Niggers shouldn't be allowed to name ANYTHING !! Not even a dog

[boot lip]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/28...rip-to-disney/

[Unregistered]

A dog would be at the top of the list niggers shouldn't name or have.

Dogs, and most animals, are worth a lot.

Niggers, on the other hand, are totally worthless.

[Unregistered]

Indeed, the bond between human and canine is legendary ... going back millenia, in fact, to a time when ice-aged cave paintings suggest that early man and the wolf would often cooperate in entrapping the same herds of wild game. Naturally, they did not speak the same 'language' but, rather, relied on intuition - human hunters and packs of wolves being well-enough aware of the angle from which the other was corralling the herd. Through such spontaneous, intuitive cooperation, both would benefit - ice-aged paintings in French caves depicting scenes of the aftermaths of hunts in which men and wolves ate from adjacent carcasses. Modern dogs, the product of selective breeding, are thought to have descended from wolves who became tame - habituated to man, over time, by life in or around human settlements. The human and canine interest in socially bonding with another carnivore (remember that during the ice age, man 'was' essentially a carnivore) is unique among species - other animals, such as the Nigger, showing no interest (or, at least, capacity) in spite of there being an abundance of relatively intelligent, social carnivores roaming the planes of Apefrika. The bond between human and canine was especially critical given that, during the ice-age, man was far from top predator. A couple of men armed with flimsy bone-spears would hardly deter the three-meter saber-toothed tiger, although a pack of domesticated wolves could present it with a real problem - wolves having the agility to attack its flank and, at the very least, the alertness to deprive it of the advantages of surprise. Why has there been no such evidence of mutual cooperation between the ancient Nigger and wild Apefrikan predators? There are, I believe, two most probable causes: (i) that the Nigger, being somewhat crude and Neanderthal-like in its crafting of tools and manipulation of matter, simply lacked the ability to 'create' lasting documentation of its history from such ancient times, and/or (ii) that the most likely Apefrikan predators with which it could bond (Lions, Hyenas, Apefrikan Wild Dogs, etc.) saw no advantage in cooperating with the Nigger. Isn't it curious, then, that even wild cats and dogs, living in a no-nonsense world of day-to-day struggles for survival, are fully able to recognize the liabilities inherent in any association with the parasitic Nigger species? Were they able to speak in our languages, I believe that the Lion or Hyena, correctly dismissing the Nigger as a wild-ape and occasional menu item, could teach the "humanitarians" and sheltered Nigger-lovers of today a thing or two about the 'true' nature of the Nigger.

[Jigadont]

Indeed, the bond between human and canine is legendary ... going back millenia, in fact, to a time when ice-aged cave paintings suggest that early man and the wolf would often cooperate in entrapping the same herds of wild game. Naturally, they did not speak the same 'language' but, rather, relied on intuition - human hunters and packs of wolves being well-enough aware of the angle from which the other was corralling the herd. Through such spontaneous, intuitive cooperation, both would benefit - ice-aged paintings in French caves depicting scenes of the aftermaths of hunts in which men and wolves ate from adjacent carcasses. Modern dogs, the product of selective breeding, are thought to have descended from wolves who became tame - habituated to man, over time, by life in or around human settlements. The human and canine interest in socially bonding with another carnivore (remember that during the ice age, man 'was' essentially a carnivore) is unique among species - other animals, such as the Nigger, showing no interest (or, at least, capacity) in spite of there being an abundance of relatively intelligent, social carnivores roaming the planes of Apefrika. The bond between human and canine was especially critical given that, during the ice-age, man was far from top predator. A couple of men armed with flimsy bone-spears would hardly deter the three-meter saber-toothed tiger, although a pack of domesticated wolves could present it with a real problem - wolves having the agility to attack its flank and, at the very least, the alertness to deprive it of the advantages of surprise. Why has there been no such evidence of mutual cooperation between the ancient Nigger and wild Apefrikan predators? There are, I believe, two most probable causes: (i) that the Nigger, being somewhat crude and Neanderthal-like in its crafting of tools and manipulation of matter, simply lacked the ability to 'create' lasting documentation of its history from such ancient times, and/or (ii) that the most likely Apefrikan predators with which it could bond (Lions, Hyenas, Apefrikan Wild Dogs, etc.) saw no advantage in cooperating with the Nigger. Isn't it curious, then, that even wild cats and dogs, living in a no-nonsense world of day-to-day struggles for survival, are fully able to recognize the liabilities inherent in any association with the parasitic Nigger species? Were they able to speak in our languages, I believe that the Lion or Hyena, correctly dismissing the Nigger as a wild-ape and occasional menu item, could teach the "humanitarians" and sheltered Nigger-lovers of today a thing or two about the 'true' nature of the Nigger.

BRILLIANT and very true! I've been saying it over and over, niggers are not human, niggers are not animals. Niggers are niggers. Not one creature in the animal kingdom behaves like the savage, feral niggers.