dat one uppity niggra

[Dogger]

Dude! You REALLY think you are God's gift to man kind. Get the fuck over yourself. Even people who agreed with you in the past are now thinking twice and hating your sorry ass.

Perhaps you should re-read my post, and reflect upon that which you missed.

 

[dread]

Perhaps you should re-read my post, and reflect upon that which you missed.

I didn't miss shit.

Every damn turn of the screw you CANT WAIT to tell someone you are smarter than them. So go fuck yourself.
You know I USED to think "yeah I might not like his arguments but damn if he DOESN"T argue well." But now since you had to go puff out your chest ( and it aint because you are having fun its because of your fuckin huge ego) and beat on it, it just turns my stomach.

 

[Swamp Fox]

I've never been popular with morons. I intimidate them.

Good to know I'm not a moron.

But there are enough smart people in the world for me to have friends.

I heard skunks hang out in packs.

Most people don't like people who are smarter, but then I've never cared about the opinions of people I can't respect.

I've never cared for lawyers. All puffed up on ego because they went to law school. Yet it takes them 6 months of review to make a decision that I had all of a second to make.

BTW, Doggy, is it a requirement to have an oversized ego to be a lawyer or is it something they teach you in law school?

 

[Dogger]

I didn't miss shit.

Every damn turn of the screw you CANT WAIT to tell someone you are smarter than them. So go fuck yourself.
You know I USED to think "yeah I might not like his arguments but damn if he DOESN"T argue well." But now since you had to go puff out your chest ( and it aint because you are having fun its because of your fuckin huge ego) and beat on it, it just turns my stomach.

I really want to improve myself. Perhaps you could show me where I've been arrogant or immodest without having been personally insulted earlier in the thread.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Perhaps you should re-read my post, and reflect upon that which you missed.

I missed anything of substance and value. I didn't miss the overinflated opinion of yourself and the lookng down your nose at others.

 

[Yurt]

I've never been popular with morons. I intimidate them. But there are enough smart people in the world for me to have friends.

Most people don't like people who are smarter, but then I've never cared about the opinions of people I can't respect.

you care and you know it...your supposed intellect starves when you don't feel superior over alleged morons that you somehow think are intimidated by you...btw, you never answered my question:

do we have to read your mind or do you honestly expect us to read every single post of yours everytime you post? seems you are intimidated by the question....and according to you that means....

 

[Swamp Fox]

I really want to improve myself. Perhaps you could show me where I've been arrogant or immodest without having been personally insulted earlier in the thread.

Check your post to Gunny where you make numerous assumptions about Gunny. In case you can't scroll back that far, here it is

You have grown tiresome and tedious, gunny. Your confidence in your beliefs is rooted in your unwillingness to ponder and reflect upon facts and opinions that differ from your narrow preconceptions. My confidence comes from always asking questions, keeping an open mind and trying to see the entirety of circumstances affecting any given issue.

I hold my beliefs firmly because I have tested them. You hold yours firmly because you have not.

The bold part is where you really become egotistical. Then you just expound upon it with your last line.

 

[Dogger]

Let's take a moment to reflect on my original post in this thread, and the context. Midcan had written a relective piece on Rev. Wright, and his appearance on PBS's Bill Moyers Journal. I had seen that episode and other, more in-depth discussions of Wright's career, and those pieces presented him as a more complex person than the youtube clips the news had been repeating ad nauseum.

In other threads, I had voiced my disagreement with some of Wright's comments, but also my disagreement with people who acted as though they didn't need to know anything about Wright except his most controversial statements. I was referring to those people when I wrote:

You will never reach those so stupid as to think that a 30 second clip paints a more accurate portrait of the man than an in-depth presentation. Let's watch the haters start their spew.

I don't respect the intelligence of anyone who focuses on a narrow slice of an issue to the exclusion of other factors. I think it is stupid to ignore in-depth material and act as though the brief clips are all one needs to know. But that opinion applies only to those who behave that way; I never said or suggested that it applies to people who gave the matter a little consideration and disagreed with me nonetheless.

And the haters? Most of them had applied the term to Wright in other threads, so I used it here. Once again, I never applied that term to anyone just for disagreeing. I just warned midcan that the haters would be coming. But Yurt accused me of using that term for those who "disagree with wright or me", even though I said no such thing.

But that didn't stop Yurt, gunny and Swamp Fox from reading into my post something that just wasn't there.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Let's take a moment to reflect on my original post in this thread, and the context. Midcan had written a relective piece on Rev. Wright, and his appearance on PBS's Bill Moyers Journal. I had seen that episode and other, more in-depth discussions of Wright's career, and those pieces presented him as a more complex person than the youtube clips the news had been repeating ad nauseum.

In other threads, I had voiced my disagreement with some of Wright's comments, but also my disagreement with people who acted as though they didn't need to know anything about Wright except his most controversial statements. I was referring to those people when I wrote:



I don't respect the intelligence of anyone who focuses on a narrow slice of an issue to the exclusion of other factors. I think it is stupid to ignore in-depth material and act as though the brief clips are all one needs to know. But that opinion applies only to those who behave that way; I never said or suggested that it applies to people who gave the matter a little consideration and disagreed with me nonetheless.

And the haters? Most of them had applied the term to Wright in other threads, so I used it here. Once again, I never applied that term to anyone just for disagreeing. I just warned midcan that the haters would be coming. But Yurt accused me of using that term for those who "disagree with wright or me", even though I said no such thing.

But that didn't stop Yurt, gunny and Swamp Fox from reading into my post something that just wasn't there.

And this in no way answers the questions from the post in question, which the counselor has ignored by attempting to focus the jury's attention to his first post. It wasn't your first post I was referring to in my comments, counselor, it was the post I cited to you just previous to this post. You remember that post, the one where you are a pompous ass? Why don't we focus on that and quit trying to dance around the issue?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And this in no way answers the questions from the post in question, which the counselor has ignored by attempting to focus the jury's attention to his first post. It wasn't your first post I was referring to in my comments, counselor, it was the post I cited to you just previous to this post. You remember that post, the one where you are a pompous ass? Why don't we focus on that and quit trying to dance around the issue?

You expect a Liberal to do anything even remotely like tell the truth and to not obfusicate and twist everything in the hopes of changing the subject or at least the target?

 

[Yurt]

Let's take a moment to reflect on my original post in this thread, and the context. Midcan had written a relective piece on Rev. Wright, and his appearance on PBS's Bill Moyers Journal. I had seen that episode and other, more in-depth discussions of Wright's career, and those pieces presented him as a more complex person than the youtube clips the news had been repeating ad nauseum.

In other threads, I had voiced my disagreement with some of Wright's comments, but also my disagreement with people who acted as though they didn't need to know anything about Wright except his most controversial statements. I was referring to those people when I wrote:



I don't respect the intelligence of anyone who focuses on a narrow slice of an issue to the exclusion of other factors. I think it is stupid to ignore in-depth material and act as though the brief clips are all one needs to know. But that opinion applies only to those who behave that way; I never said or suggested that it applies to people who gave the matter a little consideration and disagreed with me nonetheless.

And the haters? Most of them had applied the term to Wright in other threads, so I used it here. Once again, I never applied that term to anyone just for disagreeing. I just warned midcan that the haters would be coming. But Yurt accused me of using that term for those who "disagree with wright or me", even though I said no such thing.

But that didn't stop Yurt, gunny and Swamp Fox from reading into my post something that just wasn't there.

so what do you think about wright essentially repeating vertabim the so-called snippets last week? what additional context is required when someone repeats the "soundbites" again in order to make his or her point(s)? if it is true you are an attorney, then you know that this adds greater credence to the possibility that said soundbites are in fact complete thoughts and opinions and not taken out of context, as when questioned about the "snippets", wright repeated and defended the very "snippets" with vigor.

as to your last, it was there and your denials do not change that fact. it is obvious that to a reasonable person your comments were ambigious and thus reasonably understood exactly how i portrayed them.

 

[Swamp Fox]

You expect a Liberal to do anything even remotely like tell the truth and to not obfusicate and twist everything in the hopes of changing the subject or at least the target?

RGS, when I dream, I dream in Technicolor with all of the bells and whistles.


No, I don't seriously expect him to tell the truth (he is a lawyer after all), but I do enjoy the hell out of yanking his leash!

 

[dread]

I don't respect the intelligence of anyone who focuses on a narrow slice of an issue to the exclusion of other factors. I think it is stupid to ignore in-depth material and act as though the brief clips are all one needs to know. But that opinion applies only to those who behave that way; I never said or suggested that it applies to people who gave the matter a little consideration and disagreed with me nonetheless.

You mean like when you do this to others on this board? All you see is what is written on this board. No subtle nuance, no body language. Some people are not very good at expressing themselves in the written language but can express themselves in person extremely well. This doesnt mean they are any less smarter than you.

Yet you go off with little to nothing about posters on this board just so you can defend your over inflated ego.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You mean like when you do this to others on this board? All you see is what is written on this board. No subtle nuance, no body language. Some people are not very good at expressing themselves in the written language but can express themselves in person extremely well. This doesnt mean they are any less smarter than you.

Yet you go off with little to nothing about posters on this board just so you can defend your over inflated ego.

Ohh please Liberals do not actually believe THEY have to follow their orders, laws or instructions. It is do as I say with them. After all being our Superiors it is only right they reap the benefits of taking care of us idiots.

 

[BrianH]

Let's take a moment to reflect on my original post in this thread, and the context. Midcan had written a relective piece on Rev. Wright, and his appearance on PBS's Bill Moyers Journal. I had seen that episode and other, more in-depth discussions of Wright's career, and those pieces presented him as a more complex person than the youtube clips the news had been repeating ad nauseum.

In other threads, I had voiced my disagreement with some of Wright's comments, but also my disagreement with people who acted as though they didn't need to know anything about Wright except his most controversial statements. I was referring to those people when I wrote:



I don't respect the intelligence of anyone who focuses on a narrow slice of an issue to the exclusion of other factors. I think it is stupid to ignore in-depth material and act as though the brief clips are all one needs to know. But that opinion applies only to those who behave that way; I never said or suggested that it applies to people who gave the matter a little consideration and disagreed with me nonetheless.

And the haters? Most of them had applied the term to Wright in other threads, so I used it here. Once again, I never applied that term to anyone just for disagreeing. I just warned midcan that the haters would be coming. But Yurt accused me of using that term for those who "disagree with wright or me", even though I said no such thing.

But that didn't stop Yurt, gunny and Swamp Fox from reading into my post something that just wasn't there.

Dogger, it seems to me that you've passed the same judgment on so called "morons" that you're alledged "haters" have passed on Wright. Furthermore, what evidence do you have that supports your accusation that the "wright haters" have only watched a 30 second youtube clip and have not infact looked more into his writings and complexities. I understand where you're coming from, but I think you've got a bit of hypocracy going on in this thread. You've accused others of blindly judging someone based on a 30 second youtube clip when infact you have no proof that a 30 second youtube clip is all that they have seen, nor enough proof that the Wright haters are morons---You know little about the posters and are passing the same judgement that others have supposedly passed on Wright. Just admit that you posted with a little bit of an emotional-based statement and may have been wrong in your assumptions--and we can get back to how much Rev. Wright is a racist.