetto occupants are black. I suppose Krause
considers use of the words ghetto and Democrat together is automatic 'racism'.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Probably Krause associates black and ghetto together. Whether that's
racist, I don't know.

Ironic since "ghetto" is an Italian word derived from latin

On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 13:29:02 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 13:19:40 -0500, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 1/3/2016 12:48 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 11:09:22 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 1/3/2016 9:46 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/3/16 9:10 AM, John H. wrote:

I looked again, but could find nothing approaching 'racism' in the
original question.
Does Democrat control of ghettos automatically spell racism in some
way? Perhaps some
of the other experts on 'racism' could chime in.
--


Blow that dog whistle, Herring.

Local democratic politicians presiding over every known large ghetto
area in America should not be construed to relate Democrats to racism.
It's just a coincidence.

Oh. I would think that fostering policies which keep the ghettos full *could* be
considered racism, especially if the ghetto occupants are black. I suppose Krause
considers use of the words ghetto and Democrat together is automatic 'racism'.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Probably Krause associates black and ghetto together. Whether that's
racist, I don't know.

Ironic since "ghetto" is an Italian word derived from latin

===

Ghettos at varios times and various places have been associated with a
lot of different ethnicities. One common definition goes like this:

---
A section of a city, especially a thickly populated slum area,
inhabited predominantly by members of an ethnic or other minority
group, often as a result of social or economic restrictions,
pressures, or hardships.
---

The word seems to imply an economic distinction more than racial or
ethnic. Since Democrats like to fancy themselves as champions of the
downtrodden, it makes sense that they would identify with ghettos. Of
course since the vast majority of working americans do not identify
with ghettos it would seem to put democrats somewhere out in left
field politically so to speak.

On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 15:57:37 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 13:29:02 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 13:19:40 -0500, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 1/3/2016 12:48 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 11:09:22 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 1/3/2016 9:46 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/3/16 9:10 AM, John H. wrote:

I looked again, but could find nothing approaching 'racism' in the
original question.
Does Democrat control of ghettos automatically spell racism in some
way? Perhaps some
of the other experts on 'racism' could chime in.
--


Blow that dog whistle, Herring.

Local democratic politicians presiding over every known large ghetto
area in America should not be construed to relate Democrats to racism.
It's just a coincidence.

Oh. I would think that fostering policies which keep the ghettos full *could* be
considered racism, especially if the ghetto occupants are black. I suppose Krause
considers use of the words ghetto and Democrat together is automatic 'racism'.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Probably Krause associates black and ghetto together. Whether that's
racist, I don't know.

Ironic since "ghetto" is an Italian word derived from latin

===

Ghettos at varios times and various places have been associated with a
lot of different ethnicities. One common definition goes like this:

---
A section of a city, especially a thickly populated slum area,
inhabited predominantly by members of an ethnic or other minority
group, often as a result of social or economic restrictions,
pressures, or hardships.
---

The word seems to imply an economic distinction more than racial or
ethnic. Since Democrats like to fancy themselves as champions of the
downtrodden, it makes sense that they would identify with ghettos. Of
course since the vast majority of working americans do not identify
with ghettos it would seem to put democrats somewhere out in left
field politically so to speak.

Well, I'm guessing that the answer to my question is, "No".
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 16:16:00 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 15:57:37 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 13:29:02 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 13:19:40 -0500, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 1/3/2016 12:48 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 11:09:22 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 1/3/2016 9:46 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/3/16 9:10 AM, John H. wrote:

I looked again, but could find nothing approaching 'racism' in the
original question.
Does Democrat control of ghettos automatically spell racism in some
way? Perhaps some
of the other experts on 'racism' could chime in.
--


Blow that dog whistle, Herring.

Local democratic politicians presiding over every known large ghetto
area in America should not be construed to relate Democrats to racism.
It's just a coincidence.

Oh. I would think that fostering policies which keep the ghettos full *could* be
considered racism, especially if the ghetto occupants are black. I suppose Krause
considers use of the words ghetto and Democrat together is automatic 'racism'.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Probably Krause associates black and ghetto together. Whether that's
racist, I don't know.

Ironic since "ghetto" is an Italian word derived from latin

===

Ghettos at varios times and various places have been associated with a
lot of different ethnicities. One common definition goes like this:

---
A section of a city, especially a thickly populated slum area,
inhabited predominantly by members of an ethnic or other minority
group, often as a result of social or economic restrictions,
pressures, or hardships.
---

The word seems to imply an economic distinction more than racial or
ethnic. Since Democrats like to fancy themselves as champions of the
downtrodden, it makes sense that they would identify with ghettos. Of
course since the vast majority of working americans do not identify
with ghettos it would seem to put democrats somewhere out in left
field politically so to speak.

Well, I'm guessing that the answer to my question is, "No".

===

Harry's opinions are just that.

Which reminds me that opinions are like arse'ls, everybody has one.

On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 16:30:17 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 16:16:00 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 15:57:37 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 13:29:02 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 13:19:40 -0500, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 1/3/2016 12:48 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 11:09:22 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 1/3/2016 9:46 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/3/16 9:10 AM, John H. wrote:

I looked again, but could find nothing approaching 'racism' in the
original question.
Does Democrat control of ghettos automatically spell racism in some
way? Perhaps some
of the other experts on 'racism' could chime in.
--


Blow that dog whistle, Herring.

Local democratic politicians presiding over every known large ghetto
area in America should not be construed to relate Democrats to racism.
It's just a coincidence.

Oh. I would think that fostering policies which keep the ghettos full *could* be
considered racism, especially if the ghetto occupants are black. I suppose Krause
considers use of the words ghetto and Democrat together is automatic 'racism'.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Probably Krause associates black and ghetto together. Whether that's
racist, I don't know.

Ironic since "ghetto" is an Italian word derived from latin

===

Ghettos at varios times and various places have been associated with a
lot of different ethnicities. One common definition goes like this:

---
A section of a city, especially a thickly populated slum area,
inhabited predominantly by members of an ethnic or other minority
group, often as a result of social or economic restrictions,
pressures, or hardships.
---

The word seems to imply an economic distinction more than racial or
ethnic. Since Democrats like to fancy themselves as champions of the
downtrodden, it makes sense that they would identify with ghettos. Of
course since the vast majority of working americans do not identify
with ghettos it would seem to put democrats somewhere out in left
field politically so to speak.

Well, I'm guessing that the answer to my question is, "No".

===

Harry's opinions are just that.

Which reminds me that opinions are like arse'ls, everybody has one.

Harry never showed the balls to answer the question.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On 1/3/16 4:52 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 16:30:17 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 16:16:00 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 15:57:37 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 13:29:02 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 13:19:40 -0500, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 1/3/2016 12:48 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 11:09:22 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 1/3/2016 9:46 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/3/16 9:10 AM, John H. wrote:

I looked again, but could find nothing approaching 'racism' in the
original question.
Does Democrat control of ghettos automatically spell racism in some
way? Perhaps some
of the other experts on 'racism' could chime in.
--


Blow that dog whistle, Herring.

Local democratic politicians presiding over every known large ghetto
area in America should not be construed to relate Democrats to racism.
It's just a coincidence.

Oh. I would think that fostering policies which keep the ghettos full *could* be
considered racism, especially if the ghetto occupants are black. I suppose Krause
considers use of the words ghetto and Democrat together is automatic 'racism'.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Probably Krause associates black and ghetto together. Whether that's
racist, I don't know.

Ironic since "ghetto" is an Italian word derived from latin

===

Ghettos at varios times and various places have been associated with a
lot of different ethnicities. One common definition goes like this:

---
A section of a city, especially a thickly populated slum area,
inhabited predominantly by members of an ethnic or other minority
group, often as a result of social or economic restrictions,
pressures, or hardships.
---

The word seems to imply an economic distinction more than racial or
ethnic. Since Democrats like to fancy themselves as champions of the
downtrodden, it makes sense that they would identify with ghettos. Of
course since the vast majority of working americans do not identify
with ghettos it would seem to put democrats somewhere out in left
field politically so to speak.

Well, I'm guessing that the answer to my question is, "No".

===

Harry's opinions are just that.

Which reminds me that opinions are like arse'ls, everybody has one.

Harry never showed the balls to answer the question.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!


Once again, it has nothing to do with balls or anything other than my
refusal to play your stupid trolling games.

On 1/3/2016 4:52 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 16:30:17 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 16:16:00 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 15:57:37 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 13:29:02 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 13:19:40 -0500, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 1/3/2016 12:48 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 11:09:22 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 1/3/2016 9:46 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/3/16 9:10 AM, John H. wrote:

I looked again, but could find nothing approaching 'racism' in the
original question.
Does Democrat control of ghettos automatically spell racism in some
way? Perhaps some
of the other experts on 'racism' could chime in.
--


Blow that dog whistle, Herring.

Local democratic politicians presiding over every known large ghetto
area in America should not be construed to relate Democrats to racism.
It's just a coincidence.

Oh. I would think that fostering policies which keep the ghettos full *could* be
considered racism, especially if the ghetto occupants are black. I suppose Krause
considers use of the words ghetto and Democrat together is automatic 'racism'.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Probably Krause associates black and ghetto together. Whether that's
racist, I don't know.

Ironic since "ghetto" is an Italian word derived from latin

===

Ghettos at varios times and various places have been associated with a
lot of different ethnicities. One common definition goes like this:

---
A section of a city, especially a thickly populated slum area,
inhabited predominantly by members of an ethnic or other minority
group, often as a result of social or economic restrictions,
pressures, or hardships.
---

The word seems to imply an economic distinction more than racial or
ethnic. Since Democrats like to fancy themselves as champions of the
downtrodden, it makes sense that they would identify with ghettos. Of
course since the vast majority of working americans do not identify
with ghettos it would seem to put democrats somewhere out in left
field politically so to speak.

Well, I'm guessing that the answer to my question is, "No".

===

Harry's opinions are just that.

Which reminds me that opinions are like arse'ls, everybody has one.

Harry never showed the balls to answer the question.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

He can't show what he doesn't have.

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/3/16 4:52 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 16:30:17 -0500,
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 16:16:00 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 15:57:37 -0500,
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 13:29:02 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 13:19:40 -0500, Justan Olphart

wrote:

On 1/3/2016 12:48 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 11:09:22 -0500, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 1/3/2016 9:46 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/3/16 9:10 AM, John H. wrote:

I looked again, but could find nothing approaching 'racism'
in the
original question.
Does Democrat control of ghettos automatically spell racism
in some
way? Perhaps some
of the other experts on 'racism' could chime in.
--


Blow that dog whistle, Herring.

Local democratic politicians presiding over every known large
ghetto
area in America should not be construed to relate Democrats to
racism.
It's just a coincidence.

Oh. I would think that fostering policies which keep the
ghettos full *could* be
considered racism, especially if the ghetto occupants are
black. I suppose Krause
considers use of the words ghetto and Democrat together is
automatic 'racism'.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Probably Krause associates black and ghetto together. Whether
that's
racist, I don't know.

Ironic since "ghetto" is an Italian word derived from latin

===

Ghettos at varios times and various places have been associated
with a
lot of different ethnicities. One common definition goes like this:

---
A section of a city, especially a thickly populated slum area,
inhabited predominantly by members of an ethnic or other minority
group, often as a result of social or economic restrictions,
pressures, or hardships.
---

The word seems to imply an economic distinction more than racial or
ethnic. Since Democrats like to fancy themselves as champions of the
downtrodden, it makes sense that they would identify with
ghettos. Of
course since the vast majority of working americans do not identify
with ghettos it would seem to put democrats somewhere out in left
field politically so to speak.

Well, I'm guessing that the answer to my question is, "No".

===

Harry's opinions are just that.

Which reminds me that opinions are like arse'ls, everybody has one.

Harry never showed the balls to answer the question.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!


Once again, it has nothing to do with balls or anything other than my
refusal to play your stupid trolling games.


....says the troll king and master of debt avoidance.