Starbucks and White Guilt
 

So this man walks into a Starbucks store while live streaming on Periscope. He claims he's there to claim the "Starbucks reparations voucher" for free coffee due to "Starbucks is racist."

AND THE GIRL GIVES HIM FREE COFFEE!

:toofunny

Watch:

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1gqGvpYQodgxB

From looking over his twitter feed, he did this to show white guilt and that racism in America is "a cash cow." He says "Black privilege gets me free coffee. I love racism. Only in America."

It's interesting see the reaction to this. Some are angry with him, threatening violence for "race baiting," but most see what he's doing, including this tweet which sums it up well:

"@VibeHi Starbucks prank was poking fun at the left and yet many right leaning outlets are missing the point. He's showing you fools the wizard behind the curtain and exposing the truth behind the white guilt movement. I give up."

"You bout the only person I know who can get white liberals and #MAGA people to come together, to hate the same thing."

Oh, and Starbucks is closing for a few hours next month for diversity training. They should hire Michael Scott to do the training. HA!

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

Well, looks like I'm going to get my FREE triple venti white mocha!!! :happydance

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

But you know what is really sad, is that the girl Amanda who served Jesus Hotep? Is the future of this country, and the recipient of the Carlton Pearson "all rapists go to heaven" doctrine. White guilt, more like stupid snowflake teens of the United States of Amnesia.

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

God bless 'Murica!

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

"Racism in America is a cash cow...":blah:blah:blah

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

People go to Starbucks all the time for meetings and what not. These guys were singled out. The question is why. The lady who called the police on these guys set all of this in motion and there is no doubt in my mind that their race is what drew her attention to them. I am glad it happened though. It helps to highlight the unconscious racial bias that the minorities in America still face. Not everyone who cries race is being truthful, but this is an open and shut case.

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bez8...nel=ThinkSquad

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

:thumbsup

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

I had married into a family wherein half the members were Reformed Jews. Ruth, my grandmother-in-law bore the tattoo of having been in a concentration camp. The family knew of many people lost in the Holocaust and can explain the toll (emotional and economic) that it took on their family overall. Being present with them as they remembered the Holocaust was an eye opener for me in how pain and loss can be inherited by generations after the fact.

The Atlantic slave trade was an inhumane machine of death and subjugation. An estimated 2 million to 5 million human beings died as a result of this market. The history, wealth, and identity of those peoples subjected to this trade were systematically destroyed in the process. An estimated 10.7 million were taken from their homelands to South America and the Caribbean, as well as North America between 1500 and 1866. Of that, about 390,000 made it to North American soil. This was about 3 percent of the total.

Historian Herbert Klein of Columbia and Stanford universities, has explained that the data suggest that about 85,000 people destined for North America did not survive the trip across the Atlantic. According to Klein, the death toll by the slave trade in all of North and South America was estimated at the very least as being 1.8 million.

While these studies consider deaths due to the capture and transport of slaves, they say nothing about the people who died in bondage from brutality, disease and deprivation. Another issue with these numbers is that they do not take into account the illegal shipments of slaves after 1808.

I look at the issue of slavery as an African Holocaust. I don't see this as "white guilt". I just look at it like facing the reality regarding a bloody and inhuman practice engaged in by my nation. Balance is definitely needed on the issue. If someone can prove that they are descendants of slaves, I can see some form of reparations made. But there should be solid evidence that they are indeed descendants of slaves. What reparations would be adequate? I'm not certain. I certainly don't think giving free coffee treats the issue as seriously as it is. And the man's point is well taken. Merely being black shouldn't be a cash cow. Numerous people of African ancestry have come to the United States and have never had ancestors involved in the slave trade. I find it a bit peculiar that every person of color assumes that they are a descendant of slaves. When considering actual reparations to those who can prove slave ancestor status, perhaps we could focus on tax exemptions and educational opportunities. This shouldn't be about color, it should be about actual historicity of atrocity. I am willing to wager that a number of black Americans will find that they do not have ancestors who were slaves. But certainly those who do should be given some form of restitution.

At least, that's my current opinion.

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

Should be your signature line.

:lol

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

That's great. :thumbsup

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

Watch the whole thing, this man speaks the truth:

Two Black Men Arrested for Acting Entitled At Sta…: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoUv-qSi9yk

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

Here's the original arrest video. Notice, the black police supervisor on scene about 3/4 of the way through...

Full Video Of Men Arrested In Starbucks For Being…: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fBOQCfx6xc

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

How do you know they were singled out? It's Philly, they are used to blacks coming in all the time.

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

Committed by Africans on other Africans? :dunno

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/...-that-word.jpg

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

White Guilt isn't a new drink?

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

No, but I've been enjoying ice cold Liberal Tears for a couple years now.

:heeheehee

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

Notice how he did not answer. People like him have allot vested in their feelings of superiority for owning up to their "privilege". Thus, they resent anyone like you presenting any facts that might cast doubt on the validity of the good feeling they get from being self-loathing.

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

That's funny. :heeheehee

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

Interesting, what are they currently?

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

This poster posts things just to get a reaction.

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

Multifaceted post. He didn't say they weren't, necessarily. He could have meant at that time they were (or not).

:lol

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

I didn't mean to say that they "were Reformed Jews" as in they are now another religion. I meant to indicate that I'm no longer a part of that family. They still are Reformed Jews.

They were good people. Wait, I'm sure that they still are. Sorry, I know this can be confusing. lol

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

Bro, things become confusing when you aren't clear. Your sentence stated that they "were" Reformed Jews. Which would indicate they were no longer Reformed Jews. Do you understand then why I asked my question?

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

Yes, I can. And I appreciate you asking to clarify and not insisting that they are no longer Jewish and arguing with me for five days over it. lol

They were good people. Oh, wait. Still are. lol You know what I mean! :p

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

Arguing with you for five days? If we go pages and pages with you it is because you aren't clear, you say something along the lines like this, "I never said that they weren't actually religious Jews, but reformed in a multifaceted way, which is my current understanding of Jews, and the definitions of the word Reformed as it correlates to any religious society."

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

"to me, Reformed, Orthodox, Reconstructionist, Conservative, Hasidic, ABCs & 123s, it makes no difference."

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

bump

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

There might be times when I'm not clear. However, there is no need to become mean spirited, insulting, degrading, or condemnatory over it.

Imagine if someone prejudged you, assuming the worst regarding your every motivation, statement, or action you took. You could say something as simple as, "I love you.", and they would turn the statement into something it was never meant to mean. I feel that you do this to me and others quite a bit. While we all may not agree on every point, we should assume the best about our brethren.

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

But do you understand what I meant by the statement you're parodying?

I meant that to me, those are all human institutions full of both good and bad people. If I mention that someone doing wrong is UPCI, I think it is silly if someone assumes that I think that everyone in the UPCI is bad. From my perspective, I see people rush to defend these human organizations almost as though they are sacrosanct. To me, it boarders on idolatry. I think these human organizations are just franchises of like minded individuals that will come and go. I don't see them as eternal. Nor do I see them as anything that will even be noted with any significance in eternity. If I point out that someone is UPCI, ALJC, PAW, or whatever... I'm only trying to point out that they are not on the fringe of what we might identify as being "Apostolic". Of course, context might be to warn of behaviors among us Apostolics that are becoming too common. Or, it might be to point out that good men are still solidly Apostolic.

I felt like when I mentioned that the "porno pastor" (as EB called him) was UPCI, y'all kinda lost your minds assuming that I was slamming the UPCI. What I expected, or would have liked to see, was some who are UPCI or who associate themselves with the UPCI in some way, actually agree that the man's statements were over the top and maybe examine more closely with me if political hero worship is indeed causing a growing trend in lowering standards of conduct.

And as I've said, "multifaceted".... everything I've said so far is one facet of the topic as I see it. The other is... my statement was just a response to Amanah. I didn't expect it to go much further at all. I believe one poster called it a "throw away comment". And frankly, I expected it to be, unless Amanah wanted to discuss it. But I was raked over the coals for 20 pages! LOL

Oh well.

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

I currently attend a UPCI church, actually a small but growing daughter work.

My pastor is a very gifted young minister with a heart to follow after God, and I am very excited about what God is doing in Sebastian Florida. I love my current pastor and church family.

There are also ministers on this forum that are not affiliated with any organization who I also love and think of as part of my church.

I think it is heart breaking when a brother or sister falls away, falls into sin, placing their eternity in jeopardy. I would hesitate to glory in it for the sake of argument.

I also think a person who would condemn an organization to hell because they insist on everyone wearing long sleeves, or insist on women wearing scarves, or whatever, has no love for the body of Christ or edifying the body in love.

Galatians 6:1-10 1Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. 2Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. 3For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. 4But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. 5For every man shall bear his own burden. 6Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. 7Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 8For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. 9And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. 10As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

The majority of good men of God that I have known are UPCI.

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

We still don't know this guy was UPCI. I'm not going to do what you did, call him vulgar and bash him when I really don't know if he's who you say he is.

You want us to just take your word and condemn the guy without any proof he is who you claim he is. Sorry, I've done that and found out the guy making the claim 1) didn't tell the whole story and 2) exaggerated the story. So no, I'm not going to do what you want me to do. And especially not since you reneged on your pledge and admitted you don't know personally that this man is UPCI.


Cry me a river. When you blast someone and claim they were a seasoned minister in an organization for 30+ years, expect questions and don't whine when doubts arise because you're playing coy, reneging on pledges and not responding for days.

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

Whoa there tiger... you're getting all heated and spastic again.

I was told that he was UPCI. But whatever organization he has been affiliated with is irrelevant to the point.

I only copied you on what "HE" claimed about himself. Frankly, I don't even know if he's tell us the truth or not about himself. My point was made assuming that he was telling the truth. I mean, I'm not going to call the guy a liar.

I can understand your concerns. I'm not asking anyone to "condemn the guy". That's why I omitted his name. I was only asking that we consider how this man was currently defending his political hero by lowering his own standards of decency, that we might all look inwardly and contemplate how we allow our political hero worship to effect our own standards of decency. Again, the context was what I see to be the danger in allowing our politics and our religion to become too intertwined. And, all of this was in response to Amanah's accusation that I want to destroy the conservative church by quoting some statements I had made about protesting politics in the pulpit.

Now, like I said, I understand your concerns. But, you did something equally as bad. You accused me of lying about the man when I only shared with Amanah the truth about something this man said in our short conversation that is relevant to the subject.

You had no problem with condemning me, blasting me, personally attack me, in short, being quite vile towards me. I've been in conversations like this with well balanced people with similar concerns of not wanting to unjustly seem to condemn another. And what they have said was something similar to this:

"If what you've shared is true, I think your right, the man certainly let his politics lower his standards here. Perhaps we all should be aware of this in our own lives in relation to our politics and religion"

Notice, the response remained related to the subject. Notice also, the response didn't "condemn" the man personally, but reflected on what he said. By saying, "If what you shared is true," the response leaves the door open to the possibility that there might be more to the story or that the story could have been exaggerated. And the response never called anyone a liar, neither the man who said these things, nor myself.

There is something in you that wants to be nasty to me. It wants to get vile, accusatory, and downright mean. But none of that is my problem. That is something within you that you're going to have to come to grips with.

I apologize. I did renege on my statement that I'd give you the man's name. I fully intended to in the heat of the moment. However, I began to think about it. I don't want to be accused of slandering the man, because "HE" wasn't the subject. What he said was only an "example" of the issue I was addressing. Now, I didn't just do nothing, however. I sent the name of the individual's wall the conversation was on, and the name of the man in question to an individual, whose ethics and judgment I trust, who was a part of our discussion. If he wishes to disclose the man's identity publically, it's entirely up to him. In this way, I did take a step towards fulfilling your request, while also ensuring that I can't be accused of slandering the man. If you guys want to put this man on blast publically, it won't be me who participates in that action.

I didn't claim he was a "seasoned minister", he did. I only relayed what he said to me.

I apologize that I had periods wherein I was taken away from our conversation.

It's not that I don't expect questions. I do expect those questions to be on the topic though.

It's like me saying,

"I like Cheeto's. They're so cheesy. And I like the sticky mess they leave on my fingers. You know, the snack with Chester Cheetah as a logo?"

And then... from that point forward all you do grill me on Chester Cheetah for 20 pages. lol You never addressed the point I made about "Cheetos". In fact, your grilling over Chester Cheetah deflected all focus from the point I was making.

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

What are you talking about? I am perfectly calm. Why do you always do this? Whenever I post a disagreement, you claim I'm some wild, frothing at the mouth, maniac.

Spastic? No, I don't have cerebral palsy. Do you understand the words you post?

If it's not relevant, why mention it at all? You made it part of the story when you wrote it. If it's not relevant, don't use it. Especially when you don't know personally that it's true.

Yes, you were. You called the guy "vulgar" and said he used "vulgar" words. You were upset, and still are, that I didn't jump to bash the "vulgar" man.

Absolutely, I did. And with good reason. You pledged to send me a name via PM because at first I doubted it was true. I didn't flat out call you a liar right away. It was only after you went dark for a couple days, resurfaced and made a few posts while ignoring the post I bumped asking for the name. You also ignored EB and Chosen's posts about sending me a PM.

I even sent you a PM which you ignored and never responded to. After that, yes, I did. Your actions were that of someone not being honest.

Let's be clear, had you responded and not ignored multiple posts and PMs, I wouldn't have put you on blast. I almost wonder if you ignored it on purpose, waiting for me to call you out and then play the poor victim as you are now.

You're good. And predictable. You're always the right one. The hero and the victim. Others are the villains. You're multifaceted, deep and incredibly brilliant. Others of us are too dumb to truly understand and appreciate your google-sourced wisdom.

Yet you made him the subject by calling him "vulgar" and saying he used "vulgar" words.

Don't cry or get upset, but I don't believe you. Even if you did, you did so because you know the person you sent it to will not try to contact the person you blasted here and check the story. You knew I would find the person and contact him. You knew it wouldn't look good on you to be blasting someone behind their back on AFF. That's the real reason you didn't send me the name.

Seriously? By claiming you sent the name to someone else, you believe you made good on your pledge to send me the name? That's not how that works.

You already blasted the man and called him "vulgar." Don't try to pretend you're innocent. You brought him into the discussion, no one else.

As I post this, my Gear watch tells me my heart rate is at a steady 68 bpm. I'm certainly not heated nor "spastic," as you wish to portray me. Were we having a conversation face to face, you could see for yourself that while I am being blunt, I'm very calm. I rarely raise my voice at anyone. I find it most effective speaking in a clear, concise and even voice.

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

I'm curious, why did you ignore my PM?

Before I made the multiple posts putting you on blast, I sent you a PM "in case you're missing my post."

I know whenever I receive a PM, I get a pop-up once the page is either refreshed or I click to a different page. You were posting at the time, so I don't see why you wouldn't get it.

You were given ample opportunity to respond to my, EB and Chosen's posts and my PM and for some reason you refused to do so. It's almost as though you meant to ignore it, wait for more accusations and then play the victim as you did above.

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

Because you sound manic. All you're missing are all caps. lol

Listen to yourself. You're trying to command me what to post and not to post because you can't stop yourself from attacking. lol That's manic. Look, why not allow people to post as they wish to post, and you determine what is relevant or not. Or, maybe stop and ask conversationally?

I thought what the man said was vulgar. I don't know him personally. He might have just had a bad day, been moody, low blood sugar, or something. My point was not him. My point was how even good people can lower their standards as part of political hero worship. That is the "Cheetos" that I'm talking about that you keep refusing to see.

Love is patient. And, why call anyone a liar if you have no absolute proof that they have lied? Why not just take their word for it, discuss the point made as it was presented, and if they're lying, let it rest on them? For example, I don't know the guy. He might have been lying about his 30+ years of Christian service and ministry. I took him at his word, and examined what he was saying in light of what he claimed about his experience. I would have taken no joy in calling him a lair or trying to "force" him to prove to me he had worn those hats in the church.

But that is how you're approaching me. lol

That's funny. Because I have been honest to you this entire time. I don't want to slander a man. And why would I want you to contact him and give him the impression that I'm out here bashing him when he would have remained anonymous if not for YOUR desire to identify him and drag him into being the focus??? Chester Cheetah isn't the point. The point is Cheetos are cheesy. lol

I ignored you because I was contemplating what to do. Since my original point was that he remain anonymous and we just examine his statements in light of my concern about how political hero worship can effect us, I felt I should remain true to my original intent. You want to make this about him. I do not. I want to only use something he said to illustrate a point that political hero worship can cause us to compromise our own decency. And that is why in the posts that Amanah posted of mine, I advocating protesting politics in the pulpit. You want to make this about him. Beat the drum, beat the drum, demand his name, and then go and trouble him and lead him to believe someone is slandering him personally. No, that would be unloving of me to allow you to do that. Because you'd drag everyone and their cousin into this to try to do only one thing... distract from and discredit my point. Political hero worship is bad for the church.

Yes, yes. I'm quite the mastermind. lol

Actually, that's not true. I can't chew gum and walk at the same time. lol

While yes, I was silent as I contemplated what to do. But you, of your own will and accord, chose to "put me on blast" (as you worded it). And still, it was entirely unnecessary. You wanted to lash out. You wanted to sink your teeth into me. You wanted to scream "Liar!" so loud the universe would echo with your indignation. lol But I've not lied to you. And though you've twisted the entire point of what I posted to be something a million miles from my original point, I'm still trying to be kind to you.

I'm in no way a victim. The way I see it, you are. You've fallen victim to whatever it is in you that wants to destroy, discredit, distract from, and revile everything I post. And that isn't my problem. That is your problem. That issue resides in you. That is something that you'll have to resolve with yourself. And you might not like it... because it might challenge you to try to slow down and cease this "attack mode" mindset when you respond to my posts. Until then, I'm just enjoying the forum waiting for you to drop your sword.


Wait. I thought I was the mastermind who went silent to trick you into lashing out? Now I'm predictable. lol

Why not just stop trying to "You're this..." and "You're that..." me? I mean, what does it do for you anyway? Do you feel better when you say, "You're this..." or "You're that..."? And if it does, why? Do you feel threatened or belittled by what I have to say? Are some of the things I'm writing causing you to experience a cognitive dissonance with regards to some things that you previously felt absolutely certain of? Why must I be this or that? Why not just openly chat about our thoughts and perspectives without you or me being anything derogatory? Wouldn't that be nice?

Until we can get to the place where we can disagree and just chit chat... you're a big fat doody head.

There, now we've both wallowed in the mire a bit. LOL

Let's think about this for a moment....

Why would I (or anyone else for that matter) post something if I didn't think I was right? I've yet to read anyone post anything that starts out by saying, "Hey, I'm dead wrong, and here's what I think, and why I'm dead wrong!" LOL

And why wouldn't I be the "hero" in my perspective, seeing that I know my intentions and why I've posted what I've posted? I don't feel like a victim. But analytically speaking, you guys do drag things out like Sean Hannity clones trying to "Gotcha!" burn me on some talk radio show. lol In fact, you'll spend 20 pages or more trying to do so. So much so, other posters have often commented that it's not right and that you've abandoned the topic and made the thread an inquisition. And I'm over here like, not really understanding why you're doing it. On the outside, it's almost like something takes a few of you guys over. And I'll admit, some of the tirades have been deeply personal (not so much by you though). But I'm not going to let it get to me. What I will let it do is solidify my conviction that all is not well in the institutional church. Because I've not seen such demonstrations of hatred, reviling, and even railing against another believer anywhere else on the internet. In fact, on most forums, some of the things unloaded that are so personal and off topic would have gotten the person banned from said forum. Only here do they allow such a thing without any open warning or rebuke. I take it that the admins trust that we're big boys and can work out our differences. And I believe their right. It's just going to take more time than I would have imagined. But pain produces pain. Hurt produces hurt. Hurting people... hurt people. So, when I read a tirade that personally eviscerates me... I try to remember to pray for the poster. And when I don't, I look at my own scathing responses and I'm reminded to... pray for myself.

TO BE CONTINUED...

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

CONTINUED...

You're a good man N David. I don't see you as a villain. In fact, if I did, I could choose to put you on ignore. If I thought that any of you were really that bad, I'd have left this forum a long time ago. I do think there are times when you act in a manner that is below your calling. I'm not throwing stones here, because I have too. I'm just trying to say that I don't see you as a villain. Nor do I think that you're too dumb to understand or appreciate anything I have to say. In fact, I wish my ability to communicate was better because I would like to believe you'd not misunderstand me so often.

I made him anonymous because he's not the subject. The vulgarity of his words were only an example of what I was trying to say regarding political hero worship.

Sometimes we don't see things that are all around us, especially if we're not directly effected. If you'd like, I have a friendly challenge. Go to an Apostolic discussion forum out there, just pick one, and create an ID and pretend to be a democrat. Pretend to be more moderate on some things. And experience the hate filled private messages, the venomous defamations of your character, the cold mockings of your reasoning regarding liberty for all men and women, and perhaps even their right to health care. Count the names that you're called. Read as they tear into criticize your every motive.

Maybe you'll walk away understanding what it is like to not be so... "conservative" in a movement that has made "political conservatism" a litmus test for belonging.

So, you'll call me a liar again? I assure you that again, I'm not lying. I did indeed send all that information to a third party in our conversation whom I trust has ethical principles to judge. And should he decide to look into it, I trust he'll be fair and balanced in his assessment. In addition, I trust that he'll not needlessly drag the poor man into a discussion that isn't about him personally.

One thing that complicated the matter is that the post was on a different man's wall. So, I'd have to openly state whose wall it was on, and who the poster was. I know you'd feverishly track the man down and drag everyone and their cousin into this to try to make me look bad. And you'd get everyone so worked up they'd fail to see that in the end it was actually YOU that wanted to have them personally named and displayed publically for all to see... not me. They'd fail to see that I originally did my best to make the man anonymous. Are you seeing it yet? I'm the one seeking NOT to slander a person. I was only offering an anonymous quote to illustrate a point. You guys seem to want blood. That's a bit manic. That's rather over the top. And I'd ask why anyone would want to go through all that trouble... over just a post wherein I shared an opinion?

There's something else at work here. Certainly one man's opinion can't be worth so much trouble. I've never read an opinion expressed by any of you that would make me go through so much trouble to refute you. For example, EB once mentioned some things that transpired in a counselor's office. I didn't berate him over his point. I didn't demand he reveal who the counselor was. Nor did I demand to even know the name of the practice. Nor did I demand to know the very issue that might have brought him there. He shared an encounter that to him exemplifies how silly psychology can be. And that's cool. He has a right to that opinion. He has a right to those facts. I see my role as only responding to his point, given the information he has posted. I'd be a bit manic if I wanted to go on an inquisitional fishing expedition to prove the counselor didn't exist. lol If someone lies about something like that, guess what... they own it. It would catch up to them in the judgement. I'm just going to respond with my thoughts on what is shared. Nothing more, nothing less.

So, above you think I'm lying. But even if I'm telling the truth... accusation, accusation, accusation.

Please tell me you are seeing this in your words bro. This is manic. It's not normal.

I actually don't know what he'd choose to do with the information. He'd not someone who I agree with 100% of the time. However, whatever he'd choose to do, I trust his judgment. And I also trust that he'd approach it ethically and even handedly. And if he wishes to disclose the information I gave him, that's his choice. My goal is not to be included in openly disclosing anything about the man personally. Because what I posted to you is indeed what the man said.

Re-read your statement above.

That's why I felt that it wouldn't be wise to send it to you. Because you'd say that I was blasting someone behind their back on AFF. You seem to forget that I have striven to keep him anonymous and only to consider the implications of what was said. By striving to keep the man anonymous, I demonstrated that the last thing I wanted to do is slander a person or blast them behind their back. I only wanted to show the words that someone caught up in political hero worship used to illustrate how we can all too easily compromise ourselves in our political hero worship. And that is true of both the left and the right.

No. I said that I only took a "step" in fulfilling your request. I might not be the step you desired. But I reconsidered my statement about sending it to you personally. I don't believe it would be wise. You're too emotionally caught up in the need to refute me that you'd drag us all into WWIII to do it. lol

A brought the anonymous words of a man into this discussion to illustrate my point about political hero worship. It is YOU who doesn't want him to remain anonymous. And my concern is that you'd cause pain and leave a man feeling slandered. No one knows who said that. If you let it go, and refocus on my point, no one will have any pain or feel slandered. Why do you guys want to see pain?

If that's true, why aren't you being more rational?

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

Posting portions from PM's is a no-no. The "P" stands for "Private" after all.

Re: Starbucks and White Guilt
 

Sorry, I missed this.

It wasn't just white people. It wasn't just America. There was an international system of human salve trade that was fueled by many nations and peoples... even Africans.

With colonial slavery we have an oppressive international slave economy that existed for nearly 400 years. For 400 years human beings were put to hard labor, often deprived of food & water, raped, denied basic human rights, and even butchered like cattle.

It was a crime against humanity.