The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be.....

[Correll]

seems time for this

 

[Faun]

YOu argued against a point I never made. Either you got me confused with someone in your room, or the voices in your head.

And hysterically, while at the same time you express doubt she could recall Obama not telling her he was born in Hawaii, you claim she can recall Obama telling her he was born in Kenya.

I never claimed she could remember that.

As far as what I did at work on this day in 2000 -- I didn't. See how recollection works?

I don't find it credible that she remembers that little piece of work so long afterwards.

And what dates would be off?...".

The dates from Father and Son.

But now we all see you have no proof, none at all other than your own delusions, that Obama told her he was born in Kenya -- meaning your claim Obama lied is bullshit.

I never claimed to have proof about this.

LOL

You're a fucking loon.

"YOu argued against a point I never made. Either you got me confused with someone in your room, or the voices in your head."

You're the one claiming Obama told her he was born in Hawaii -- but that claim of yours comes from nowhere but your own tacitly admitted delusions.

"I never claimed she could remember that."

Of course you did, you just don't know what you're saying because you're so fucked in the head. You said Obama told her he was born in Kenya and expressed don't she could even recall writing it. How could she deny it if she didn't even recall writing it?

"I don't find it credible that she remembers that little piece of work so long afterwards."

So? You're a conspiracy nut who has to convince himself of the implausible when it's convenient to squeeze it into your nutty conspiracy theories.

"The dates from Father and Son."

There were no such dates in the articles. Just the mention that they both went to Harvard and they are both named Barack Obama. One saying he was born in the small Kenyan village of Alego and studied at Harvard. It's an easy mistake to make think that was about Barack Obama II.

"I never claimed to have proof about this."

LOL

Which is why you're a crazy conspiracy nut. You believe conspiracies without proof just cause you like the way they feelz.

 

[22lcidw]

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."


and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"


Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?

Now the other one again..

"All people" and you cry "white interests"?


Dude.


This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."


and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"


Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?

Now the other one again..

This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.


I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.


Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.

Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..

Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.


I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.


You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.


But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .

Jesus! Not so fast and jerky. Neck again..

I am happy I have crushed you lefties. But not that happy.

Your weirdness is just another way of trying to distract from how completely your position of "Evul Wacism" has been crushed.

Much better. Left leg..

No one doubts that you libs are creepy wierdos or dishonest about when you lose a debate, or that you work to get threads locked to hide your shame and your inability to support your arguments.

LOL

What debate did he lose??

Certainly not about rampant racism among the right. Let's not forget, the best you could do was to show about a quarter of the GOP is not too racist to elect a black person as president.

It is Progs who destroy women and African Americans who are Republican. They must. For more women and African Americans would become Republican.

 

[Correll]

YOu argued against a point I never made. Either you got me confused with someone in your room, or the voices in your head.

And hysterically, while at the same time you express doubt she could recall Obama not telling her he was born in Hawaii, you claim she can recall Obama telling her he was born in Kenya.

I never claimed she could remember that.

As far as what I did at work on this day in 2000 -- I didn't. See how recollection works?

I don't find it credible that she remembers that little piece of work so long afterwards.

And what dates would be off?...".

The dates from Father and Son.

But now we all see you have no proof, none at all other than your own delusions, that Obama told her he was born in Kenya -- meaning your claim Obama lied is bullshit.

I never claimed to have proof about this.

LOL

You're a fucking loon.

"YOu argued against a point I never made. Either you got me confused with someone in your room, or the voices in your head."

You're the one claiming Obama told her he was born in Hawaii -- but that claim of yours comes from nowhere but your own tacitly admitted delusions.

"I never claimed she could remember that."

Of course you did, you just don't know what you're saying because you're so fucked in the head. You said Obama told her he was born in Kenya and expressed don't she could even recall writing it. How could she deny it if she didn't even recall writing it?

She denied it to appease the lefty mob. She lied to avoid looking like she is taking a stand against vile people like you, who like to destroy people, if not worse.

"I don't find it credible that she remembers that little piece of work so long afterwards."

So? You're a conspiracy nut who has to convince himself of the implausible when it's convenient to squeeze it into your nutty conspiracy theories.

It is improbably to think that some one could remember writing a few paragraphs, twenty years after the fact?

THat is not improbable. YOu are the crazy person here, not me.

"The dates from Father and Son."

There were no such dates in the articles. Just the mention that they both went to Harvard and they are both named Barack Obama. One saying he was born in the small Kenyan village of Alego and studied at Harvard. It's an easy mistake to make think that was about Barack Obama II.

You moron. YOU presented as a possible explanation that she might have gotten the Father and Son mixed up and that might be the reasons for the "mistake" My reference to dates was that the Father and the Son would have been twenty to thirty years different. It seems unlikely that was the cause of the "mistake"

"I never claimed to have proof about this."

LOL

Which is why you're a crazy conspiracy nut. You believe conspiracies without proof just cause you like the way they feelz.

Suggesting that a man is listed as being born in Kenya, because he told the person writing the piece, that that is where he was born, is hardly a conspiracy theory.

You raving lunatic.

 

[Grumblenuts]

3. I will give an example of one. It is a white interest to NOT be discriminated against in Ivy League University admissions. Do you support equality of opportunity for whites in Ivy League Admissions, vs discrimination in favor of blacks?

Pretty sure we already covered this. I'm fine with the idea of employing affirmative action to help historically marginalized minorities catch up to whites in terms of admissions. I also leave it to the schools themselves to determine how that pans out given they stay within legal bounds (i.e. the government is also involved since we are a nation of laws, nots tyrants). If my kid was passed up to give a minority student a leg up I'd understand and tell them to keep trying. I'm just one one white person though. I would never presume to speak for all of us nor imagine us having any "interest" in excluding interests expressed by minorities. We're already comprise the majority. We rule. Why be a crybaby about it? No excuse.

To be liberal is to have empathy and compassion for the plight of others. That's me. I'm also conservative in that I'm thrifty as all get out so require very little to keep going. I see no point in going to an Ivy League College these days, for example. Not my interest. Everything I want to know has only been a few keystrokes away for a long time now.

 

[Faun]

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."


and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"


Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?

Now the other one again..

"All people" and you cry "white interests"?


Dude.


This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."


and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"


Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?

Now the other one again..

This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.


I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.


Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.

Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..

Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.


I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.


You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.


But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .

Jesus! Not so fast and jerky. Neck again..

I am happy I have crushed you lefties. But not that happy.

Your weirdness is just another way of trying to distract from how completely your position of "Evul Wacism" has been crushed.

Much better. Left leg..

No one doubts that you libs are creepy wierdos or dishonest about when you lose a debate, or that you work to get threads locked to hide your shame and your inability to support your arguments.

LOL

What debate did he lose??

Certainly not about rampant racism among the right. Let's not forget, the best you could do was to show about a quarter of the GOP is not too racist to elect a black person as president.

We've been calling it "Evul Wacism" because it is nothing but a childish fantasy of you guys.


And yes, you lefties have totally lost it. YOur position is based on ignoring evidence and inventing unlikely scenarios, all the while being smug assholes about it.



YOu are emotionally immature partisan hacks, who like to pretend you are cool Heroes, fighting against Evul Wacism, because it makes you feel good about yourself and gives you an excuse to be smug assholes to people who disagree with you.

LOLOLOL

What you call "nothing but childish fantasy" is actually the reality that the GOP has never nominated, no less elected, a black candidate for president. And while there may be some slight differences on some issues among all GOP candidates, perhaps some differences on work or military experience, or some differences on education, there's only one glaring difference between black candidates and white candidates -- the color of their skin.

And even in your best effort, you could find no more than about a quarter of the GOP that would nominate a black candidate. And none on the horizon for possibly the next 4 elections according to you.

But g'head .... keep tellin' yourself you won this debate.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You would not have voted for Herman Cain. I would have. Fuck you, you Communist turd.

No, I refuse to vote for people who I believe will make our country worse should they win.

Was it you, or the other lefty that was pretending that the republicans that supported other primary candiates, were Evul Wacists?

No idea what you're babbling about. Pull the other one..

 

[Correll]

3. I will give an example of one. It is a white interest to NOT be discriminated against in Ivy League University admissions. Do you support equality of opportunity for whites in Ivy League Admissions, vs discrimination in favor of blacks?

Pretty sure we already covered this. I'm fine with the idea of employing affirmative action to help historically marginalized minorities catch up to whites in terms of admissions. I also leave it to the schools themselves to determine how that pans out given they stay within legal bounds (i.e. the government is also involved since we are a nation of laws, nots tyrants). If my kid was passed up to give a minority student a leg up I'd understand and tell them to keep trying. I'm just one one white person though. I would never presume to speak for all of us nor imagine us having any "interest" in excluding interests expressed by minorities. We're already comprise the majority. We rule. Why be a crybaby about it? No excuse.

To be liberal is to have empathy and compassion for the plight of others. That's me. I'm also conservative in that I'm thrifty as all get out so require very little to keep going. I see no point in going to an Ivy League College these days, for example. Not my interest. Everything I want to know has only been a few keystrokes away for a long time now.

1. Got it. YOu support discrimination against whites.

2. Your pretense of caring about"laws" is just gaslighting. IN reality, the government requires this type of discrimination because any hint of unequal outcome can result in a costly and embarrassing investigation and lawsuits by the government. So universities all cover their ass by massively discriminating in favor of blacks at the expense of whites.

3. And the type of discrimination is led by people like you, liberals. Happy to discriminate against whites, especially poor rural or conservative whites.


4. You denial that such discrimination is not a group interest, is sophist nonsense.


5. Supporting discrimination against whites is not compassion or empathy. It is racism and bigotry and hatred.

 

[Correll]

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."


and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"


Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?

Now the other one again..

"All people" and you cry "white interests"?


Dude.


This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."


and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"


Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?

Now the other one again..

This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.


I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.


Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.

Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..

Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.


I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.


You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.


But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .

Jesus! Not so fast and jerky. Neck again..

I am happy I have crushed you lefties. But not that happy.

Your weirdness is just another way of trying to distract from how completely your position of "Evul Wacism" has been crushed.

Much better. Left leg..

No one doubts that you libs are creepy wierdos or dishonest about when you lose a debate, or that you work to get threads locked to hide your shame and your inability to support your arguments.

LOL

What debate did he lose??

Certainly not about rampant racism among the right. Let's not forget, the best you could do was to show about a quarter of the GOP is not too racist to elect a black person as president.

We've been calling it "Evul Wacism" because it is nothing but a childish fantasy of you guys.


And yes, you lefties have totally lost it. YOur position is based on ignoring evidence and inventing unlikely scenarios, all the while being smug assholes about it.



YOu are emotionally immature partisan hacks, who like to pretend you are cool Heroes, fighting against Evul Wacism, because it makes you feel good about yourself and gives you an excuse to be smug assholes to people who disagree with you.

LOLOLOL

What you call "nothing but childish fantasy" is actually the reality that the GOP has never nominated, no less elected, a black candidate for president. And while there may be some slight differences on some issues among all GOP candidates, perhaps some differences on work or military experience, or some differences on education, there's only one glaring difference between black candidates and white candidates -- the color of their skin.

And even in your best effort, you could find no more than about a quarter of the GOP that would nominate a black candidate. And none on the horizon for possibly the next 4 elections according to you.

But g'head .... keep tellin' yourself you won this debate.

We have gone over the reasons that some very popular gop candidates did not get elected, and it was not because of Evul Wacism.


We covered that in great depth and detail, and your going back to it at this late date, is just the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion used a political propaganda tactic.


I totally won this debate, as you demonstrate with such sad and dishonest tactics.


You lose, loser.

 

[Correll]

You would not have voted for Herman Cain. I would have. Fuck you, you Communist turd.

No, I refuse to vote for people who I believe will make our country worse should they win.

Was it you, or the other lefty that was pretending that the republicans that supported other primary candiates, were Evul Wacists?

No idea what you're babbling about. Pull the other one..

It not credible that you didn't see that one. NO matter. This debate is over. ALl you have left is the attempt so bury the thread in meaningless garbage or to try to get it locked.


Your little fantasy of Evul Wacism has been debunked.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?

Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.

 

[Faun]

YOu argued against a point I never made. Either you got me confused with someone in your room, or the voices in your head.

And hysterically, while at the same time you express doubt she could recall Obama not telling her he was born in Hawaii, you claim she can recall Obama telling her he was born in Kenya.

I never claimed she could remember that.

As far as what I did at work on this day in 2000 -- I didn't. See how recollection works?

I don't find it credible that she remembers that little piece of work so long afterwards.

And what dates would be off?...".

The dates from Father and Son.

But now we all see you have no proof, none at all other than your own delusions, that Obama told her he was born in Kenya -- meaning your claim Obama lied is bullshit.

I never claimed to have proof about this.

LOL

You're a fucking loon.

"YOu argued against a point I never made. Either you got me confused with someone in your room, or the voices in your head."

You're the one claiming Obama told her he was born in Hawaii -- but that claim of yours comes from nowhere but your own tacitly admitted delusions.

"I never claimed she could remember that."

Of course you did, you just don't know what you're saying because you're so fucked in the head. You said Obama told her he was born in Kenya and expressed don't she could even recall writing it. How could she deny it if she didn't even recall writing it?

She denied it to appease the lefty mob. She lied to avoid looking like she is taking a stand against vile people like you, who like to destroy people, if not worse.

"I don't find it credible that she remembers that little piece of work so long afterwards."

So? You're a conspiracy nut who has to convince himself of the implausible when it's convenient to squeeze it into your nutty conspiracy theories.

It is improbably to think that some one could remember writing a few paragraphs, twenty years after the fact?

THat is not improbable. YOu are the crazy person here, not me.

"The dates from Father and Son."

There were no such dates in the articles. Just the mention that they both went to Harvard and they are both named Barack Obama. One saying he was born in the small Kenyan village of Alego and studied at Harvard. It's an easy mistake to make think that was about Barack Obama II.

You moron. YOU presented as a possible explanation that she might have gotten the Father and Son mixed up and that might be the reasons for the "mistake" My reference to dates was that the Father and the Son would have been twenty to thirty years different. It seems unlikely that was the cause of the "mistake"

"I never claimed to have proof about this."

LOL

Which is why you're a crazy conspiracy nut. You believe conspiracies without proof just cause you like the way they feelz.

Suggesting that a man is listed as being born in Kenya, because he told the person writing the piece, that that is where he was born, is hardly a conspiracy theory.

You raving lunatic.

"She denied it to appease the lefty mob. She lied to avoid looking like she is taking a stand against vile people like you, who like to destroy people, if not worse."

Says you, a conspiracy nut. Still incapable of understanding if she was in fear of any retribution by anyone, she would have said nothing at all. Again, no one knew who she was until she raised her hand and took responsibility for editing that bio.

"It is improbably to think that some one could remember writing a few paragraphs, twenty years after the fact? THat is not improbable. YOu are the crazy person here, not me."

It's easy to remember what you wrote about someone when that person you wrote about becomes the president.

"You moron. YOU presented as a possible explanation that she might have gotten the Father and Son mixed up and that might be the reasons for the "mistake" My reference to dates was that the Father and the Son would have been twenty to thirty years different. It seems unlikely that was the cause of the "mistake"

Again, there were no dates in the articles. There were names (they were the same) and there was education (they were the same). Reading about Barack Obama being from Kenya and then going to Harvard (with no dates mentioned) can easily lead one to think it was the president, and not his father, who was from Kenya.

"Suggesting that a man is listed as being born in Kenya, because he told the person writing the piece, that that is where he was born, is hardly a conspiracy theory."

Suggesting that when all the evidence and common sense points to the contrary, yet you still b'lieve your conspiracy nonsense, is the very definition of a conspiracy theory.

"You raving lunatic."

Fortunately for me -- this observation comes from a delusional conspiracy nut.

 

[Correll]

Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?

Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.

A conflict in interests does not require that.


American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.

They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.


Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.

 

[Grumblenuts]

3. I will give an example of one. It is a white interest to NOT be discriminated against in Ivy League University admissions. Do you support equality of opportunity for whites in Ivy League Admissions, vs discrimination in favor of blacks?

Pretty sure we already covered this. I'm fine with the idea of employing affirmative action to help historically marginalized minorities catch up to whites in terms of admissions. I also leave it to the schools themselves to determine how that pans out given they stay within legal bounds (i.e. the government is also involved since we are a nation of laws, nots tyrants). If my kid was passed up to give a minority student a leg up I'd understand and tell them to keep trying. I'm just one one white person though. I would never presume to speak for all of us nor imagine us having any "interest" in excluding interests expressed by minorities. We're already comprise the majority. We rule. Why be a crybaby about it? No excuse.

To be liberal is to have empathy and compassion for the plight of others. That's me. I'm also conservative in that I'm thrifty as all get out so require very little to keep going. I see no point in going to an Ivy League College these days, for example. Not my interest. Everything I want to know has only been a few keystrokes away for a long time now.

1. Got it. YOu support discrimination against whites.

2. Your pretense of caring about"laws" is just gaslighting. IN reality, the government requires this type of discrimination because any hint of unequal outcome can result in a costly and embarrassing investigation and lawsuits by the government. So universities all cover their ass by massively discriminating in favor of blacks at the expense of whites.

3. And the type of discrimination is led by people like you, liberals. Happy to discriminate against whites, especially poor rural or conservative whites.


4. You denial that such discrimination is not a group interest, is sophist nonsense.


5. Supporting discrimination against whites is not compassion or empathy. It is racism and bigotry and hatred.

Care for a selection of fine cheeses with that whine?

 

[Faun]

3. I will give an example of one. It is a white interest to NOT be discriminated against in Ivy League University admissions. Do you support equality of opportunity for whites in Ivy League Admissions, vs discrimination in favor of blacks?

Pretty sure we already covered this. I'm fine with the idea of employing affirmative action to help historically marginalized minorities catch up to whites in terms of admissions. I also leave it to the schools themselves to determine how that pans out given they stay within legal bounds (i.e. the government is also involved since we are a nation of laws, nots tyrants). If my kid was passed up to give a minority student a leg up I'd understand and tell them to keep trying. I'm just one one white person though. I would never presume to speak for all of us nor imagine us having any "interest" in excluding interests expressed by minorities. We're already comprise the majority. We rule. Why be a crybaby about it? No excuse.

To be liberal is to have empathy and compassion for the plight of others. That's me. I'm also conservative in that I'm thrifty as all get out so require very little to keep going. I see no point in going to an Ivy League College these days, for example. Not my interest. Everything I want to know has only been a few keystrokes away for a long time now.

1. Got it. YOu support discrimination against whites.

2. Your pretense of caring about"laws" is just gaslighting. IN reality, the government requires this type of discrimination because any hint of unequal outcome can result in a costly and embarrassing investigation and lawsuits by the government. So universities all cover their ass by massively discriminating in favor of blacks at the expense of whites.

3. And the type of discrimination is led by people like you, liberals. Happy to discriminate against whites, especially poor rural or conservative whites.


4. You denial that such discrimination is not a group interest, is sophist nonsense.


5. Supporting discrimination against whites is not compassion or empathy. It is racism and bigotry and hatred.

Oh, for fuck's sake ... even with affirmative action, blacks and hispanics are still underrepresented. White are not discriminated against.

 

[Correll]

YOu argued against a point I never made. Either you got me confused with someone in your room, or the voices in your head.

And hysterically, while at the same time you express doubt she could recall Obama not telling her he was born in Hawaii, you claim she can recall Obama telling her he was born in Kenya.

I never claimed she could remember that.

As far as what I did at work on this day in 2000 -- I didn't. See how recollection works?

I don't find it credible that she remembers that little piece of work so long afterwards.

And what dates would be off?...".

The dates from Father and Son.

But now we all see you have no proof, none at all other than your own delusions, that Obama told her he was born in Kenya -- meaning your claim Obama lied is bullshit.

I never claimed to have proof about this.

LOL

You're a fucking loon.

"YOu argued against a point I never made. Either you got me confused with someone in your room, or the voices in your head."

You're the one claiming Obama told her he was born in Hawaii -- but that claim of yours comes from nowhere but your own tacitly admitted delusions.

"I never claimed she could remember that."

Of course you did, you just don't know what you're saying because you're so fucked in the head. You said Obama told her he was born in Kenya and expressed don't she could even recall writing it. How could she deny it if she didn't even recall writing it?

She denied it to appease the lefty mob. She lied to avoid looking like she is taking a stand against vile people like you, who like to destroy people, if not worse.

"I don't find it credible that she remembers that little piece of work so long afterwards."

So? You're a conspiracy nut who has to convince himself of the implausible when it's convenient to squeeze it into your nutty conspiracy theories.

It is improbably to think that some one could remember writing a few paragraphs, twenty years after the fact?

THat is not improbable. YOu are the crazy person here, not me.

"The dates from Father and Son."

There were no such dates in the articles. Just the mention that they both went to Harvard and they are both named Barack Obama. One saying he was born in the small Kenyan village of Alego and studied at Harvard. It's an easy mistake to make think that was about Barack Obama II.

You moron. YOU presented as a possible explanation that she might have gotten the Father and Son mixed up and that might be the reasons for the "mistake" My reference to dates was that the Father and the Son would have been twenty to thirty years different. It seems unlikely that was the cause of the "mistake"

"I never claimed to have proof about this."

LOL

Which is why you're a crazy conspiracy nut. You believe conspiracies without proof just cause you like the way they feelz.

Suggesting that a man is listed as being born in Kenya, because he told the person writing the piece, that that is where he was born, is hardly a conspiracy theory.

You raving lunatic.

"She denied it to appease the lefty mob. She lied to avoid looking like she is taking a stand against vile people like you, who like to destroy people, if not worse."

Says you, a conspiracy nut. Still incapable of understanding if she was in fear of any retribution by anyone, she would have said nothing at all. Again, no one knew who she was until she raised her hand and took responsibility for editing that bio.

A "conspiracy" of one. With no need for any communication of her intent to lie outside of her head. That is such a wild and crazy conspiracy theory. NOT.

"It is improbably to think that some one could remember writing a few paragraphs, twenty years after the fact? THat is not improbable. YOu are the crazy person here, not me."

It's easy to remember what you wrote about someone when that person you wrote about becomes the president.

So, decades after the fact, you find out that a factoid you paid not much attention to at the time and long ago forgot, you find out is actually historically important and that magically makes the memory come back?

Memory does not work like that.

"You moron. YOU presented as a possible explanation that she might have gotten the Father and Son mixed up and that might be the reasons for the "mistake" My reference to dates was that the Father and the Son would have been twenty to thirty years different. It seems unlikely that was the cause of the "mistake"

Again, there were no dates in the articles. There were names (they were the same) and there was education (they were the same). Reading about Barack Obama being from Kenya and then going to Harvard (with no dates mentioned) can easily lead one to think it was the president, and not his father, who was from Kenya.

Dates on the father's information that you were suggesting led to the mistake. I would think that such data would be stored very differently and not with more recent students.

"Suggesting that a man is listed as being born in Kenya, because he told the person writing the piece, that that is where he was born, is hardly a conspiracy theory."

Suggesting that when all the evidence and common sense points to the contrary, yet you still b'lieve your conspiracy nonsense, is the very definition of a conspiracy theory.

The only "evidence" that he did not tell her, is her not credible words. That is not convincing.

"You raving lunatic."

Fortunately for me -- this observation comes from a delusional conspiracy nut.

You are raving.

 

[Faun]

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."


and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"


Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?

Now the other one again..

"All people" and you cry "white interests"?


Dude.


This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."


and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"


Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?

Now the other one again..

This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.


I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.


Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.

Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..

Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.


I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.


You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.


But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .

Jesus! Not so fast and jerky. Neck again..

I am happy I have crushed you lefties. But not that happy.

Your weirdness is just another way of trying to distract from how completely your position of "Evul Wacism" has been crushed.

Much better. Left leg..

No one doubts that you libs are creepy wierdos or dishonest about when you lose a debate, or that you work to get threads locked to hide your shame and your inability to support your arguments.

LOL

What debate did he lose??

Certainly not about rampant racism among the right. Let's not forget, the best you could do was to show about a quarter of the GOP is not too racist to elect a black person as president.

We've been calling it "Evul Wacism" because it is nothing but a childish fantasy of you guys.


And yes, you lefties have totally lost it. YOur position is based on ignoring evidence and inventing unlikely scenarios, all the while being smug assholes about it.



YOu are emotionally immature partisan hacks, who like to pretend you are cool Heroes, fighting against Evul Wacism, because it makes you feel good about yourself and gives you an excuse to be smug assholes to people who disagree with you.

LOLOLOL

What you call "nothing but childish fantasy" is actually the reality that the GOP has never nominated, no less elected, a black candidate for president. And while there may be some slight differences on some issues among all GOP candidates, perhaps some differences on work or military experience, or some differences on education, there's only one glaring difference between black candidates and white candidates -- the color of their skin.

And even in your best effort, you could find no more than about a quarter of the GOP that would nominate a black candidate. And none on the horizon for possibly the next 4 elections according to you.

But g'head .... keep tellin' yourself you won this debate.

We have gone over the reasons that some very popular gop candidates did not get elected, and it was not because of Evul Wacism.


We covered that in great depth and detail, and your going back to it at this late date, is just the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion used a political propaganda tactic.


I totally won this debate, as you demonstrate with such sad and dishonest tactics.


You lose, loser.

No, you claim it's not because of racism. But the facts belie your hollow denials.

But g'head .... keep tellin' yourself you won this debate.

 

[Correll]

3. I will give an example of one. It is a white interest to NOT be discriminated against in Ivy League University admissions. Do you support equality of opportunity for whites in Ivy League Admissions, vs discrimination in favor of blacks?

Pretty sure we already covered this. I'm fine with the idea of employing affirmative action to help historically marginalized minorities catch up to whites in terms of admissions. I also leave it to the schools themselves to determine how that pans out given they stay within legal bounds (i.e. the government is also involved since we are a nation of laws, nots tyrants). If my kid was passed up to give a minority student a leg up I'd understand and tell them to keep trying. I'm just one one white person though. I would never presume to speak for all of us nor imagine us having any "interest" in excluding interests expressed by minorities. We're already comprise the majority. We rule. Why be a crybaby about it? No excuse.

To be liberal is to have empathy and compassion for the plight of others. That's me. I'm also conservative in that I'm thrifty as all get out so require very little to keep going. I see no point in going to an Ivy League College these days, for example. Not my interest. Everything I want to know has only been a few keystrokes away for a long time now.

1. Got it. YOu support discrimination against whites.

2. Your pretense of caring about"laws" is just gaslighting. IN reality, the government requires this type of discrimination because any hint of unequal outcome can result in a costly and embarrassing investigation and lawsuits by the government. So universities all cover their ass by massively discriminating in favor of blacks at the expense of whites.

3. And the type of discrimination is led by people like you, liberals. Happy to discriminate against whites, especially poor rural or conservative whites.


4. You denial that such discrimination is not a group interest, is sophist nonsense.


5. Supporting discrimination against whites is not compassion or empathy. It is racism and bigotry and hatred.

Care for a selection of fine cheeses with that whine?

Your inability to support your position is noted.


It is not surprising. INdeed, liberals almost never even try to support their positions with actual arguments.



You support anti-white discrimination, you are an anti-white racist.


Your supposed concerns about Evul Wacism, is only a front to bash your enemies with.

 

[Correll]

3. I will give an example of one. It is a white interest to NOT be discriminated against in Ivy League University admissions. Do you support equality of opportunity for whites in Ivy League Admissions, vs discrimination in favor of blacks?

Pretty sure we already covered this. I'm fine with the idea of employing affirmative action to help historically marginalized minorities catch up to whites in terms of admissions. I also leave it to the schools themselves to determine how that pans out given they stay within legal bounds (i.e. the government is also involved since we are a nation of laws, nots tyrants). If my kid was passed up to give a minority student a leg up I'd understand and tell them to keep trying. I'm just one one white person though. I would never presume to speak for all of us nor imagine us having any "interest" in excluding interests expressed by minorities. We're already comprise the majority. We rule. Why be a crybaby about it? No excuse.

To be liberal is to have empathy and compassion for the plight of others. That's me. I'm also conservative in that I'm thrifty as all get out so require very little to keep going. I see no point in going to an Ivy League College these days, for example. Not my interest. Everything I want to know has only been a few keystrokes away for a long time now.

1. Got it. YOu support discrimination against whites.

2. Your pretense of caring about"laws" is just gaslighting. IN reality, the government requires this type of discrimination because any hint of unequal outcome can result in a costly and embarrassing investigation and lawsuits by the government. So universities all cover their ass by massively discriminating in favor of blacks at the expense of whites.

3. And the type of discrimination is led by people like you, liberals. Happy to discriminate against whites, especially poor rural or conservative whites.


4. You denial that such discrimination is not a group interest, is sophist nonsense.


5. Supporting discrimination against whites is not compassion or empathy. It is racism and bigotry and hatred.

Oh, for fuck's sake ... even with affirmative action, blacks and hispanics are still underrepresented. White are not discriminated against.

View attachment 318416

Yes, minority families and minorities schools do such a poor job, that minority students, well black and brown students, even with massive and widespread discrimination in their favor, still end up with an education gap.


But that does not change the fact that the anti-white discrimination is happening.


And indeed, the point was not so much that it is happening, (we all know it is) but that grumble supports such anti-white racism.

 

[Correll]

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."


and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"


Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?

Now the other one again..

"All people" and you cry "white interests"?


Dude.


This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."


and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"


Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?

Now the other one again..

This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.


I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.


Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.

Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..

Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.


I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.


You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.


But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .

Jesus! Not so fast and jerky. Neck again..

I am happy I have crushed you lefties. But not that happy.

Your weirdness is just another way of trying to distract from how completely your position of "Evul Wacism" has been crushed.

Much better. Left leg..

No one doubts that you libs are creepy wierdos or dishonest about when you lose a debate, or that you work to get threads locked to hide your shame and your inability to support your arguments.

LOL

What debate did he lose??

Certainly not about rampant racism among the right. Let's not forget, the best you could do was to show about a quarter of the GOP is not too racist to elect a black person as president.

We've been calling it "Evul Wacism" because it is nothing but a childish fantasy of you guys.


And yes, you lefties have totally lost it. YOur position is based on ignoring evidence and inventing unlikely scenarios, all the while being smug assholes about it.



YOu are emotionally immature partisan hacks, who like to pretend you are cool Heroes, fighting against Evul Wacism, because it makes you feel good about yourself and gives you an excuse to be smug assholes to people who disagree with you.

LOLOLOL

What you call "nothing but childish fantasy" is actually the reality that the GOP has never nominated, no less elected, a black candidate for president. And while there may be some slight differences on some issues among all GOP candidates, perhaps some differences on work or military experience, or some differences on education, there's only one glaring difference between black candidates and white candidates -- the color of their skin.

And even in your best effort, you could find no more than about a quarter of the GOP that would nominate a black candidate. And none on the horizon for possibly the next 4 elections according to you.

But g'head .... keep tellin' yourself you won this debate.

We have gone over the reasons that some very popular gop candidates did not get elected, and it was not because of Evul Wacism.


We covered that in great depth and detail, and your going back to it at this late date, is just the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion used a political propaganda tactic.


I totally won this debate, as you demonstrate with such sad and dishonest tactics.


You lose, loser.

No, you claim it's not because of racism. But the facts belie your hollow denials.

But g'head .... keep tellin' yourself you won this debate.

The facts are what you insisted on not paying attention to, because you just know, Evul Wacism.


You demonstrated your pathetic-ness, over and over again.