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

[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.

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.

So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?

 

[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.

So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?

I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area.

This was in regard to your position that minorities could not have interests because they have less power than whites.



YOu made a point. I addressed it, seriously and honestly.


Please do not pretend to not understand how my answer related to your point.

 

[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 ******* 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.

"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's based solely on your belief that even you admit is not founded in proof.

"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?"

LOLOL

It was her work. Why would she not recall it when she saw it some 20 years later??

I've seen code I've written that far back and can recognize it was my work and what inspired it.

You think other peoples' brains don't function normally because yours doesn't.

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

It's not convincing to conspiracy nuts perhaps, but to rational folks, it is. Especially since her boss at that time said non-athletes almost never wrote their own bios ... and ... nearly everything in his bio appears to come from newspaper articles .... and those news paper articles talk about Barack Obama being from Kenya and going to Harvard .... and because newspaper articles prior to that bio talk about Barack Obama (the son) being born in Hawaii.

While your own explanation for why Obama would tell the press he was from Hawaii but then tell a publicist he was from Kenya was built upon your own made up delusion that the president of the Harvard Law Review was really just a "goofy anti-American punk."

 

[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 ****'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.

^^^ Spits a raging racist.

 

[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 ******* 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.

"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's based solely on your belief that even you admit is not founded in proof.

"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?"

LOLOL

It was her work. Why would she not recall it when she saw it some 20 years later??

I've seen code I've written that far back and can recognize it was my work and what inspired it.

You think other peoples' brains don't function normally because yours doesn't.

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

It's not convincing to conspiracy nuts perhaps, but to rational folks, it is. Especially since her boss at that time said non-athletes almost never wrote their own bios ... and ... nearly everything in his bio appears to come from newspaper articles .... and those news paper articles talk about Barack Obama being from Kenya and going to Harvard .... and because newspaper articles prior to that bio talk about Barack Obama (the son) being born in Hawaii.

While your own explanation for why Obama would tell the press he was from Hawaii but then tell a publicist he was from Kenya was built upon your own made up delusion that the president of the Harvard Law Review was really just a "goofy anti-American punk."

It's been a while since I read the excerpts but he desire to emphasize his "exotic" background as opposed to his "white mother" was not something I made up, but something I read, from his AUTOBIOGRAPHY


He was and is an anti-American punk.

 

[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...... **** 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...... **** 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.

LOL

Your explanation for why the GOP turned their back on Cain was because of a "ginned up media scandal" where women were lining up to accuse him of sexual improprieties.

 

[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 ****'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.

^^^ Spits a raging racist.

We've established in this thread, that your lefties use of "racism"


is better to be called, "Evul Wacism", to fit your level of maturity.



Could you repost your attack, and instead of saying "Racism", say, "Evul Wacism"?


YOu know, like a child with a speech impediment.


A stupid child.

 

[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...... **** 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...... **** 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.

LOL

Your explanation for why the GOP turned their back on Cain was because of a "ginned up media scandal" where women were lining up to accuse him of sexual improprieties.

Correct. THe GOP voters were pretty happy with him, until that. As though his being black was no a factor at all


Which is the point in this thread, which is all about your lefty belief in Evul Wacism.

 

[Faun]

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.

So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?

I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area.

This was in regard to your position that minorities could not have interests because they have less power than whites.



YOu made a point. I addressed it, seriously and honestly.


Please do not pretend to not understand how my answer related to your point.

"I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area."

Until recently, I've been to the Hard Rock Casino and Guitar hotel in Hollywood -- it's mostly white people there. Seems it's just as much an interest to them as the blacks, hispanics, and others who partake.

Sure, there are many whites who it's not an interest of; but there are also many blacks who it's not an interest of and there are many hispanics and others who it's not an interest of.

Point being, it's not against whites. You only think it is because you're a ******* raging racist.

 

[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...... **** 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...... **** 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.

LOL

Your explanation for why the GOP turned their back on Cain was because of a "ginned up media scandal" where women were lining up to accuse him of sexual improprieties.

Correct. THe GOP voters were pretty happy with him, until that. As though his being black was no a factor at all


Which is the point in this thread, which is all about your lefty belief in Evul Wacism.

But of course his race was a factor as evidenced by the media "ginning" up a scandal against white Impeached Trump just 4 years later and the GOP embraced him. It was the black candidate they couldn't bring upon themselves to forgive.

 

[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 ******* 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.

"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's based solely on your belief that even you admit is not founded in proof.

"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?"

LOLOL

It was her work. Why would she not recall it when she saw it some 20 years later??

I've seen code I've written that far back and can recognize it was my work and what inspired it.

You think other peoples' brains don't function normally because yours doesn't.

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

It's not convincing to conspiracy nuts perhaps, but to rational folks, it is. Especially since her boss at that time said non-athletes almost never wrote their own bios ... and ... nearly everything in his bio appears to come from newspaper articles .... and those news paper articles talk about Barack Obama being from Kenya and going to Harvard .... and because newspaper articles prior to that bio talk about Barack Obama (the son) being born in Hawaii.

While your own explanation for why Obama would tell the press he was from Hawaii but then tell a publicist he was from Kenya was built upon your own made up delusion that the president of the Harvard Law Review was really just a "goofy anti-American punk."

It's been a while since I read the excerpts but he desire to emphasize his "exotic" background as opposed to his "white mother" was not something I made up, but something I read, from his AUTOBIOGRAPHY


He was and is an anti-American punk.

"It's been a while since I read the excerpts but he desire to emphasize his "exotic" background as opposed to his "white mother" was not something I made up, but something I read, from his AUTOBIOGRAPHY"

You're truly ******* demented. Yes, you made that up or you read it on some loony site that made it up. It didn't come from his books.

"He was and is an anti-American punk."

Slobbers a raging racist conspiracy nut.

 

[katsteve2012]

Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....

I will break the news to Diamond & Silk

The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,


but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.


That is the point I have addressed and refuted.

Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.


THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.


Evul Wacists? LOL!!!

I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...

you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....

But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....

How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?

If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:

During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"

Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.

Because you defer to them based on their race.

Correct. Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.

All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.

You are conflating rights and interests. I would and do defend the rights of all people.


When you want tell white people to defer to the interests of black people, because "majority/minority you are violating the right of the white people to their interests and equal protection before the law and equal rights to the political process.


YOu are the racist here, not I.

So considering minority interests, particularly while discussing something explicitly about that minority, is racist?

Of course it is. After all, in the minds of some individuals, considering the interests of minorities(specifically blacks)is an act of being "anti white", because the white population has "sacrificed so much for blacks", and blacks are "ungrateful" and must realize that when a black person experiences any success, it was likely at the expense of a noble, unselfish white person.

That you need to lie about my position, is your brain telling you that you are in the wrong.

It's not a lie. And you have said those words in a thinly veiled way before.

.....

Except I have not said those words, before. As you tacitly admit with your weasel words, "thinly veiled".


Grumble's position is that we white should defer to blacks, because "minority".

THat is not fair to whites.

There is a distinct difference between "deference" and "consideration".

Do you understand that difference?

Grumble clearly stated the following:

CORRELL:
Because you defer to them based on their race.

Grumble
Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.
All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.

Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....

I will break the news to Diamond & Silk

The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,


but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.


That is the point I have addressed and refuted.

Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.


THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.


Evul Wacists? LOL!!!

I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...

you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....

But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....

How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?

If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:

During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"

Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.

Because you defer to them based on their race.

Correct. Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.

All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.

You are conflating rights and interests. I would and do defend the rights of all people.


When you want tell white people to defer to the interests of black people, because "majority/minority you are violating the right of the white people to their interests and equal protection before the law and equal rights to the political process.


YOu are the racist here, not I.

So considering minority interests, particularly while discussing something explicitly about that minority, is racist?

Of course it is. After all, in the minds of some individuals, considering the interests of minorities(specifically blacks)is an act of being "anti white", because the white population has "sacrificed so much for blacks", and blacks are "ungrateful" and must realize that when a black person experiences any success, it was likely at the expense of a noble, unselfish white person.

That you need to lie about my position, is your brain telling you that you are in the wrong.

It's not a lie. And you have said those words in a thinly veiled way before.

.....

Except I have not said those words, before. As you tacitly admit with your weasel words, "thinly veiled".


Grumble's position is that we white should defer to blacks, because "minority".

THat is not fair to whites.

There is a distinct difference between "deference" and "consideration" .

Do you understand it? If not, I will gladly illustrate the difference for you, free of charge.

Grumble VERY clearly stated that as part of the majority, he feels "morally and patriotically" obligated "TO CONSIDER" the interests of the minority.

Go back and re read his words, and you will notice that it was YOU who used the term "DEFER".

Not him.

And In your typical zeal to find any shred of what you percieve as anti white bias or victimhood, anywhere and everywhere, you overlooked (possibly on purpose) what he actually stated, and substituted what you WANTED to read.

That is quite childish on your part, IMO.

 

[katsteve2012]

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.

So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?

White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.

But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.

I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.

Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.

The few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time by comparison to what is in Vegas.

In fact, the "Lunatic in Chief" has or had hotel/casino interests in Vegas as well at one time

 

[Grumblenuts]

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...... **** 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...... **** 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.

LOL

Your explanation for why the GOP turned their back on Cain was because of a "ginned up media scandal" where women were lining up to accuse him of sexual improprieties.

Ginned up because Cain was Republican while black. If he were a Democrat they would be Blessed Protectors of "white interests."

 

[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.

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.

So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?

Say what?! I live 3 hours from Vegas and go to chsmpionship fights there all the time.

Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.

The few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time by comparison to what is in Vegas.

In fact, the "Lunatic in Chief" has or had hotel/casino interests in Vegas as well.

I miss the "Informative" rating.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....

I will break the news to Diamond & Silk

The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,


but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.


That is the point I have addressed and refuted.

Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.


THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.


Evul Wacists? LOL!!!

I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...

you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....

But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....

How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?

If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:

During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"

Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.

Because you defer to them based on their race.

Correct. Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.

All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.

You are conflating rights and interests. I would and do defend the rights of all people.


When you want tell white people to defer to the interests of black people, because "majority/minority you are violating the right of the white people to their interests and equal protection before the law and equal rights to the political process.


YOu are the racist here, not I.

So considering minority interests, particularly while discussing something explicitly about that minority, is racist?

Of course it is. After all, in the minds of some individuals, considering the interests of minorities(specifically blacks)is an act of being "anti white", because the white population has "sacrificed so much for blacks", and blacks are "ungrateful" and must realize that when a black person experiences any success, it was likely at the expense of a noble, unselfish white person.

That you need to lie about my position, is your brain telling you that you are in the wrong.

It's not a lie. And you have said those words in a thinly veiled way before.

.....

Except I have not said those words, before. As you tacitly admit with your weasel words, "thinly veiled".


Grumble's position is that we white should defer to blacks, because "minority".

THat is not fair to whites.

There is a distinct difference between "deference" and "consideration".

Do you understand that difference?

Grumble clearly stated the following:

CORRELL:
Because you defer to them based on their race.

Grumble
Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.
All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.

Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....

I will break the news to Diamond & Silk

The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,


but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.


That is the point I have addressed and refuted.

Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.


THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.


Evul Wacists? LOL!!!

I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...

you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....

But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....

How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?

If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:

During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"

Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.

Because you defer to them based on their race.

Correct. Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.

All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.

You are conflating rights and interests. I would and do defend the rights of all people.


When you want tell white people to defer to the interests of black people, because "majority/minority you are violating the right of the white people to their interests and equal protection before the law and equal rights to the political process.


YOu are the racist here, not I.

So considering minority interests, particularly while discussing something explicitly about that minority, is racist?

Of course it is. After all, in the minds of some individuals, considering the interests of minorities(specifically blacks)is an act of being "anti white", because the white population has "sacrificed so much for blacks", and blacks are "ungrateful" and must realize that when a black person experiences any success, it was likely at the expense of a noble, unselfish white person.

That you need to lie about my position, is your brain telling you that you are in the wrong.

It's not a lie. And you have said those words in a thinly veiled way before.

.....

Except I have not said those words, before. As you tacitly admit with your weasel words, "thinly veiled".


Grumble's position is that we white should defer to blacks, because "minority".

THat is not fair to whites.

There is a distinct difference between "deference" and "consideration" .

Do you understand it? If not, I will gladly illustrate the difference for you, free of charge.

Grumble VERY clearly stated that as part of the majority, he feels "morally and patriotically" obligated "TO CONSIDER" the interests of the minority.

Go back and re read his words, and you will notice that it was YOU who used the term "DEFER".

Not him.

And In your typical zeal to find any shred of what you percieve as anti white bias or victimhood, anywhere and everywhere, you overlooked (possibly on purpose) what he actually stated, and substituted what you WANTED to read.

That is quite childish on your part, IMO.

Thank you for that. To be fair, I have repeatedly said I'd "defer" to IM2, blacks, or minority members here or there meaning being deferential toward. A tad more than simply being considerate of, but an important and necessary tad nonetheless. I try to be considerate of everyone. I'm proudly deferential to any minority voices where their input clearly best represents the most impacted people in the room. It is indeed my civic duty.. as that Jefferson quote makes plain.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I'll put it this way. Say an entire football team challenged (forced actually) a couple chess players to "play" a game of football. One of the chess players complains "Hey,we can't play without pads, helmets, and all that shit you've got on!" Now, yes, they obviously have a right to that equal protection, but it's their right to free speech that enables them to voice those interests in the first place. That must be protected first and foremost,.. i.e. "defer"red to.. "to violate would be oppression."

 

[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.

So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?

I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area.

This was in regard to your position that minorities could not have interests because they have less power than whites.



YOu made a point. I addressed it, seriously and honestly.


Please do not pretend to not understand how my answer related to your point.

"I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area."

Until recently, I've been to the Hard Rock Casino and Guitar hotel in Hollywood -- it's mostly white people there. Seems it's just as much an interest to them as the blacks, hispanics, and others who partake.

Sure, there are many whites who it's not an interest of; but there are also many blacks who it's not an interest of and there are many hispanics and others who it's not an interest of.

Point being, it's not against whites. You only think it is because you're a ******* raging racist.

That some individual whites go there, does not change the fact that the other whites (whites as a group) in the area have the interest and instituted policy of NOT having a casino in the area, or they would have legalized gambling.


And, there is a difference conflict of interests, and "against whites". You do realize that, right?


If you have groups of people living in the same area, you will have conflicts of interests.


THat is not racism, you ******* moron. Discussing it is no racism, you ******* moron. Advocating for one or the other, is not racism, you ******* moron.


AND, could you please use the term Evul Wacism? I think it is reasonable for you to be the one to distinguish between real accusations of actual racism, and what you libs do.

 

[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...... **** 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...... **** 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.

LOL

Your explanation for why the GOP turned their back on Cain was because of a "ginned up media scandal" where women were lining up to accuse him of sexual improprieties.

Correct. THe GOP voters were pretty happy with him, until that. As though his being black was no a factor at all


Which is the point in this thread, which is all about your lefty belief in Evul Wacism.

But of course his race was a factor as evidenced by the media "ginning" up a scandal against white Impeached Trump just 4 years later and the GOP embraced him. It was the black candidate they couldn't bring upon themselves to forgive.

That is a nice assumption you have there. Now, how will you support it, or do you expect that when you call cry "Evul Wacism", it is supposed to just be believed, because, "Evul Wacism"?

 

[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 ******* 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.

"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's based solely on your belief that even you admit is not founded in proof.

"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?"

LOLOL

It was her work. Why would she not recall it when she saw it some 20 years later??

I've seen code I've written that far back and can recognize it was my work and what inspired it.

You think other peoples' brains don't function normally because yours doesn't.

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

It's not convincing to conspiracy nuts perhaps, but to rational folks, it is. Especially since her boss at that time said non-athletes almost never wrote their own bios ... and ... nearly everything in his bio appears to come from newspaper articles .... and those news paper articles talk about Barack Obama being from Kenya and going to Harvard .... and because newspaper articles prior to that bio talk about Barack Obama (the son) being born in Hawaii.

While your own explanation for why Obama would tell the press he was from Hawaii but then tell a publicist he was from Kenya was built upon your own made up delusion that the president of the Harvard Law Review was really just a "goofy anti-American punk."

It's been a while since I read the excerpts but he desire to emphasize his "exotic" background as opposed to his "white mother" was not something I made up, but something I read, from his AUTOBIOGRAPHY


He was and is an anti-American punk.

"It's been a while since I read the excerpts but he desire to emphasize his "exotic" background as opposed to his "white mother" was not something I made up, but something I read, from his AUTOBIOGRAPHY"

You're truly ******* demented. Yes, you made that up or you read it on some loony site that made it up. It didn't come from his books.

"He was and is an anti-American punk."

Slobbers a raging racist conspiracy nut.

The "him playing up his background to be more cool, was from his book. My conclusion was that he was an Anti-American punk.


You've made a claim. You've supported it by calling me a "evul wacist", like an ill mannered and retarded child.


As supporting arguments go, that is you failing. Miserably.