Rand Paul on Ferguson...I agree with him 100%

[daws101]

Apparently, lefties believe drug abuse is inevitable so let's all smoke some crack in celebration of the revelation.

in your case it is it's in your genes

No, I don't use drugs. Why would you suggest that?

thanks for showcasing your stupidity
genes and drug use are not the same .

 

[daws101]

When white man arrived in North America, there were about 5,000,000 native red indians. After 20 years of European occupation, several wars and deliberate hunting and destruction of most of the buffalo herds (the Indian's primary food supply)... this population dropped to only about 250,000 native Indians.

When white Europeans landed in Australia, they killed over 40,000 native black aborigines in a deliberate campaign of genocide and slaughter.

During World War 1, over 21 million people died for no good reason.

During World War 2, over 50 million people died, also for no good reason. Who do you think paid for Hitler's rise to power, and who PAID for the growth of his army?

Given some of these facts, ask yourself: Which RACE of human beings has proven itself to be the most aggressive, violent and harmful compared to other races of people? Which RACE has been involved in more killing and imperial military invasions and occupations of other countries than any other RACE?

This goes the heart of the question about "racial superiority"... since nobody can choose their genetics or their parents...

Before I begin, it has been well documented that the overwhelming majority of those Native Americans you cited died out due to weak immune systems; unable to handle the pox that European settlers brought with them. Now that your first misrepresentation has been formally trashed allow me to deconstruct the rest.




The conflict principle transcends cultures, races, and ethnicities. Therefore, the question is not whether whites were evil in dominating others, ALL civilizations utilized their technology to dominate others, but whether others would have done the same to whites if the tables were turned. The answer to that question is a resounding YES. Thus, the fallacy of your thinking is clear.

Whites dominated the world not because of racial superiority, but cultural superiority that led to technological superiority. They indeed had an incentive to produce such a culture. They were never but a moment away from war with other white cultures. Hence they raced each other to colonize Africa, Asia, and the Americas, so that they would remain economically competitive against each other and therefore militarily dominant against a war with other white cultures.

The fact that others who were taken over by whites could not band together to flush out invaders is telling. Whites used warring Native American tribes against each other just as they used warring African tribes against each other to their advantage. Generally, whites would go to the losing tribe and offer technologically advanced weapons to them in return for land, treaties, and alliances. Now we must again ask ourselves if this would have happened to whites if the situation was reversed for Native Americans, Africans, or Asians. Indeed, they held the same practices in their smaller and technologically less advanced societies. The answer must be yes.

With that said it is also telling that Japan was never colonized. They did not resist white imperialism because they knew they could not. Instead they took the strengths that white culture produced, adopted them, and quickly became a world power. Indeed, this is how civilizations advance. They took what works from the working model and applied it to themselves. For the past 300 years whites have held the working formula. It has nothing to do with racial superiority, but cultural and technological superiority. So Japan became stronger due to white imperialism, as did every other country (colonized or not) with the technology that with introduced into their cultures.

The wars created by whites were so violent simply because whites ruled the world due to cultural and technological superiority. You cannot tell me that the violence that whites created would not have happened if the shoe was on the other foot. Your argument is a whole bunch of unfounded leftist gobbly gook designed on stoking hatred toward the working model of mainstream Western Civilization so as to replace it with the failed western ideology of Marxism which has led to the destruction of untold millions of domestic populations in their various countries. With that said you aren't really against western ways of thought, you just don't like the current Western Model. Indeed, you are attempting to discredit one civilization with/for an ideology produced by that same civilization. You don't really care about other peoples, you simply want them to be pressed under a different western ideology.

Well there you go. I have answered your question and more. Your argument has been deconstructed, discredited, and proved null and void. Have a nice day. Now enjoy this Japanese orchestra playing Beethoven. You're welcome Japan. In Japan no dispute about No. 1 holiday song - CBS News

wake up Dorothy you're having that dream again. The one where you believe you're important and your biased ramblings are fact!

You made I claim, I maid a counter claim. I specifically described why your claim was false and backed it up with historical fact. If my claim or the facts presented are less than accurate then an intelligent person would debate it. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you would be reasonable and intelligent enough to meet my argument with one of your own. But you did not. Why should I accept you as a reasonable person if you cannot defend your position? What was it about my argument that was false? Where did I go wrong? Did I misrepresent the facts? If so then how? Will you not defend your argument? Do you require sources? I would provide them. Why wont you defend your position? Isn't that what you are here to do?

no need to defend my position since what you presented in not fact.

 

[Publius1787]

When white man arrived in North America, there were about 5,000,000 native red indians. After 20 years of European occupation, several wars and deliberate hunting and destruction of most of the buffalo herds (the Indian's primary food supply)... this population dropped to only about 250,000 native Indians.

When white Europeans landed in Australia, they killed over 40,000 native black aborigines in a deliberate campaign of genocide and slaughter.

During World War 1, over 21 million people died for no good reason.

During World War 2, over 50 million people died, also for no good reason. Who do you think paid for Hitler's rise to power, and who PAID for the growth of his army?

Given some of these facts, ask yourself: Which RACE of human beings has proven itself to be the most aggressive, violent and harmful compared to other races of people? Which RACE has been involved in more killing and imperial military invasions and occupations of other countries than any other RACE?

This goes the heart of the question about "racial superiority"... since nobody can choose their genetics or their parents...

Before I begin, it has been well documented that the overwhelming majority of those Native Americans you cited died out due to weak immune systems; unable to handle the pox that European settlers brought with them. Now that your first misrepresentation has been formally trashed allow me to deconstruct the rest.




The conflict principle transcends cultures, races, and ethnicities. Therefore, the question is not whether whites were evil in dominating others, ALL civilizations utilized their technology to dominate others, but whether others would have done the same to whites if the tables were turned. The answer to that question is a resounding YES. Thus, the fallacy of your thinking is clear.

Whites dominated the world not because of racial superiority, but cultural superiority that led to technological superiority. They indeed had an incentive to produce such a culture. They were never but a moment away from war with other white cultures. Hence they raced each other to colonize Africa, Asia, and the Americas, so that they would remain economically competitive against each other and therefore militarily dominant against a war with other white cultures.

The fact that others who were taken over by whites could not band together to flush out invaders is telling. Whites used warring Native American tribes against each other just as they used warring African tribes against each other to their advantage. Generally, whites would go to the losing tribe and offer technologically advanced weapons to them in return for land, treaties, and alliances. Now we must again ask ourselves if this would have happened to whites if the situation was reversed for Native Americans, Africans, or Asians. Indeed, they held the same practices in their smaller and technologically less advanced societies. The answer must be yes.

With that said it is also telling that Japan was never colonized. They did not resist white imperialism because they knew they could not. Instead they took the strengths that white culture produced, adopted them, and quickly became a world power. Indeed, this is how civilizations advance. They took what works from the working model and applied it to themselves. For the past 300 years whites have held the working formula. It has nothing to do with racial superiority, but cultural and technological superiority. So Japan became stronger due to white imperialism, as did every other country (colonized or not) with the technology that with introduced into their cultures.

The wars created by whites were so violent simply because whites ruled the world due to cultural and technological superiority. You cannot tell me that the violence that whites created would not have happened if the shoe was on the other foot. Your argument is a whole bunch of unfounded leftist gobbly gook designed on stoking hatred toward the working model of mainstream Western Civilization so as to replace it with the failed western ideology of Marxism which has led to the destruction of untold millions of domestic populations in their various countries. With that said you aren't really against western ways of thought, you just don't like the current Western Model. Indeed, you are attempting to discredit one civilization with/for an ideology produced by that same civilization. You don't really care about other peoples, you simply want them to be pressed under a different western ideology.

Well there you go. I have answered your question and more. Your argument has been deconstructed, discredited, and proved null and void. Have a nice day. Now enjoy this Japanese orchestra playing Beethoven. You're welcome Japan. In Japan no dispute about No. 1 holiday song - CBS News

wake up Dorothy you're having that dream again. The one where you believe you're important and your biased ramblings are fact!

You made I claim, I maid a counter claim. I specifically described why your claim was false and backed it up with historical fact. If my claim or the facts presented are less than accurate then an intelligent person would debate it. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you would be reasonable and intelligent enough to meet my argument with one of your own. But you did not. Why should I accept you as a reasonable person if you cannot defend your position? What was it about my argument that was false? Where did I go wrong? Did I misrepresent the facts? If so then how? Will you not defend your argument? Do you require sources? I would provide them. Why wont you defend your position? Isn't that what you are here to do?

no need to defend my position since what you presented in not fact.

What specifically? I will be happy to pose references. If I failed to post facts than all the easier for you to dismantle my argument right? But you wont.

 

[daws101]

I am so OVER this debate about Nature and Nurture. There is no doubt that the entrapment of groups in Welfare Poverty creates an environment where the idle get into lawlessness. But what is the real history of that? Labour Unions for one which had laws in place against "cheap labour"......meaning no poor blacks need apply. So to the welfare trap......why on earth would one take up a job which paid less than welfare and was unreliable. One can whine all one wants about the evil law enforcers, but the true sources of the disparities of opportunity are liberal repressive policies. Of course they are well intentioned; using other people's money always is. But the OUTCOME is devastating to self respect. Without that, dear reader, the slide into criminal conduct is a short cone away.

But make NO MISTAKE: being trapped in the welfare cycle is no excuse for criminal conduct; it simply makes the options of criminality more appealing. The responsibility for criminal actions remain solely with the perpetrator!!

Greg

another false bias comparison !

I am so OVER this debate about Nature and Nurture. There is no doubt that the entrapment of groups in Welfare Poverty creates an environment where the idle get into lawlessness. But what is the real history of that? Labour Unions for one which had laws in place against "cheap labour"......meaning no poor blacks need apply. So to the welfare trap......why on earth would one take up a job which paid less than welfare and was unreliable. One can whine all one wants about the evil law enforcers, but the true sources of the disparities of opportunity are liberal repressive policies. Of course they are well intentioned; using other people's money always is. But the OUTCOME is devastating to self respect. Without that, dear reader, the slide into criminal conduct is a short cone away.

But make NO MISTAKE: being trapped in the welfare cycle is no excuse for criminal conduct; it simply makes the options of criminality more appealing. The responsibility for criminal actions remain solely with the perpetrator!!

Greg

another false bias comparison !

Why would you want the data to get in the road of your "white racist society" meme??

Regressions of admission rates on
men’s labor market outcomes indicates the negative effects of wages and employment
on black men’s incarceration, and the negative effects hourly wages
for white men. ......
Incarceration might be connected to economic inequality in two main
ways. Rising inequality may increase crime at the bottom of the social hierarchy,
generating more arrests, convictions, and prison admissions. Thus
Richard Freeman (1996) argued that young black men turned to crime in
response declining job opportunities through the 1980s and 1990s. Troy
Duster (1997), similarly claims that the collapse of legitimate employment
in poor urban neighborhoods drew young black men into the illegal drug
trade, steeply increasing their risks of arrest and incarceration. For sociologists
of punishment, criminal law functions not just to control crime, but
also to contain marginal populations that are perceived as threatening by
elites and voters. The direct link between contemporary economic inequality
and punishment was forcefully claimed by Lo¨ıc Wacquant. Like Freeman and
Duster, Wacquant (2000) sees recent growth in the penal system as closely
connected to the decline of urban labor markets in the later postwar period.
In Wacquant’s analysis, the “prisonization of the ghetto” represents just the
latest form of institutionalized white supremacy—a social response to the
demise of the ghetto as an economically viable, yet controlling, institution in
the lives of African Americans.

Economic Inequality and the Rise in U.S. Imprisonment

I am on very firm ground indeed.

Greg

it's no meme it's fact but not all whites a racist..
your lame assessment that liberal programs are to blame is the oldest racist conservative ploy there is.

So you have no argument except that it's not what you want to think? lmao

OK: tell me what are the causes according to daws?? Who knows: there may be common ground yet.

Greg

I don't think he's here to argue. I think he's here to troll. You should check out his response to my most recent argument in this post. I responded in good faith with a well thought out argument and he replied by not addressing anything I said.

you present nothing to argue. Other than your pretentiousness.

 

[Publius1787]

another false bias comparison !

another false bias comparison !

Why would you want the data to get in the road of your "white racist society" meme??

Regressions of admission rates on
men’s labor market outcomes indicates the negative effects of wages and employment
on black men’s incarceration, and the negative effects hourly wages
for white men. ......
Incarceration might be connected to economic inequality in two main
ways. Rising inequality may increase crime at the bottom of the social hierarchy,
generating more arrests, convictions, and prison admissions. Thus
Richard Freeman (1996) argued that young black men turned to crime in
response declining job opportunities through the 1980s and 1990s. Troy
Duster (1997), similarly claims that the collapse of legitimate employment
in poor urban neighborhoods drew young black men into the illegal drug
trade, steeply increasing their risks of arrest and incarceration. For sociologists
of punishment, criminal law functions not just to control crime, but
also to contain marginal populations that are perceived as threatening by
elites and voters. The direct link between contemporary economic inequality
and punishment was forcefully claimed by Lo¨ıc Wacquant. Like Freeman and
Duster, Wacquant (2000) sees recent growth in the penal system as closely
connected to the decline of urban labor markets in the later postwar period.
In Wacquant’s analysis, the “prisonization of the ghetto” represents just the
latest form of institutionalized white supremacy—a social response to the
demise of the ghetto as an economically viable, yet controlling, institution in
the lives of African Americans.

Economic Inequality and the Rise in U.S. Imprisonment

I am on very firm ground indeed.

Greg

it's no meme it's fact but not all whites a racist..
your lame assessment that liberal programs are to blame is the oldest racist conservative ploy there is.

So you have no argument except that it's not what you want to think? lmao

OK: tell me what are the causes according to daws?? Who knows: there may be common ground yet.

Greg

I don't think he's here to argue. I think he's here to troll. You should check out his response to my most recent argument in this post. I responded in good faith with a well thought out argument and he replied by not addressing anything I said.

you present nothing to argue. Other than your pretentiousness.

Please, if I have posted falsehoods then my argument should be easy to dismantle. Why avoid it? Come on, you tell me what I posted was based on lies without proving them to be false. You're gumming up the argument by refusing to defend your position (Which I discredited by the way). An honest person would respond unless he knew his argument was dishonest in the first place.

 

[daws101]

another false bias comparison !

another false bias comparison !

Why would you want the data to get in the road of your "white racist society" meme??

Regressions of admission rates on
men’s labor market outcomes indicates the negative effects of wages and employment
on black men’s incarceration, and the negative effects hourly wages
for white men. ......
Incarceration might be connected to economic inequality in two main
ways. Rising inequality may increase crime at the bottom of the social hierarchy,
generating more arrests, convictions, and prison admissions. Thus
Richard Freeman (1996) argued that young black men turned to crime in
response declining job opportunities through the 1980s and 1990s. Troy
Duster (1997), similarly claims that the collapse of legitimate employment
in poor urban neighborhoods drew young black men into the illegal drug
trade, steeply increasing their risks of arrest and incarceration. For sociologists
of punishment, criminal law functions not just to control crime, but
also to contain marginal populations that are perceived as threatening by
elites and voters. The direct link between contemporary economic inequality
and punishment was forcefully claimed by Lo¨ıc Wacquant. Like Freeman and
Duster, Wacquant (2000) sees recent growth in the penal system as closely
connected to the decline of urban labor markets in the later postwar period.
In Wacquant’s analysis, the “prisonization of the ghetto” represents just the
latest form of institutionalized white supremacy—a social response to the
demise of the ghetto as an economically viable, yet controlling, institution in
the lives of African Americans.

Economic Inequality and the Rise in U.S. Imprisonment

I am on very firm ground indeed.

Greg

it's no meme it's fact but not all whites a racist..
your lame assessment that liberal programs are to blame is the oldest racist conservative ploy there is.

So you have no argument except that it's not what you want to think? lmao

OK: tell me what are the causes according to daws?? Who knows: there may be common ground yet.

Greg

I don't think he's here to argue. I think he's here to troll. You should check out his response to my most recent argument in this post. I responded in good faith with a well thought out argument and he replied by not addressing anything I said.

I noticed he did that to my own post. Without his weed he'd be totally substanceless!!

Greg

wow because I refused to give your racist bitching any credence, you need to make shit up.

 

[Publius1787]

Why would you want the data to get in the road of your "white racist society" meme??

Economic Inequality and the Rise in U.S. Imprisonment

I am on very firm ground indeed.

Greg

it's no meme it's fact but not all whites a racist..
your lame assessment that liberal programs are to blame is the oldest racist conservative ploy there is.

So you have no argument except that it's not what you want to think? lmao

OK: tell me what are the causes according to daws?? Who knows: there may be common ground yet.

Greg

I don't think he's here to argue. I think he's here to troll. You should check out his response to my most recent argument in this post. I responded in good faith with a well thought out argument and he replied by not addressing anything I said.

I noticed he did that to my own post. Without his weed he'd be totally substanceless!!

Greg

wow because I refused to give your racist bitching any credence, you need to make shit up.

I never made a racial argument. Mistake number one. Can you point out where I did? Or are you going to allow my refutation of your ill-conceived Marxist derived revisionist history stand? Indeed, show me where I posted one falsehood in response to your lousy argument.

 

[daws101]

When white man arrived in North America, there were about 5,000,000 native red indians. After 20 years of European occupation, several wars and deliberate hunting and destruction of most of the buffalo herds (the Indian's primary food supply)... this population dropped to only about 250,000 native Indians.

When white Europeans landed in Australia, they killed over 40,000 native black aborigines in a deliberate campaign of genocide and slaughter.

During World War 1, over 21 million people died for no good reason.

During World War 2, over 50 million people died, also for no good reason. Who do you think paid for Hitler's rise to power, and who PAID for the growth of his army?

Given some of these facts, ask yourself: Which RACE of human beings has proven itself to be the most aggressive, violent and harmful compared to other races of people? Which RACE has been involved in more killing and imperial military invasions and occupations of other countries than any other RACE?

This goes the heart of the question about "racial superiority"... since nobody can choose their genetics or their parents...

Before I begin, it has been well documented that the overwhelming majority of those Native Americans you cited died out due to weak immune systems; unable to handle the pox that European settlers brought with them. Now that your first misrepresentation has been formally trashed allow me to deconstruct the rest.




The conflict principle transcends cultures, races, and ethnicities. Therefore, the question is not whether whites were evil in dominating others, ALL civilizations utilized their technology to dominate others, but whether others would have done the same to whites if the tables were turned. The answer to that question is a resounding YES. Thus, the fallacy of your thinking is clear.

Whites dominated the world not because of racial superiority, but cultural superiority that led to technological superiority. They indeed had an incentive to produce such a culture. They were never but a moment away from war with other white cultures. Hence they raced each other to colonize Africa, Asia, and the Americas, so that they would remain economically competitive against each other and therefore militarily dominant against a war with other white cultures.

The fact that others who were taken over by whites could not band together to flush out invaders is telling. Whites used warring Native American tribes against each other just as they used warring African tribes against each other to their advantage. Generally, whites would go to the losing tribe and offer technologically advanced weapons to them in return for land, treaties, and alliances. Now we must again ask ourselves if this would have happened to whites if the situation was reversed for Native Americans, Africans, or Asians. Indeed, they held the same practices in their smaller and technologically less advanced societies. The answer must be yes.

With that said it is also telling that Japan was never colonized. They did not resist white imperialism because they knew they could not. Instead they took the strengths that white culture produced, adopted them, and quickly became a world power. Indeed, this is how civilizations advance. They took what works from the working model and applied it to themselves. For the past 300 years whites have held the working formula. It has nothing to do with racial superiority, but cultural and technological superiority. So Japan became stronger due to white imperialism, as did every other country (colonized or not) with the technology that with introduced into their cultures.

The wars created by whites were so violent simply because whites ruled the world due to cultural and technological superiority. You cannot tell me that the violence that whites created would not have happened if the shoe was on the other foot. Your argument is a whole bunch of unfounded leftist gobbly gook designed on stoking hatred toward the working model of mainstream Western Civilization so as to replace it with the failed western ideology of Marxism which has led to the destruction of untold millions of domestic populations in their various countries. With that said you aren't really against western ways of thought, you just don't like the current Western Model. Indeed, you are attempting to discredit one civilization with/for an ideology produced by that same civilization. You don't really care about other peoples, you simply want them to be pressed under a different western ideology.

Well there you go. I have answered your question and more. Your argument has been deconstructed, discredited, and proved null and void. Have a nice day. Now enjoy this Japanese orchestra playing Beethoven. You're welcome Japan. In Japan no dispute about No. 1 holiday song - CBS News

wake up Dorothy you're having that dream again. The one where you believe you're important and your biased ramblings are fact!

You made I claim, I maid a counter claim. I specifically described why your claim was false and backed it up with historical fact. If my claim or the facts presented are less than accurate then an intelligent person would debate it. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you would be reasonable and intelligent enough to meet my argument with one of your own. But you did not. Why should I accept you as a reasonable person if you cannot defend your position? What was it about my argument that was false? Where did I go wrong? Did I misrepresent the facts? If so then how? Will you not defend your argument? Do you require sources? I would provide them. Why wont you defend your position? Isn't that what you are here to do?

no need to defend my position since what you presented in not fact.

What specifically? I will be happy to pose references. If I failed to post facts than all the easier for you to dismantle my argument right? But you wont.

you have no argument so nothing to dismantle.
and you need to post a link to your junk.

 

[Publius1787]

Before I begin, it has been well documented that the overwhelming majority of those Native Americans you cited died out due to weak immune systems; unable to handle the pox that European settlers brought with them. Now that your first misrepresentation has been formally trashed allow me to deconstruct the rest.




The conflict principle transcends cultures, races, and ethnicities. Therefore, the question is not whether whites were evil in dominating others, ALL civilizations utilized their technology to dominate others, but whether others would have done the same to whites if the tables were turned. The answer to that question is a resounding YES. Thus, the fallacy of your thinking is clear.

Whites dominated the world not because of racial superiority, but cultural superiority that led to technological superiority. They indeed had an incentive to produce such a culture. They were never but a moment away from war with other white cultures. Hence they raced each other to colonize Africa, Asia, and the Americas, so that they would remain economically competitive against each other and therefore militarily dominant against a war with other white cultures.

The fact that others who were taken over by whites could not band together to flush out invaders is telling. Whites used warring Native American tribes against each other just as they used warring African tribes against each other to their advantage. Generally, whites would go to the losing tribe and offer technologically advanced weapons to them in return for land, treaties, and alliances. Now we must again ask ourselves if this would have happened to whites if the situation was reversed for Native Americans, Africans, or Asians. Indeed, they held the same practices in their smaller and technologically less advanced societies. The answer must be yes.

With that said it is also telling that Japan was never colonized. They did not resist white imperialism because they knew they could not. Instead they took the strengths that white culture produced, adopted them, and quickly became a world power. Indeed, this is how civilizations advance. They took what works from the working model and applied it to themselves. For the past 300 years whites have held the working formula. It has nothing to do with racial superiority, but cultural and technological superiority. So Japan became stronger due to white imperialism, as did every other country (colonized or not) with the technology that with introduced into their cultures.

The wars created by whites were so violent simply because whites ruled the world due to cultural and technological superiority. You cannot tell me that the violence that whites created would not have happened if the shoe was on the other foot. Your argument is a whole bunch of unfounded leftist gobbly gook designed on stoking hatred toward the working model of mainstream Western Civilization so as to replace it with the failed western ideology of Marxism which has led to the destruction of untold millions of domestic populations in their various countries. With that said you aren't really against western ways of thought, you just don't like the current Western Model. Indeed, you are attempting to discredit one civilization with/for an ideology produced by that same civilization. You don't really care about other peoples, you simply want them to be pressed under a different western ideology.

Well there you go. I have answered your question and more. Your argument has been deconstructed, discredited, and proved null and void. Have a nice day. Now enjoy this Japanese orchestra playing Beethoven. You're welcome Japan. In Japan no dispute about No. 1 holiday song - CBS News

wake up Dorothy you're having that dream again. The one where you believe you're important and your biased ramblings are fact!

You made I claim, I maid a counter claim. I specifically described why your claim was false and backed it up with historical fact. If my claim or the facts presented are less than accurate then an intelligent person would debate it. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you would be reasonable and intelligent enough to meet my argument with one of your own. But you did not. Why should I accept you as a reasonable person if you cannot defend your position? What was it about my argument that was false? Where did I go wrong? Did I misrepresent the facts? If so then how? Will you not defend your argument? Do you require sources? I would provide them. Why wont you defend your position? Isn't that what you are here to do?

no need to defend my position since what you presented in not fact.

What specifically? I will be happy to pose references. If I failed to post facts than all the easier for you to dismantle my argument right? But you wont.

you have no argument so nothing to dismantle.
and you need to post a link to your junk.

You posted no link to your argument, though I have hard it many times before. I responded in kind. In other words, you are holding me to a higher standard than you did yourself. Without you showing me where you disagree I know not where to ignore the common ground. We are not posting essays here. So show me where I am wrong and I will provide evidence to back it up. Until then your argument stands wholly refuted.

 

[PredFan]

I didn't see any problems.

 

[daws101]

it's no meme it's fact but not all whites a racist..
your lame assessment that liberal programs are to blame is the oldest racist conservative ploy there is.

So you have no argument except that it's not what you want to think? lmao

OK: tell me what are the causes according to daws?? Who knows: there may be common ground yet.

Greg

I don't think he's here to argue. I think he's here to troll. You should check out his response to my most recent argument in this post. I responded in good faith with a well thought out argument and he replied by not addressing anything I said.

I noticed he did that to my own post. Without his weed he'd be totally substanceless!!

Greg

wow because I refused to give your racist bitching any credence, you need to make shit up.

I never made a racial argument. Mistake number one. Can you point out where I did? Or are you going to allow my refutation of your ill-conceived Marxist derived revisionist history stand? Indeed, show me where I posted one falsehood in response to your lousy argument.

wow two ism shots in on sentence.
revisionist history is a conservative thing.
Historical revisionism is either the legitimate scholastic re-examination of existing knowledge about a historical event, or the illegitimate distortion of the historical record. For the former, i.e. the academic pursuit, see historical revisionism.[1] This article deals solely with the latter, the distortion of history, which—if it constitutes the denial of historical crimes—may then also be called negationism.[2][3]
In attempting to revise the past, illegitimate historical revisionism uses techniques inadmissible in proper historical discourse, such as presenting known forged documents as genuine; inventing ingenious, but implausible, reasons for distrusting genuine documents; attributing his or her own conclusions to books and sources reporting the opposite; manipulating statistical series to support the given point of view; and deliberately mis-translating texts (in languages other than the revisionist's).[4]
Notable examples of negationism include Holocaust denial and some Soviet historiography.[5][6]
Some countries have criminalised the negationist revision of certain historical events, while others take a more cautious position for various reasons, such as protection of free speech, still others mandate negationist views.
In modern times, negationism may be propagated via new media, such as the Internet. In literature, the effects of historical revisionism may be found in science fiction novels such as Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell.

if you've read 1984 you see conservative negationism in action.

 

[Publius1787]

So you have no argument except that it's not what you want to think? lmao

OK: tell me what are the causes according to daws?? Who knows: there may be common ground yet.

Greg

I don't think he's here to argue. I think he's here to troll. You should check out his response to my most recent argument in this post. I responded in good faith with a well thought out argument and he replied by not addressing anything I said.

I noticed he did that to my own post. Without his weed he'd be totally substanceless!!

Greg

wow because I refused to give your racist bitching any credence, you need to make shit up.

I never made a racial argument. Mistake number one. Can you point out where I did? Or are you going to allow my refutation of your ill-conceived Marxist derived revisionist history stand? Indeed, show me where I posted one falsehood in response to your lousy argument.

wow two ism shots in on sentence.
revisionist history is a conservative thing.
Historical revisionism is either the legitimate scholastic re-examination of existing knowledge about a historical event, or the illegitimate distortion of the historical record. For the former, i.e. the academic pursuit, see historical revisionism.[1] This article deals solely with the latter, the distortion of history, which—if it constitutes the denial of historical crimes—may then also be called negationism.[2][3]
In attempting to revise the past, illegitimate historical revisionism uses techniques inadmissible in proper historical discourse, such as presenting known forged documents as genuine; inventing ingenious, but implausible, reasons for distrusting genuine documents; attributing his or her own conclusions to books and sources reporting the opposite; manipulating statistical series to support the given point of view; and deliberately mis-translating texts (in languages other than the revisionist's).[4]
Notable examples of negationism include Holocaust denial and some Soviet historiography.[5][6]
Some countries have criminalised the negationist revision of certain historical events, while others take a more cautious position for various reasons, such as protection of free speech, still others mandate negationist views.
In modern times, negationism may be propagated via new media, such as the Internet. In literature, the effects of historical revisionism may be found in science fiction novels such as Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell.

if you've read 1984 you see conservative negationism in action.

Whatever, show me where I got the history wrong. I am happy to argue with you. That's how we learn. But thus far you haven't defended your position. Am I incorrect? As of now you are defending your choice to ignore a damning refutation. Why ignore it if it is based on lies? Lies are easy to refute. No, the reason you ignored it was because you know you are wrong.

 

[daws101]

wake up Dorothy you're having that dream again. The one where you believe you're important and your biased ramblings are fact!

You made I claim, I maid a counter claim. I specifically described why your claim was false and backed it up with historical fact. If my claim or the facts presented are less than accurate then an intelligent person would debate it. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you would be reasonable and intelligent enough to meet my argument with one of your own. But you did not. Why should I accept you as a reasonable person if you cannot defend your position? What was it about my argument that was false? Where did I go wrong? Did I misrepresent the facts? If so then how? Will you not defend your argument? Do you require sources? I would provide them. Why wont you defend your position? Isn't that what you are here to do?

no need to defend my position since what you presented in not fact.

What specifically? I will be happy to pose references. If I failed to post facts than all the easier for you to dismantle my argument right? But you wont.

you have no argument so nothing to dismantle.
and you need to post a link to your junk.

You posted no link to your argument, though I have hard it many times before. I responded in kind. In other words, you are holding me to a higher standard than you did yourself. Without you showing me where you disagree I know not where to ignore the common ground. We are not posting essays here. So show me where I am wrong and I will provide evidence to back it up. Until then your argument stands wholly refuted.

typical loser response claim a false victory
when you cant win.

 

[Publius1787]

You made I claim, I maid a counter claim. I specifically described why your claim was false and backed it up with historical fact. If my claim or the facts presented are less than accurate then an intelligent person would debate it. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you would be reasonable and intelligent enough to meet my argument with one of your own. But you did not. Why should I accept you as a reasonable person if you cannot defend your position? What was it about my argument that was false? Where did I go wrong? Did I misrepresent the facts? If so then how? Will you not defend your argument? Do you require sources? I would provide them. Why wont you defend your position? Isn't that what you are here to do?

no need to defend my position since what you presented in not fact.

What specifically? I will be happy to pose references. If I failed to post facts than all the easier for you to dismantle my argument right? But you wont.

you have no argument so nothing to dismantle.
and you need to post a link to your junk.

You posted no link to your argument, though I have hard it many times before. I responded in kind. In other words, you are holding me to a higher standard than you did yourself. Without you showing me where you disagree I know not where to ignore the common ground. We are not posting essays here. So show me where I am wrong and I will provide evidence to back it up. Until then your argument stands wholly refuted.

typical loser response claim a false victory
when you cant win.

Well, if I cant win I will learn. But you have yet to prove that claim as well. Why are you running away from your own argument? Defend it! Make me put my history degree to work.

 

[daws101]

I don't think he's here to argue. I think he's here to troll. You should check out his response to my most recent argument in this post. I responded in good faith with a well thought out argument and he replied by not addressing anything I said.

I noticed he did that to my own post. Without his weed he'd be totally substanceless!!

Greg

wow because I refused to give your racist bitching any credence, you need to make shit up.

I never made a racial argument. Mistake number one. Can you point out where I did? Or are you going to allow my refutation of your ill-conceived Marxist derived revisionist history stand? Indeed, show me where I posted one falsehood in response to your lousy argument.

wow two ism shots in on sentence.
revisionist history is a conservative thing.
Historical revisionism is either the legitimate scholastic re-examination of existing knowledge about a historical event, or the illegitimate distortion of the historical record. For the former, i.e. the academic pursuit, see historical revisionism.[1] This article deals solely with the latter, the distortion of history, which—if it constitutes the denial of historical crimes—may then also be called negationism.[2][3]
In attempting to revise the past, illegitimate historical revisionism uses techniques inadmissible in proper historical discourse, such as presenting known forged documents as genuine; inventing ingenious, but implausible, reasons for distrusting genuine documents; attributing his or her own conclusions to books and sources reporting the opposite; manipulating statistical series to support the given point of view; and deliberately mis-translating texts (in languages other than the revisionist's).[4]
Notable examples of negationism include Holocaust denial and some Soviet historiography.[5][6]
Some countries have criminalised the negationist revision of certain historical events, while others take a more cautious position for various reasons, such as protection of free speech, still others mandate negationist views.
In modern times, negationism may be propagated via new media, such as the Internet. In literature, the effects of historical revisionism may be found in science fiction novels such as Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell.

if you've read 1984 you see conservative negationism in action.

Whatever, show me where I got the history wrong. I am happy to argue with you. That's how we learn. But thus far you haven't defended your position. Am I incorrect?

since all of it's wrong you have nothing to argue rationalizing is not argument.
again there no need to defend my position...

 

[daws101]

no need to defend my position since what you presented in not fact.

What specifically? I will be happy to pose references. If I failed to post facts than all the easier for you to dismantle my argument right? But you wont.

you have no argument so nothing to dismantle.
and you need to post a link to your junk.

You posted no link to your argument, though I have hard it many times before. I responded in kind. In other words, you are holding me to a higher standard than you did yourself. Without you showing me where you disagree I know not where to ignore the common ground. We are not posting essays here. So show me where I am wrong and I will provide evidence to back it up. Until then your argument stands wholly refuted.

typical loser response claim a false victory
when you cant win.

Well, if I cant win I will learn. But you have yet to prove that claim as well. Why are you running away from your own argument? Defend it! Make me put my history degree to work.

history degree..when?
btw I not running anywhere...another ploy failed.

 

[Publius1787]

What specifically? I will be happy to pose references. If I failed to post facts than all the easier for you to dismantle my argument right? But you wont.

you have no argument so nothing to dismantle.
and you need to post a link to your junk.

You posted no link to your argument, though I have hard it many times before. I responded in kind. In other words, you are holding me to a higher standard than you did yourself. Without you showing me where you disagree I know not where to ignore the common ground. We are not posting essays here. So show me where I am wrong and I will provide evidence to back it up. Until then your argument stands wholly refuted.

typical loser response claim a false victory
when you cant win.

Well, if I cant win I will learn. But you have yet to prove that claim as well. Why are you running away from your own argument? Defend it! Make me put my history degree to work.

history degree..when?

Which one? My BA or my MA?

 

[peach174]

Rand Paul blamed the War on Poverty, not the phony War on Drugs.

Thanks for confirming my statement that you idiots just won't read, or else you just have the attention span of a King Charles Spaniel:

"""" The War on Drugs has created a culture of violence and put police in a nearly impossible situation."""

You are the one who can't read.
You are the one who turned his statement to drugs.
Rand Paul: The Politicians Are To Blame in Ferguson
Nov. 25, 2014
The failure of the War on Poverty has created a culture of violence and put police in a nearly impossible situation.

 

[daws101]

you have no argument so nothing to dismantle.
and you need to post a link to your junk.

You posted no link to your argument, though I have hard it many times before. I responded in kind. In other words, you are holding me to a higher standard than you did yourself. Without you showing me where you disagree I know not where to ignore the common ground. We are not posting essays here. So show me where I am wrong and I will provide evidence to back it up. Until then your argument stands wholly refuted.

typical loser response claim a false victory
when you cant win.

Well, if I cant win I will learn. But you have yet to prove that claim as well. Why are you running away from your own argument? Defend it! Make me put my history degree to work.

history degree..when?

Which one? My BA or my MA?

oh now we're comparing degrees or dicks ok? ill bet my BA and MFA....

 

[Publius1787]

You posted no link to your argument, though I have hard it many times before. I responded in kind. In other words, you are holding me to a higher standard than you did yourself. Without you showing me where you disagree I know not where to ignore the common ground. We are not posting essays here. So show me where I am wrong and I will provide evidence to back it up. Until then your argument stands wholly refuted.

typical loser response claim a false victory
when you cant win.

Well, if I cant win I will learn. But you have yet to prove that claim as well. Why are you running away from your own argument? Defend it! Make me put my history degree to work.

history degree..when?

Which one? My BA or my MA?

oh now we're comparing degrees or dicks ok? ill bet my BA and MFA....

Was unaware that there was a MFA in history, but ok. You made a historical argument. I dismantled it. You tell me I'm wrong but you failed to reply as to how. You do know how to argue don't you?