Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9078 total)
95 online now:
nwr, PaulK, Phat, Tangle (4 members, 91 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,048 Year: 6,160/6,534 Month: 353/650 Week: 123/278 Day: 21/24 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who's the bigger offender: Conservatives or Liberals?
Percy
Member
Posts: 20955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(3)
Message 439 of 767 (889583)
12-05-2021 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 435 by Phat
12-05-2021 3:20 PM


Re: Racism Is Not A One Way Street
Phat writes:

jar writes:

I find it interesting that I, as a gun carrying US citizen I (and quite a few of the gun owners with whom I associate) think that the verdict in the Rittenhouse trial was correct.

Ok so far we agree. His actions, though immature as you say were no doubt self-defense.

The Rittenhouse verdict might be a proper application of law, but it shouldn't be in my opinion. Rittenhouse took his gun and marched into a volatile situation in a way practically guaranteed to provoke threatening reactions, then shot those who seemed threatening to him. If Rittenhouse had stayed home no one would have been shot or murdered. His presence caused more chaos and deaths, not less.

Shooting one person? It's believable the threat could have been real and legitimate. Shooting two people? That's straining credulity. Shooting three people? He was looking for it.

Mitigating this perspective would be if other armed civilians had also shot people that night, but no one else was shot. The only person who shot anyone that night was Rittenhouse. If things were so volatile and dangerous out there that would not have been true.

The prosecutor in the case effectively shredded the conservative argument that in the right hands - the "good guys" - guns promote public safety. That this is a fiction was obvious before Rittenhouse, and is even more obvious now.

Conservatives are only inviting more injury and death by encouraging the introduction of more guns into more and more situations. That some police have been heard saying they're glad armed civilians have joined them in patrolling unrest is very scary, because that's a recipe for more injury and deaths, not less.

Something about guns is exhilarating and intoxicating to some people. They'll never give up their guns - it's like a drug to them.

Had Rittenhouse been black it's very unlikely he would have lived through the night and not been executed by the police right then and there.
I cautiously agree with some reservations. "very unlikely" is an overstatement. You make it seem as if most police are racist and that most blacks get shot.

While jar and I have different opinions, I don't see how anything he said suggests "that most blacks get shot."

It may well be ok to label overall justice as racist, but to label it as an example of white privilege is unfair to white people.

How is using the term white privilege unfair to white people? Who else besides white people are responsible for how blacks suffer disenfranchisement, discrimination, and victimization at the hands of the police and the law? No matter what label you put on it, that's all on whites.

Punishing white people as a point of justice is no better than reparations.

How is it "punishing white people" to accurately state that they're responsible for the plight of blacks?

Let each case be colorblind and stand on the facts.

What "each case?" We're talking about systemic racism.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by Phat, posted 12-05-2021 3:20 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 447 of 767 (889599)
12-06-2021 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by marc9000
12-05-2021 5:30 PM


Re: Racism Is Not A One Way Street
Marc, you're back, I should have known, I thought I detected a stench.

marc9000 writes:

Hey, Marc, thank you for what, given your history, could only be an honest, accurate and complete report.

You're welcome, even I'm surprised that little truth bomb caused a full seven posters to fly into a rage in only about 12 hours. I think that's a record even for me.

We'll have to start calling you Sheldon. To help you become more aware of sarcasm, everything I say in this message will contain at least a hint of sarcasm.

Yes, Marc, that's it. Everyone takes you so seriously that reading your ramblings sends them into a rage.

I've only been coming here lately to read for amusement,...

God, you lucky stiff. For the rest of us this is all hard work.

I guess you're the only one here for amusement while everyone else is enraged by your insightful observations. I thought we were only incredulous and appalled, but if you say we're in a rage then I guess we are. After all, when has anything you've said been false?

...though I seldom pay attention to anything jar has to say. But when I see this kind of stupidity;

jar writes:

I am a conservative.

By itself, I was letting it go. But combined with this one, I couldn't resist;

jar writes:

Had Rittenhouse been black it's very unlikely he would have lived through the night and not been executed by the police right then and there.

Why does no one, particularly you, not call him on some of these things? It's no longer 1880, police don't lynch blacks any longer.

What an incredibly accurate reading of what jar said!! You are just so astute! If you're looking for my reaction to that part of the discussion, just look at my message that appears immediately before yours. I even quoted the exact same words from jar. Gotta hand it to you, your powers of observation are unmatched.

Words like "conservative" actually mean something - what good is a discussion forum, even a one-sided one, when posters are allowed to falsely use word definitions?

Well of course words mean something, like "right wing nut job."

After reading this I guess I can safely assume that Ms. Babbit was obeying the law and not behaving in any unusual or threatening manner when, out of the blue and unprovoked, Michael Byrd inexplicably chose her of all people to fire his weapon at.

She was breaking and entering, breaking the law, no different than countless thousands of rioters were in several different cities all across the U.S. in 2020, and before. It wasn't a private residence or private business where a burgler can very well expect to get shot, it was a public place where a disciplined security force was expected to be.

My, my, Sheldon, your dedication to truth and accuracy is unmatched!

But no one should have been killed,...

How inciteful!

If Byrd would have been white, and Babbitt would have been black, do you think there would have been a trial?

Wow, flipping the races, what an inspirational coup! Uh, could you explain the logic behind this one?

Here's a link to the Seattle takeover, you probably missed it, the mainstream media skimmed over it quickly, if they mentioned it at all.

Seattle protesters take over city blocks to create police-free 'autonomous zone'

Oh, sure, the mainstream media completely skipped over it, not one reported it, I've never even heard of Seattle, and The Guardian is not mainstream media.

A couple weeks before the insurrection Babbitt sent this heartwarming reply to Kamala Harris who had tweeted about masking up, distributing vaccines, and getting kids back in schools:

NO LINK? Or did a NY Times editor, or maybe Chris Cuomo just make that up? Maybe Don Lemon? "we the ppl, bitch!"

Ah, Marc, you got me, I made it up. That's just the kind of thing I do all the time, make things up. I'm sure this link is made up, don't bother clicking on it:'She was deep into it': Ashli Babbitt, killed in Capitol riot, was devoted conspiracy theorist. And if you do click on it then especially don't read the third paragraph, because what are the odds it's the very paragraph I quoted? Zero, right? 'Cause I always lie. You know what would be really ironic is if that link took you to the very same news source that you cited yourself, The Guardian. But, naw, what are the odds of that happening?

Does that sound like white talk to you? Even if it is true, does that kind of speech justify an execution?

Ah, such knowledge and discernment, knowing how Babbitt writes on Twitter. Yes I made it up, and then I hacked into Twitter so I could fake this Twitter post from Babbitt:

You really got me, Marc. Can't put anything by you!

On a more serious note, I've stopped providing links for information that most everyone knows already or that at least is so ubiquitous that anyone can find it with a simple Google search.

Are you saying Michael Byrd knew that she said that before he killed her? What was she doing different than everyone else in the room? Why weren't they all mowed down?

Oh, Marc, you are just so sharp. Yes, that's precisely what I was saying. It just makes so much sense that Michael Byrd knew it was Ashli trying to break into the House Chambers *and* he knew what she'd said on Twitter. Why did I ever think I could fool you!

This clearly makes Babbitt out to be a calm and rational person who represented no threat as she tried to invade the House chambers by climbing through the smashed security glass of its doors. I bet Babbitt had cupcakes and soft drinks for House members in her backpack.

What she didn't have was a weapon,...

Just so astute, Marc, absolutely remarkable. The possibility of a weapon not being visible, what are the chances of that, right? There could be no weapon in her backpack or a coat pocket or pants pocket. It would have been perfectly safe to let her through the smashed glass and walk among members of the House of Representatives. Of course she would have had to look under chairs to find them.

...that's enough for there to be questions, an investigation, a trial. It would have been easy enough to acquit Byrd.

Seriously again for one paragraph, as you'd know if you'd read my stuff, I am against almost all officers (and everyone else) having guns. Of course there should be questions and an investigation, and if anyone was found to have broken a law then they should be put on trial. So far Michael Byrd was found to have performed his duties admirably, while 702 insurrectionists have been charged, and 129 have pleaded guilty. For those deciding to go before a jury, there hasn't been enough time yet for trials to happen.

He was undoubtedly scared, he was the victim of a lack of support, of sloppy Capitol security. But did his training justify his shooting into a crowd?

Yeah, that's it, you got it, he shot into a crowd, despite what you can see on video. We don't want you to have any doubts that you are absolutely right, so be sure not to view this video, especially at time 1:39: Video Shows Fatal Shooting of Ashli Babbitt at U.S. Capitol (sorry, couldn't embed it)

Maybe shooting into a crowd of white people didn't bother him too much.

Right you are, Marc. That Michael Byrd, just a cold blooded killer.

In reading about him, I see he's very proud, claimed he "saved a lot of lives". He's a hero to many, there seems to always be celebrations when a black kills a white, and pays no price for it. (O.J. Simpson, one example)

Yep, no racism in your family, you got it all.

It must be a real disappointment for you that you cannot wreak vengeance upon Michael Byrd, but he continues living his idyllic life.

No, I'm like most white people, I shrugged it off. He knew most white people would, that's why he wasn't afraid to release his name after a short time. His name would have stayed unreleased if he'd have demanded it. He had a choice - policeman who shoot black crooks don't have that choice. Sure, he's had a few death threats, but they only come from a tiny minority like the fruitcakes who attacked the Capitol. Not much to it.

Yeah, exactly, you got that right, Jack. It's no biggie that Michael Byrd's in hiding because of threats from all the far right wing nuts. White people just have it so bad in this country, Michael Byrd should just shut his trap and bask in the wonderfulness of being black. I bet you wish you were black.

Maybe there should be a trial / investigation on the lack of security in one of the most important buildings in the U.S. No, guess not.

Yeah, that would have been the right thing to do, but the Republicans nixed a joint commission. Why investigate anything that took place under a Republican administration? Everyone knows Republicans never screw up or do anything wrong, just ask any Republican. The Democrats are having to do the investigative work all by themselves.

I recall a case a number of years ago where a teenager engaged in target practice at his home fired a round into the air and it descended into a packed football stadium a mile away and killed a spectator.

Freak accidents happen. Alec Baldwin was only holding the gun, he didn't pull the trigger! It went off all by its own self!!

Just so discerning, Marc, realizing that a gun discharging all by itself and shooting a bullet into the air that kills someone are both freak accidents. But strangely enough, the guy who fired the round into the air was charged with manslaughter.

Here's another "freak accident" for you. Over a half century ago a woman driving on a New York expressway was hit by a random bullet and died. A detective figured it out. A couple men out in the harbor were taking potshots at debris in the water. One bullet caromed off the water and on toward the expressway. The man was charged with manslaughter for this "freak accident."

So once again, congratulations for your discernment.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by marc9000, posted 12-05-2021 5:30 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 457 by marc9000, posted 12-07-2021 9:07 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 448 of 767 (889600)
12-06-2021 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by marc9000
12-05-2021 5:32 PM


Re: Racism Is Not A One Way Street
marc9000 writes:

I see you're still a lying little shit.

Sorry Phat, my fault. I'm the one that charged him up this time.

Such astounding modesty! Yep, it's all about you, Marc. Even when it's not remotely about you, it's all about you, a legend in your own mind.

So, no actual insight or even a clue for how Phat came to deserve the "lying little shit" appellation? Just let your wisdom pour down upon us.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by marc9000, posted 12-05-2021 5:32 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 462 of 767 (889616)
12-08-2021 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 452 by marc9000
12-07-2021 7:36 PM


Re: Racism Is Not A One Way Street
marc9000 writes:

I suppose you mean “truth bomb” to be a bomb that destroys the truth?

It doesn't destroy the truth to point out facts, like Michael Byrd is black, is still alive, not lynched.

Yes, Marc, you're right on top of things again, those are the exact points people were disputing. They must be what people were disputing, else why would you use them as your examples of you telling the truth? You would never cite irrelevant examples, oh no, not you. Quite clearly people must have been disputing that Byrd is black, alive and not lynched. Thank you for pointing that out.

And it’s funny how you equate telling the truth with rage.

DrJones writes:

of course a pig fucker like you would support a traitor.

Since I'm hated here, and this guy is on your "side", you don't see that as rage I guess. But I don't have pigs, and never get near farms.

Glad to see you have no inflated self-importance. You've got it exactly right. Everyone views you as the most consequential figure here. It's not that the levels of delusions, misrepresentations, lying and racism you display draws lots of attention no matter who does it (e.g., Phat, just a few days ago). It's good to know that it's actually that you're just hated, for no reason I guess.

Really? How many of them [black riots]were about violently overturning an election?

I don't know what was in their minds, but breaking into one building hardly can be twisted into an attempt to "overturn an election".

Oh, you are too kind, because as we all know the misrepresentation of the events of January 6th was far worse than that. Democrats built it up into some kind of giant insurrection thing when it was merely, as a Republican congressman informed us, like a mere tourist visit.

In how many were the lives of the legislators at risk?

In Seattle, the lives of anyone near that courthouse or police station were at risk.

Just so clever, Marc, answering a question with another question that makes clear that invading the halls of Congress with the intent of halting the constitutionally mandated certification of the electoral college after a presidential election and where congresspeople hid under chairs is equivalent to the threat to life and limb of a riot in Seattle where no one was killed. Don't forget cars on roads, that puts people at risk, too, and so is also equivalent to the January 6th insurrection. Great point, Marc!

It was a secured area. She was at the head of a violent mob. Unlike George Floyd who was already restrained and alone. How exactly were the security force meant to stop her and the mob without using firearms?

You should ask Percy that one, he doesn't believe police should have guns. Maybe a bigger security force, manpower, tear gas, there are many other ways, especially if few, or none of the mob was armed. If they displayed arms, then yes, shoot them. Babbitt didn't display arms.

Pure genius, Marc, misrepresenting what I've said. After all, who will remember that my actual position is that almost no police should have guns. What are the odds that I'd think that the most important officials in the land and the most important building in the country should have armed protection?

And noting, for a second time, that Babbitt did not visibly possess firearms. Brilliant!

What makes you think that there wasn’t an investigation?

The fact that I've never heard of it, combined with the fact that no one here has linked me to the details and results of it.

Well now I just feel bad, but who could ever have imagined that your ability to inform yourself was so weak? We apologize for picking on you for your ignorance about something you insisted on talking about as if you were informed. From Wikipedia:

quote:
Following the routine process for shootings by Capitol Police officers, the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department and the Justice Department investigated Babbitt's death and declined to charge Byrd with shooting her.

What makes you think there should have been a trial? There are plenty of police shootings that don’t lead to trials.

And there are plenty that do, especially when the shooter is white and the shootee is black. This was a high profile, unusual case, that got a lot of public attention. A lot of people would have liked answers.

Oh, yes, Marc, just so many trials of white police officers: On-Duty Shootings: Police Officers Charged with Murder or Manslaughter, 2005-2019. Give it a read - interesting stuff. 104 nonfederal officers charged with murder or manslaughter over 15 years or 7 per year. And how many people are murdered by police on average each year? Take a peek at this graph for the last five years taken from People shot to death by U.S. police, by race 2021 | Statista:

Looking at the last full year, 2020, there were 2021 police murders and only 7 police officers charged. Also look at the disproportionate numbers for blacks, who are only 13% of the population but 24% of the police murders. How could it be that blacks are murdered at nearly twice their proportion of the population? But I bet good old Marc has a ready answer, maybe that they're criminal anyway and had it coming.

Shooting into a crowd? The way I heard it Babbitt was the first one through - the “crowd” were still the other side of the door.

And you heard it wrong. Everyone was on the other side of the door. She was targeted, he took careful aim at her BEFORE she went through the door. She never made it through the door.

And once again your bias and ignorance comes to the fore.

marc9000 writes:

Maybe shooting into a crowd of white people didn't bother him too much. In reading about him, I see he's very proud, claimed he "saved a lot of lives". He's a hero to many, there seems to always be celebrations when a black kills a white, and pays no price for it. (O.J. Simpson, one example)

At least we know for sure that you’re a racist - and probably a White Supremacist.

And at least we know that when you can't address a point, you resort to name calling.

Oh, evasion combined with counterattack, just the right tactic. Who could ever believe you're racist anyway? No one believes you really mean all the racist things you say.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by marc9000, posted 12-07-2021 7:36 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by marc9000, posted 12-10-2021 10:46 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 463 of 767 (889617)
12-08-2021 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 453 by marc9000
12-07-2021 7:46 PM


Re: Racism Is Not A One Way Street
marc9000 writes:

marc9000 writes:

Of course there are no memorials to white, dope-head crooks, like there are for George Floyd.


How many of them were illegally publicly executed by police?

By black policemen? Who knows, it's seldom reported by the news media!

Ah, Marc, we never tire of hearing you tell us something isn't reported by the media. Isn't what you really mean is that you didn't see it on ABC World News Tonight, which as a half hour program averaging only four or five stories a night can only cover a limited number of events. And might you also concede that your memory is maybe just the teensiest tiniest bit selective?

quote:
Putting together a comprehensive list of black-on-white crime is a difficult task for two, superficially contradictory, reasons: 1) There is so much of it. 2) There is so little reporting on it. I doubt there is a day that goes by in the United States without at least dozens of instances of blacks assaulting, robbing, and/or defacing the property of whites. Yet, if all you’re reading is the New York Times, you might guess that crime of that sort takes place half a dozen times a year at most. But, if you start to dig through local news sources, and discover the code words used to discuss black crime (e.g. “youths”), the ocean of write-ups becomes overwhelming. Indeed, American Renaissance has nearly one thousand news items tagged “Black on White Crime,” while Paul Kersey has well over 3,000 blog posts about the matter.

The Brutal Reality of Black on White Crime - American Renaissance

Why, thank you for this quote from a white supremacist website. We don't get a lot of that here, so thank you. I'm curious, though. Why did you complain about name calling when called a white supremacist in a prior message but now are quoting from a white supremacist website?

Executed for what? Passing a fake bill? Murder? Rape? Being ornery? What major crime did Floyd commit that deserved the death penalty?

Why the execution?

The jury decided that case, I never took exception to it. The white policeman is going to pay for it for most of the rest of his life. That's not good enough for you?

Another brilliant stroke! AZPaul3 had responded to your question about why there are "no memorials to white, dope-head crooks, like there are for George Floyd," and you responded in a way to completely hide that fact. The bust is of George Floyd but as a memorial it's a symbol of the effects of and fight against racism.

Injustices like this deserve the social spotlight. A memorial against this type of government organized crime is more than appropriate.

"Government organized crime" - memorials for black crooks, I've heard it all now.

I just gotta say you sound like such a nice person, full of compassion and discernment.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by marc9000, posted 12-07-2021 7:46 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 488 by marc9000, posted 12-10-2021 11:03 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 464 of 767 (889618)
12-08-2021 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 457 by marc9000
12-07-2021 9:07 PM


Re: Racism Is Not A One Way Street
marc9000 writes:

Marc, you're back, I should have known, I thought I detected a stench.

Just a few more truth bombs on this Pearl Harbor day, then I might make like some birds and get the flock out of here, as has been suggested to me before.

Just rain the truth down upon us! Hallelujah!

And I am just so hurt that you would even consider depriving us of your joyful presence.

We'll have to start calling you Sheldon.

I understand, name calling is what the far left tends to do when its position has little logic.

Oh, Marc, do not sell yourself short! Your obliviousness to sarcasm far surpasses Sheldon! You are an inspiration!

I guess you're the only one here for amusement while everyone else is enraged by your insightful observations. I thought we were only incredulous and appalled,

Incredulous and appalled? Your tiny liberal cocoon is THAT tiny? I think you've said you watch Fox News Sunday sometimes with Chris Wallace. Is that the only time you come out into the real world and see what's actually going on? When Wallace has a conservative guest on, do you immediately turn it off?

What an incredibly astute observer you are! Nothing gets by you! Yes, we liberals (of which I'm not one, but thank you for giving me honorary membership) are in a tiny cocoon. We know nothing of the many things you tell us happened that never actually happened. You are a blessing!

but if you say we're in a rage then I guess we are

Please don't guess, READ!

Positively scintillating! Why did we never think of that? READ! Of course! You saw through my attempt at a clever ploy of passing the phrase "I guess" off as a figure of speech - you knew right away I was actually guessing about whether or not we're in a rage. Exactly, makes perfect sense. You demonstrate once again how you far surpass us. We can only hope that one day we'll achieve your level of enlightenment, perhaps in our dotage!

<impenetrable portion excised>

quote:
While jar and I have different opinions, I don't see how anything he said suggests "that most blacks get shot."

You analyzed what Phat said about jar's statement, and then defended jar's statement. (that white police always discriminate)

Absolutely radiant. Right on the marc, again! Uh, where did jar say "that most blacks get shot" again?

marc9000 writes:

If Byrd would have been white, and Babbitt would have been black, do you think there would have been a trial?

Wow, flipping the races, what an inspirational coup! Uh, could you explain the logic behind this one?

Yes, I'll bold it for you; it can help expose reverse discrimination, it can help expose a new danger to the well being of the U.S. - BLACK SUPREMACY. Building monuments to honor black crooks.

You've performed another brilliancy by leaving out the quote of what you said that I was responding to, and then replying as if you'd said something else. You're definitely in top form!

Ah, Marc, you got me, I made it up. That's just the kind of thing I do all the time, make things up. I'm sure this link is made up, don't bother clicking on it:'She was deep into it': Ashli Babbitt, killed in Capitol riot, was devoted conspiracy theorist. And if you do click on it then especially don't read the third paragraph, because what are the odds it's the very paragraph I quoted? Zero, right? 'Cause I always lie. You know what would be really ironic is if that link took you to the very same news source that you cited yourself, The Guardian. But, naw, what are the odds of that happening?

Conspiracy theorist - yes, deserving of death! Unless you were a Trump/Russian collusion conspiracy theorist, then you were a patriotic American! Even after it was proven a lie by a 2 year investigation.

Right, throw in a complete irrelevancy, confuse the other side. I'll be trying to figure out what the heck you're referring to for weeks. Enlighten us if the mood strikes.

If somebody wanted to trumpet a fake tweet from Babbitt, (big-tech Twitter, the same big tech that banned a sitting Republican president from using its platform) I have no doubt that Jack Dorsey could easily come up with all the proof necessary. But she probably did tweet that,...

Are you sure? Because you don't sound sure. You should be sure, because I told you I faked it. Didn't you believe me?

...did it deserve death?

Briefly waxing serious, no, of course not. I believe most situations don't call for police shooting to kill.

Trump hating liberals tend to get pretty nasty on Twitter a time or two, wouldn't you say?

Big Twitter fan here! I'm on Twitter 40 or 50 hours a day, and that's in addition to my 50 or 60 hours on Facebook! Statistics show that conservatives are 26.74% more nasty on Twitter than liberals, but only 17.92% more nasty on Facebook. Everything I'm saying is 100% true, you can trust me, including the part about trusting me, and that last part, too, and...oh my, I'm exhausting myself, time to exit this loop.

On a more serious note, I've stopped providing links for information that most everyone knows already or that at least is so ubiquitous that anyone can find it with a simple Google search.

So forum rule #4 needs to be revised now?

The forum rules have been in need of revision for over a decade. Are you volunteering? You revise, I review.

Just so astute, Marc, absolutely remarkable. The possibility of a weapon not being visible, what are the chances of that, right? There could be no weapon in her backpack or a coat pocket or pants pocket. It would have been perfectly safe to let her through the smashed glass and walk among members of the House of Representatives. Of course she would have had to look under chairs to find them.

So now, instead of saying police shouldn't have guns, you're now saying that police should be allowed to shoot only if they SUSPECT a weapon, not if they actually see one?

Can't fool you, Marc, can I? That's exactly what I was saying. You're just so spot on. It's remarkable how you never run down ratholes of misinterpretation. You're just perfect!

Seriously again for one paragraph, as you'd know if you'd read my stuff, I am against almost all officers (and everyone else) having guns.

Yes I know, your drastic flip-flops are impossible to keep up with.

Got me again, Marc. Yep, Percy the fliip-flopper they call me. I actually gained that appellation back in grad school for my overreliance on flip-flops in my digital designs, but it turned out to be appropriate for different reasons later on, as you've now discovered. Uh, what was my flip-flop this time, it's so easy to lose track.

Yeah, that's it, you got it, he shot into a crowd, despite what you can see on video. We don't want you to have any doubts that you are absolutely right, so be sure not to view this video, especially at time 1:39: Video Shows Fatal Shooting of Ashli Babbitt at U.S. Capitol (sorry, couldn't embed it)

Yes, I watched it. He took careful aim at HER, a crowd was behind her, she hadn't crossed into the other room. She was in a room with a crowd. Were you hoping I wouldn't watch the video?

Right you are, Marc. That Michael Byrd, just a cold blooded killer.

Very good, even you can sometimes be right when you're trying to be sarcastic.

Just uncanny how well you get to the truth.

marc9000 writes:

In reading about him, I see he's very proud, claimed he "saved a lot of lives". He's a hero to many, there seems to always be celebrations when a black kills a white, and pays no price for it. (O.J. Simpson, one example)

Yep, no racism in your family, you got it all.

Very good, another non answer when you don't have one.

Caught me again! And your racist tracts and denials do so deserve an answer. But certainly no one would consider treating you like a joke as an answer. Naw, no way!

I get my information from a lot of sources, I apply logic to what is said, and come to the same conclusions that most Republicans do.

And that's what we see in your messages, Marc, just so much information and logic. We're actually inundated, drowning even, in your information and logic. Stop, enough already, we can't take anymore!

Here is a partial list of somewhat prominent people, some present, some past, a couple of them now dead. I have the utmost respect for all of them.

<list not included in the interest of brevity>

Thank you for this list of blacks that are the "right kind" according to you. Every racist has his "Hey, I'm not a racist" arguments. There's the "Some of my best friends are black" argument. There's the "I never use black racial slurs" argument. There's the "I work with blacks" argument. There's the "I admire plenty of black folks" argument. There's the "I abhore slavery" argument. Thank you for your contribution to the meme.

They all have one thing in common, care to take a guess at what it is?

Oh, I so want to take a guess. Is it that they appeared in a list of blacks provided by a racist arguing that he's not a racist?

Yeah, exactly, you got that right, Jack. It's no biggie that Michael Byrd's in hiding because of threats from all the far right wing nuts.

In hiding? He's been in hiding since January 6th,...

My gosh, right again, he's been in hiding since January 6th even before his name was leaked onto some right wing websites. How do you do it!

...and now in December, he still is? If you say so.

My memory's a bit fuzzy now after the passage of so much time, but didn't you just brag about how full of information and logic you are? You're just joshing us now, right? You really know that Byrd spoke publicly for the first time at the end of August, right? And that that was when we found out he was in hiding because his name had been leaked to some right wing websites, right? And that he hasn't spoken publicly again since then, right? And why would he stay in hiding anyway since those far right wing nuts are such a peaceful and forgiving bunch. I still think fondly of how that gentle far right wing nut repeatedly "touched" the police shield he'd borrowed from a policeman who was having trouble standing against a window of the Capitol building until the glass shattered so that his mates could enter the building and prowl around looking for congressmen to congratulate. I'm sure they've calmed down by now and are no longer threatening Michael Byrd and his family with violence. I'm sure they're all friends of yours, so say "hi" for me!

...maybe farmers aren't hated in England like gun owners are in the U.S.

Oh, the poor gun owners! Let us pause a moment and extend our heartfelt sympathies to Ethan Crumbley and his parents James and Jennifer Crumbley for the horrible time they're going through now what with all their legal troubles in the wake of the unfortunate incident at Oxford High School in Michigan where so many students just rudely refused to get out of the way of Ethan's bullets.

Gotta hand it to Crumbley's parents, though, hiring a topnotch legal team for themselves while leaving their son to scavenge a public defender.

Or maybe the farmer was black. Does someone always have to be CHARGED in freak accidents? Only if it involves a gun? And the shooter isn't black?

Ah, the smell of racism! We always know when you're around!

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by marc9000, posted 12-07-2021 9:07 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 465 by xongsmith, posted 12-08-2021 6:04 PM Percy has replied
 Message 489 by marc9000, posted 12-10-2021 11:15 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(4)
Message 466 of 767 (889620)
12-09-2021 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 465 by xongsmith
12-08-2021 6:04 PM


Re: Racism Is Not A One Way Street
xongsmith writes:

Jeezo man, Percy - you been layin' it on pretty thick.

I'll let everyone decide for themselves whether I'm being fair to Marc. My own feelings are that the lies, the gaslighted racism, the false claims and accusations, the fabrications, the inhumanity, and so on, were not finding effective counters as Marc would just ignore them by disappearing, wait a random amount of time, then return and perform the same act again.

Views not arrived at by reason cannot be countered by reason and should not be treated seriously. Mockery, disdain, scorn and ridicule are more appropriate responses to the determinedly irrational.

My own personal opinion is that I'm not being unfair to Marc because the lies he's telling are the dangerous and divisive Trumpian ones that have divided the country and turned the Republican party into zombies. Ask any Republican whether Biden won the election fairly and the most likely response is bunch of hogwash. I feel these ideas should be challenged in the most compelling ways possible. I find the mainstream media to be as much milquetoasts as the president, for example, gently chiding the Republican party for its highly effective efforts at voter disenfranchisement.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by xongsmith, posted 12-08-2021 6:04 PM xongsmith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 467 by jar, posted 12-09-2021 7:48 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 468 by AZPaul3, posted 12-09-2021 8:21 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 469 by PaulK, posted 12-09-2021 8:37 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 470 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-09-2021 10:05 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 507 by marc9000, posted 12-18-2021 4:56 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(3)
Message 478 of 767 (889632)
12-09-2021 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 474 by Phat
12-09-2021 4:15 PM


Re: Mandatory Empathy and Government Control
Phat writes:

And for one thing, the money needs to be genuine and not "created" through an IOU. Fiat money is the bane of the FED.

Are you wearing fact repellant?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by Phat, posted 12-09-2021 4:15 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 481 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-09-2021 9:23 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(4)
Message 499 of 767 (889778)
12-15-2021 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 482 by marc9000
12-10-2021 9:01 PM


A Prime Example of Racism
Replying to all your messages here.

Message 482:

Where did you get your disinformation from? Here's a video taken at the moment that she was shot:

The vid Percy put up showed it from another angle. It confirms everything I said that you're referring to.

It's actually the opposite. It contradicts what you said about Byrd firing into a crowd. Here's the frame from the video just before Byrd pulls the trigger. He's firing practically perpendicular to the door.

She was ABOUT to. Maybe he could have waited until she completed it. Or maybe, instead of hiding in that little alcove without making a sound, he could have stood out in the open, and called to them repeatedly, pointing the gun at them, telling them they'd be shot of they entered. Maybe firing a warning shot to get their attention, that didn't kill anybody. There were several different things he could have done, besides hiding and killing her as soon as he got the chance.

I'm sure everyone is for all these things and wishes Ashli Babbit hadn't been shot and killed, but she was about to enter the House chambers while there were still members who hadn't been evacuated.

I agree it was stupid.

Yeah, well, it's all fun and games until someone gets hurt.

Did Rittenhouse save a lot of lives?

If Rittenhouse had stayed home, no lives would have been lost.

I haven't seen all the court transcripts of course, but I feel sure Rittenhouse or his attorneys weren't crazy enough to make that claim, because that would have sent the mainstream media and the Democrat party into one of the biggest frenzies ever known to man. "SAVED A LOT OF LIVES????" They'd scream? "By shooting someone it saved a lot of lives??" "This is clearly the reason we need more gun control since we're seeing this BRAND NEW kind of craziness from Republican gun nuts!!!"

The mainstream media and the Democrats are your "go to" guys when you need to blame someone for something you made up.

Do you agree that either BOTH of them saved a lot of lives, or NEITHER of them did? If you say only Byrd saved lives, while Rittenhouse did not, you might be a black supremacist.

Again, no one would have been killed had Rittenhouse stayed home.

My only steady information source is ABC World News Tonight...

Whenever you make a very specific claim about something you saw on ABC World News Tonight, when I look it up I find you're wrong.

I found the vid Percy showed to be pretty shocking,...

Here's a different video showing the same moment just before the trigger was pulled. Go to time 0:23:

...the descriptions I got seemed to imply that Barney Fife got scared and accidentally fired his one bullet into a crowd, the poor dear.

You're making things up again.

You often step so far outside reality that I'm beginning to wonder, perhaps what you think is outrage is just people rolling their eyes.

It was record breaking all right, impeached after it was clear he was leaving office anyway. Today's Democrat stupidity knows no bounds.

The House couldn't ignore a president inciting insurrection and staging a coup in order to remain in office after losing an election. It would have set a very bad precedent. If convicted Trump would have been unable to hold national office again.

I mention that because of what Rep. Ted Lieu said. He was part of the team presented the case against Trump in his record-breaking second impeachment. When he wasn't giving the presentation, he waited with the others in the Green Room where they had TVs tuned to all the channels that were covering the impeachment proceedings live. When a video was shown to the Senate, they all showed the video. Except for one station: FOX News. Every time a video was shown as evidence, they either cut to a commercial or to commentators. Obviously, they did not want their audience to see the truth.

And where did you get this information from?

As dwise1 clearly said, it was part of the presentation by Rep. Ted Lieu made to the House impeachment committee.

Yesterday Jussie Smollett was found guilty on 5 of 6 counts of completely faking a white supremacist attack on himself. That verdict is trumpeted a LOT less than all his lies that the mainstream media spent weeks lapping up when he was shrieking about this "attack".

Once again you accuse the mainstream media of being deceived by and promoting lies, but it turns out the one lying is you. Smollett reported his faked attack on January 29, 2019, it was all over the media, and from then on the media reported what the police told them, which was that over the next month Smollett's phone records led them to two Nigerians who said Smollett had paid them to stage the attack. By February 20, 2019, Smollett had already been named as a suspect by the police. All this was reported in the media.

Now do you feel capable of addressing this message all by yourself, or do you welcome all the attacks and name calling that I'm sure to get from others, who don't have much confidence in your ability to address it?

Yeah, well, sorry about any attacks and name calling, but doesn't that happen a lot to liars and racists?

Message 483:

Jar was the one who mentioned race, it was what inspired me to point out the fact that Byrd is black.

It was racism, not inspiration, behind your insistent focus on Byrd's blackness.

Message 484:

marc9000 writes:

It doesn't destroy the truth to point out facts, like Michael Byrd is black, is still alive, not lynched.

And nobody got even mildly annoyed at that.

Seven posters did, yourself included. My Message 423 You were so annoyed that you said I "destroyed the truth".

It seems very important to your sense of self to believe that people find you annoying.

Yawn. And I suppose you expect us to believe that every response was likely that. Cherry-picking only proves your dishonesty.

Any time I refer to one specific thing, I'm "cherry picking"?

I think maybe you don't know what cherry picking is. What you did is the epitome of cherry picking.

marc9000 writes:

I don't know what was in their minds, but breaking into one building hardly can be twisted into an attempt to "overturn an election".

That was the point of breaking into the building. The building where the legislators were certifying the election results. As even you must know.

I don't know what their point was.

That's your strategy, pretending profound ignorance?

Message 486

marc9000 writes:

It doesn't destroy the truth to point out facts, like Michael Byrd is black, is still alive, not lynched.

Yes, Marc, you're right on top of things again, those are the exact points people were disputing.

Yes it was, because those are the exact points that were in my Message 423. There were none of my opinions there. Except maybe for my word "murder", the word that was used many times by the media when referring to the deaths of black crooks at the hands of white policemen.

When wrong just change the subject, I guess. So to you, when a policeman kills someone who isn't a threat but allegedly committed an illegal act, it isn't murder.

They must be what people were disputing, else why would you use them as your examples of you telling the truth?

Yes, they must have been, because that was the message that got the angry responses.

No one was disputing Bryd's race and living/dead status. Why you chose to claim something so absurd I can't imagine.

You would never cite irrelevant examples, oh no, not you. Quite clearly people must have been disputing that Byrd is black, alive and not lynched. Thank you for pointing that out.

It was relevant, because of jar's implication.

Nothing jar said could have made your lie into a truth.

Oh, you are too kind, because as we all know the misrepresentation of the events of January 6th was far worse than that. Democrats built it up into some kind of giant insurrection thing when it was merely, as a Republican congressman informed us, like a mere tourist visit.

It was microscopic, compared to the many black riots of the past several years. It was a giant insurrection only because of amazingly sloppy Capitol security.

You're either feigning ignorance or are remarkably poorly informed.

No congresspeople were killed. Must have been really impressive for our allies around the world to see our congresspeople hiding under chairs, rather than depending on some kind of well thought out security to keep them safe.

It was your people the congresspeople were hiding from. You seem remarkably tone deaf to the significance of the events of that day.

Pure genius, Marc, misrepresenting what I've said. After all, who will remember that my actual position is that almost no police should have guns. What are the odds that I'd think that the most important officials in the land and the most important building in the country should have armed protection?

Did you ever make that position clear? I never saw it...

Of course you saw it, else you would never have said, "You should ask Percy that one, he doesn't believe police should have guns." If you'd remembered the "almost" then you might have paused to wonder if I might consider officers guarding the halls of Congress to be one class of police who should have guns.

...so now I understand. Only the central government headquarters should have guns.

No, that's wrong, and what I actually said was barely an inch away. I said that almost no one should have guns, including the police. You're half racist, half troll, and half off the wall.

Well now I just feel bad, but who could ever have imagined that your ability to inform yourself was so weak? We apologize for picking on you for your ignorance about something you insisted on talking about as if you were informed. From Wikipedia:

quote:
Following the routine process for shootings by Capitol Police officers, the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department and the Justice Department investigated Babbitt's death and declined to charge Byrd with shooting her.

I wasn't really referring to a "routine process", I was thinking more like a thorough investigation, similar to several that were done on Trump's personal life, or that of George Floyd.

Assuming you mean official investigations by government agencies, there have been no investigations of Trump's personal life. The investigation of George Floyd's death would have gone nowhere if the Frazier video had not been made public. Here's what the Minneapolis Police Department originally said:

quote:
"Two officers arrived and located the suspect, a male believed to be in his 40s, in his car. He was ordered to step from his car. After he got out, he physically resisted officers. Officers were able to get the suspect into handcuffs and noted he appeared to be suffering medical distress. Officers called for an ambulance. He was transported to Hennepin County Medical Center by ambulance where he died a short time later.

"At no time were weapons of any type used by anyone involved in this incident. The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension has been called in to investigate this incident at the request of the Minneapolis Police Department.

"No officers were injured in the incident. Body worn cameras were on and activated during this incident."


There would be an investigation, but the whitewash was already in the mail. But after the Frazier video went viral the next day the Minneapolis Police Department added this line to their statement:

quote:
"As additional information has been made available, it has been determined that the Federal Bureau of Investigations (sic) will be a part of this investigation."

And the rest is history. The MPD would take 10 months to make police body camera footage public, and it told the same story as the Frasier video. The MPD knew precisely what had happened before the Frasier video became public and had already planned to cover up the Floyd murder.

So why do you think a more thorough investigation is needed when there was already video, Byrd has already described what he did and what his thought process was, and it comports with the available evidence and with the testimony of available witnesses. Usually deeper investigations are only conducted when there's been some hint of a coverup, such as in the George Floyd case, but there seems no evidence of that here. The only reason you've given for investigating further is that you don't like that Byrd is black, which surprises no one.

Looking at the last full year, 2020, there were 2021 police murders and only 7 police officers charged. Also look at the disproportionate numbers for blacks, who are only 13% of the population but 24% of the police murders. How could it be that blacks are murdered at nearly twice their proportion of the population? But I bet good old Marc has a ready answer, maybe that they're criminal anyway and had it coming.

Because blacks commit far more crimes than whites do.

So that's your excuse for racism, that they commit more crimes? Are you taking into account that blacks are targeted by police far more often? That the poverty that can drive crime is a result of slavery at the hands of whites, Jim Crow at the hands of white, and discrimination at the hands of whites?

Statistics have always shown blacks to have more problems with morality and civilized behavior than do whites. I know I'm a terrible racist for saying that, but facts are facts.

Actually, you're just making up arbitrary criteria to excuse the inexcusable.

Here is a racist statistic for you;

quote:
For all racial and ethnic groups combined, 39.6 percent of births in the United States were out-of-wedlock (incidentally, isn’t that appalling?). And there was as always a tremendous range among groups. For blacks, the number is 69.4 percent; for American Indians/Alaska Natives, 68.2 percent (Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders were at 50.4 percent); for Hispanics, 51.8 percent; for whites, 28.2 percent; and for Asian Americans, a paltry 11.7 percent.

Thank you for providing what you think is another excuse for your racism.

When was the last time you saw a white area with buildings boarded up, burglar bars over broken windows, graffiti everywhere?

New Hampshire is 1.6% black. The city next door has an area just like the one you described, except that it's almost completely white. The conditions you're describing are a result of poverty, lack of opportunity, poor education, etc. Whites and blacks fall into poverty for many of the same reasons, the main difference being that blacks have the additional disadvantage of being the objects of racist discrimination by people like you. Your hate deprives minorities of opportunity which in turn forces them into lifestyles you find distasteful, and then you hate them for living in ways that your hate drove them into. Nice work!

There are countless other examples. How tiny is the liberal bubble? Is it racist to point out facts?

Is it racist to ignore the fact of the impact of your racism? That's rhetorical, by the way, there's only one possible correct answer.

What makes it so interesting is the small, but significant percentage of blacks who are very good, productive people.

You are amazing in how unashamed your racism is.

Many thousands of them, they are represented by that list I put up in Message 457 If I had the chance to pick out the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, and Senate Majority Leader, every one of my picks would come from that list.

Making exceptions to your "if they're black they lack" rule doesn't mean you're not a racist. Southern slaveholders used the same logic as you. "They're just animals, look at the way they live," said slaveholders, ignoring that the slave's living conditions were what slaveholders themselves had provided. Black circumstances today are the result of white racism. That they've managed to improve their circumstances in the face of continued and determined racism like yours is remarkable.

Almost the same as the common tactic by the gang, answering my post to one of your helpers, because you don't think he'll answer it sufficiently.

It's no one's fault but yours that you decide to remain in a den of non-racists where your racism will be criticized.

Who could ever believe you're racist anyway? No one believes you really mean all the racist things you say.

Depends on the meaning of the term "racist". Democrats seem to have re-defined it to mean anything that counters today's brand new far left Democrat ideology.

An obvious lie. You defined racism pretty well in your post by exhibiting it over and over again, and none of it mentioned Democrats, the left, or ideology. You used crime and out-of-wedlock pregnancies and so forth as justifications for your racism.

Message 488:

Why, thank you for this quote from a white supremacist website. We don't get a lot of that here, so thank you. I'm curious, though. Why did you complain about name calling when called a white supremacist in a prior message but now are quoting from a white supremacist website?

So statistics are no good if the source has been labeled "white supremacist" by today's new Democrat party? Everything is now white supremacist if it's not in line with today's radical liberalism?

Here's American Renaissance describing themselves:

quote:
We also believe that whites, like all racial groups, have legitimate interests that must be defended. The defense of those interests is white advocacy. We seek to advance only those interests that we recognize and would defend for all other racial groups. We seek no advantages as whites — only the expression of preferences for our own people and culture that are taken for granted by people of other races but denied to us.

Here's Wikipedia describing them:

quote:
American Renaissance (AR or AmRen) is a white supremacist website and former monthly magazine publication founded and edited by Jared Taylor.[1][2][3][4] It is published by the New Century Foundation, which describes itself as a "race-realist, white advocacy organization".

I poked around their website a little - I see where a lot of your "how to deny being a racist while acting like a racist" rhetoric comes from.

It isn't the statistics from American Renaissance I distrust but any reasoning attached to them.

It's not a tradition in the U.S. to build monuments to drug addicted, non productive citizens. Do you have any understanding of racial hatred FROM blacks towards whites?

Now there's a novel justification of racism: "My racism against blacks is justified by black racism against whites."

But with today's new definitions, it's not possible for a black to be racist, is it?

Of course it's possible for blacks to be racist, but there's no more justification for it than for white racism, though you might recall that I earlier noted that black anxiety and fear of whites is understandable.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by marc9000, posted 12-10-2021 9:01 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 500 by nwr, posted 12-15-2021 2:00 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 509 by marc9000, posted 12-18-2021 7:43 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 511 of 767 (889987)
12-19-2021 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 507 by marc9000
12-18-2021 4:56 PM


Re: Racism Is Not A One Way Street
marc9000 writes:

It's probably safe to say that I'm the most hated poster at EvC of all time, far more than Faith or Buzzsaw.

It's good to see that your megalomania is doing well.

You've made comments in the past about Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson, so you sometimes must be slightly curious about what they have to say.

I checked in on them a few times a year or two ago, but not since. It's not necessary to watch them because Fox News writes "news" stories about much of what they say that appear in the Google News aggregator.

But they sometimes have to stop short of saying just what 40 to 45% of Americans think, or their advertisers would leave them in droves, after the furious outrage that would be poured on by the mainstream media and Democrat commentators.

You talk frequently about outrage and anger and hate. If it's anything like the outrage and anger and hate you keep talking about in this thread then it's fictional.

I can say things like "black supremacy". Blunt, yes, but it's honest and descriptive.

And racist.

It only gets me insults and called names, but that's all. What I say really IS what a significant percentage of Americans think. You must ever-so-slightly appreciate my presence, or you'd have banned me by now.

You're so consequential around here that the administrators have daily marathon meetings about what to do about you. I'm making that up, of course. It isn't the nature of one's opinions that makes one a bad citizen here but the way in which one participates. You're fine. Your views are distasteful and provocative and an illustration of why the country is traveling so dismal a path concerning race, but you haven't severely crossed any Forum Guidelines lines yet. If it's important to your sense of self to believe you're engaged in a high risk game of suspension brinksmanship then go right ahead, but your concern is misplaced. Administrators cannot moderate in threads they're participating in.

There was a virulent racist here around 2004, can't remember his alias. If you can find his posts perhaps you can learn how to get suspended.

Views not arrived at by reason cannot be countered by reason and should not be treated seriously. Mockery, disdain, scorn and ridicule are more appropriate responses to the determinedly irrational.

Did you learn this from collegiate debating guidelines? Or did you and Dr Jones come up with that on your own?

It's Jefferson, it's famous: "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."

I guess it's just politics, but I'm a little surprised that you, and the mainstream media, has the nerve to finger point about "divisiveness".

There has been no more divisive political figure in American politics than Trump since perhaps Andrew Jackson. He made no secret that he was president for only some of the people, not all of the county.

Ask any Republican whether Biden won the election fairly and the most likely response is a bunch of hogwash.

Yes, comparable to 'Trump-Russian-collusion lies, that were all over the mainstream media 4 / 5 years ago. Proven wrong by a 2 year investigation. Too bad all the Covid fear inspiring absentee voting, illegal influx, ballot harvesting won't get anywhere near a 2 year investigation.

Good example of just the kind of hogwash I was talking about.

I feel these ideas should be challenged in the most compelling ways possible.

You said it best in another thread not long ago, Message 61

quote:
But many times an important point is at stake, and at other times the stupid is just too precious to resist, and so we eagerly reply despite knowing it will go nowhere, and we excuse our behavior by telling ourselves it's for the lurkers or for posterity or just for the principle of truth and honesty. So even though the stupid persists unabated, we feel better.

Yes, still a good description of why we reply to claims so obviously absurd that they need no response.

I find the mainstream media to be as much milquetoasts as the president, for example, gently chiding the Republican party for its highly effective efforts at voter disenfranchisement.

Considering the recent massive illegal immigration, and Covid fears of voting in person, the word fraud is much more appropriate than "disenfranchisement".

I referred to Republican efforts on voting as disenfranchisement, but you seem to be saying it would be better to say they're defrauding voters? Well, yes, I guess that's true, but I think the term disenfranchisement is more accurate.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 507 by marc9000, posted 12-18-2021 4:56 PM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 512 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-19-2021 2:04 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(3)
Message 513 of 767 (889989)
12-19-2021 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 509 by marc9000
12-18-2021 7:43 PM


Re: A Prime Example of Racism
marc9000 writes:

I'll start with some quotes from Michelle Obama.

I think I know how Michele Obama feels in that ice cream story. As a male in a grocery store I sometimes feel invisible to some females, like I don't exist.

So what did he [Thomas Sowell] do about those racial barriers? He shrugged them off, he accepted reality as it is, and did the best he could with what he had.

I can see you yearn for the good old days when blacks knew their place.

The conditions you're describing are a result of poverty, lack of opportunity, poor education, etc. Whites and blacks fall into poverty for many of the same reasons, the main difference being that blacks have the additional disadvantage of being the objects of racist discrimination by people like you. Your hate deprives minorities of opportunity which in turn forces them into lifestyles you find distasteful, and then you hate them for living in ways that your hate drove them into. Nice work!

I wonder if there will ever come a time when the majority of blacks ever start looking at themselves for their problems instead of blaming whites from generations ago.

Racism wasn't just generations ago. Racism is now. You're an example.

It's true that 1950 was long after the civil war, and the racial barriers Sowell very briefly referred to were a problem, but steady progress has been made, so many 70 year old racial barriers are now long gone.

Yes, a lot of racists like you are saying, "Enough with the racial progress already."

Logical indications are that it's not so much about race, it's more about using race as an advantage to give the Democrat party more and more power, by painting all references by conservatives to liberty and limited government with the very broad racism brush. A Lyndon B. Johnson quote comes to mind;

quote:
I'll have those n**gers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.

TOP 25 QUOTES BY LYNDON B. JOHNSON (of 400) | A-Z Quotes

It's figures you'd find a made-up quote. See FACT CHECK: Did LBJ Say 'I'll Have Those N*****s Voting Democratic for 200 Years'?.

I can only assume from your avatar that you're white. The problem that you have is that you probably believe that blacks adore you and support you because you're on their "side".

This is a very weird thing to say. I try, though probably don't succeed, to keep all personal information private except the state where I live.

Their actions and attitudes show me that they don't - you're just a useful tool to them, and until they don't need you anymore, or until you finally wake up and realize that black supremacy is what they seek, and it doesn't include you or anything to do with you. My references above to Michelle Obama make it perfectly clear - they're NEVER satisfied with the gains they get, never.

Evidently you're a racist and a scaremonger and a paranoid. My thinking doesn't parallel yours in any way.

Making exceptions to your "if they're black they lack" rule doesn't mean you're not a racist.

Why did you put "if they're black they lack" in quotations as if I said it, which I didn't?

The phrase had to be set off somehow, which is often done with quotes - would you have preferred italics?

The exceptions (my Sowell reference) show that I go by the content of their character, not necessarily the color of their skin.

You're a terrible judge of character. You like Sowell not because of his character but his politics.

Roughly 90% of them vote for the same party that enslaved them 160 years ago.

Slavery in the United States predates 160 years ago (1861), it predates the Democrats (1828), and it even predates the Constitution (1787).

A significant percentage of them [blacks] don't pay much attention to the content of character, they only see the color of skin. Like Michelle Obama, and I'm sure, her husband. Their hatred of whites was probably a large part of their courtship, and subsequent marriage.

Thank you for this further expression of your prejudice and hate.

It isn't the statistics from American Renaissance I distrust but any reasoning attached to them.

Any reasoning? The 69% out-of-wedlock percentage versus 28% can't possibly be considered as one of many reasons for societal deterioration?

Yes, exactly, that's precisely the kind of racist reasoning that leads me to distrust racist tracts like American Renaissance. Out of wedlock births have been rising across almost all races for almost a century. The black number began from a higher base.

That's only one example, there are countless others, black supremacy doesn't allow a lot of relevant things to be discussed.

There's a black supremacist movement? Who knew! Such attitudes are as false and dangerous as white supremacy.

It was the same with my pointing out that Capitol policeman Byrd is black, black supremacy / political correctness / Democrat talking points want a lot of things forgotten about - covered up.

I think you don't know what a coverup is, and the rest of it is made-up nonsense

It's the reason there was so much anger here when I pointed it out.

I think it was more repugnance we were feeling, not anger.

marc9000 writes:

..the descriptions I got seemed to imply that Barney Fife got scared and accidentally fired his one bullet into a crowd, the poor dear.

You're making things up again.

They were MY VIEWS, they were the descriptions I got. The accusation "made up" doesn't apply.

You're not making sense. You referred to "the descriptions I got" (not "MY VIEWS"), and I called them made up. In Byrd you just saw yet another black to cast your racist views at.

You often step so far outside reality that I'm beginning to wonder, perhaps what you think is outrage is just people rolling their eyes.

That's what I love about this place, I could say the earth is round and the grass is green and school buses are yellow, and I'd get called a racist for it. Goes along with my most hated status here.

You're lying again. No one called you racist for innocuous statements. If you'd confined your statements to the color of grass and school buses no one would have any idea you're racist, but you didn't. Instead you've gone on a lengthy campaign to justify your racism. To you your racism is okay because blacks commit too much crime and have too many out-of-wedlock births and live in too much squalor. To you this excuses your attitudes and behavior that keep blacks locked in as second class citizens.

About dwise1's description of Ted Lieu's account, I can't see why you think some of the information you quoted came from Ted Lieu and some came from dwise1. Everything dwise1 said came from Ted Lieu, none from dwise1. Dwise1 only presented it. The writing is pretty clear, I really can't help you resolve your confusion.

When Smollett reported his faked attack, it was sensationalized.

That it would be sensationalized was likely a large part of Smollett's motivation.

Yeah, well, sorry about any attacks and name calling, but doesn't that happen a lot to liars and racists?

Not to black ones.

More racism.

It was your people the congresspeople were hiding from.

They were not my people,...

Of course they're your people. You all believe most of the same things, and they especially share your racism.

The answer to each of those questions is yes, and our allies around the world were probably wondering why not one of those things were properly ENFORCED. Leading to the last one, an unarmed person being shot.

There's a House investigation into this now that includes why the capitol was so poorly defended.

And with the non-reporting of black racism, and other black supremacy, white anxiety and fear of blacks is also understandable.

We're all aware of the ease with which you concoct excuses for your racism.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 509 by marc9000, posted 12-18-2021 7:43 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 515 by marc9000, posted 12-20-2021 9:12 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(5)
Message 519 of 767 (890007)
12-21-2021 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 515 by marc9000
12-20-2021 9:12 PM


Re: A Prime Example of Racism
marc9000 writes:

I think I know how Michele Obama feels in that ice cream story. As a male in a grocery store I sometimes feel invisible to some females, like I don't exist.

Sure, it's not uncommon, happens a lot to a lot of people. It was quite a stretch for her to make it about race. Almost like she's a racist.

But it *was* about race, just as how I'm sometimes treated in the grocery store is about gender. It's pretty common for people to be able to tell when they're being treated differently. Treating people differently because of the color of their skin is racism, and being aware that you're being treated differently because of the color of your skin is definitely not racism.

marc9000 writes:

So what did he [Thomas Sowell] do about those racial barriers? He shrugged them off, he accepted reality as it is, and did the best he could with what he had.

I can see you yearn for the good old days when blacks knew their place.

What I was pointing out was that, most blacks, (and so many white race-hustlers who try to exploit them) constantly lament about how tough they had it when they were growing up, and use that as an excuse for their rioting and dependence on handouts. Very few blacks can claim they had a tougher time growing up than Sowell did. He made it work without rioting and handouts in the 1950's. They should all be able to make it work today, without all the accusations about how unfairly they've been treated historically.

Yes, I know, you racists want blacks to stop being so uppity and to just accept the lot in life that racists have assigned them and make the best they can of it. If it was good enough for Sowell then it should be good enough for them.

Yes, a lot of racists like you are saying, "Enough with the racial progress already."

Exactly right. With all their current special rights that I pointed out earlier, it's clear they achieved 100% equality decades ago. But their demands for more and more special rights never stop.

But aren't blacks more equal than whites since they get pulled over more often, denied housing more often, arrested more often, tied up in the court system more often, imprisoned more often?

It's figures you'd find a made-up quote. See FACT CHECK: Did LBJ Say 'I'll Have Those N*****s Voting Democratic for 200 Years'?.

From your link;

quote:
There’s no question that Lyndon Johnson, despite championing the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and signing it into law, was also a sometime racist and notorious vulgarian who rarely shied away from using the N-word in private. For example, he reportedly referred to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 as the “nigger bill” in more than one private phone conversation with Senate colleagues. And he reportedly said upon appointing African-American judge Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, “Son, when I appoint a nigger to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a nigger.”

So do you automatically hand wave away the fact that he "was also a sometime racist and notorious vulgarian who rarely shied away from using the N-word in private."? So because Snopes couldn't find any clear evidence for it, it couldn't have happened once in a private conversation? Considering Johnson's nature, it's easier to believe it did happen than it didn't.

I didn't argue for or against Lyndon Johnson. I just pointed out that you used a fake quote to support your false arguments about Democrats and race.

The phrase had to be set off somehow, which is often done with quotes - would you have preferred italics?

Neither, it was a straw man phrase.

You don't deny being a racist, so "If they're black they lack" is a pretty concise statement of the way you think.

There's a black supremacist movement?

Yes, it's called Black Lives Matter. (BLM)

That would be incorrect. There *are* black supremacist organizations, which was news to me, but BLM isn't one of them.

A phoney name in many ways, more accurately it should be called Black Supremacy Matters. (BSM)

Ironic that someone like you can't spell "phony".

And too many special rights that I've already pointed out, the minority contracts, the racial quotas, special holidays, special television stations, the list goes on and on. The problem that you have is that you confuse the terms "racism" with what I and millions of others often have, resentment. If so many blacks weren't so arrogant and 'in-your-face' with their demands, what you term "racism" would be far less pronounced in the U.S. So what you perceive as racism is actually brought about by those who promote monuments to the likes of George Floyd, the demands and riots of organizations like BLM, etc.

Yes, I know, you've said this before. You wish blacks would just stop intruding upon white prerogatives and sensibilities, as in the days of Jim Crowe. "We're the bright young men who wanna go back to 1910, we're Barry's boys. We're the kids with a cause, yes a government like grandmama's, we're Barry's boys." (from Barry's Boys by the Chad Mitchell Trio).

About dwise1's description of Ted Lieu's account, I can't see why you think some of the information you quoted came from Ted Lieu and some came from dwise1.

Because some of dwise1's "information" was about how the networks covered it, about how Fox News cut to commercials to hide something. Those claims were not part of Ted Lieu's account.

Of course they were part of Ted Lieu's account. I don't see why you're having so much trouble understanding simple English. Lieu recounted how all the TV's in the green room were tuned to different channels covering the impeachment proceedings and that when video of the insurrection was shown all the stations would show it except one: Fox News. They'd either cut to commentators or to a commercial.

I don't get why this is so difficult for you to understand. Dwise1 wrote in pretty plain English.

Of course they're your people. You all believe most of the same things, and they especially share your racism.

The beliefs I share with them had / have nothing to do with race.

Well that's nonsense, because one of the attitudes you definitely share with them is racism.

Biden is white - the election dispute wasn't about race.

Many of the arguments Trump lawyers made in court were about race, because they often targeted black districts for their false charges of voter fraud.

They're not my people because I didn't ACT OUT the way they did. They didn't represent me in their actions.

No one accused you of supporting insurrection, but your views are pretty much the same ones as the insurrectionists concerning the election and race, and you do support the insurrectionist-in-chief. Had you been at the capitol that day the odds are pretty good that you would have walked into the building after it was breached and wandered around the rotunda taking selfies.

The insurrectionists are your people

If that doesn't clear it up for you, then Smollett is your person. He hates Trump / Republicans - you hate Trump / Republicans. You didn't stage a fake attack like he did, but apparently that's irrelevant to you.

I don't deal with life through a veil of hate like you do. This doesn't capture my views at all.

I'm done here for awhile.

Another lie. Prove me wrong.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by marc9000, posted 12-20-2021 9:12 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 520 by xongsmith, posted 12-21-2021 2:49 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 554 of 767 (890165)
12-28-2021 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 552 by Phat
12-28-2021 8:01 AM


Re: George Wallace wins 90% of the black vote! Fiction?
Phat writes:

The slate is wiped clean. Reparations are a liberal social cause that will only add fuel to a fire that has been smoldering far too long.

Yeah, policy decisions should be driven by whether they rile the racists.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 552 by Phat, posted 12-28-2021 8:01 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 558 by Phat, posted 12-29-2021 9:32 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 574 of 767 (890279)
12-31-2021 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 571 by Phat
12-30-2021 3:23 PM


Re: Onward Secular Soldiers!
I think you must need the eggs.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 571 by Phat, posted 12-30-2021 3:23 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 576 by xongsmith, posted 12-31-2021 7:43 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(3)
Message 577 of 767 (890341)
01-02-2022 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 558 by Phat
12-29-2021 9:32 AM


Re: George Wallace wins 90% of the black vote! Fiction?
You are too much an idiot these days for an intelligent exchange to develop out of this, but you have to be called on it.

Phat writes:

What are you implying?

"Implying" is far to mild a word for what I'm doing. I'm flat out calling you a racist.

It's not a racial issue.

Reparations for years of exploitation and discrimination at the hands of racism is not a racial issue? Really?

Tbe race card is overused and excessive.

Racists being called on their racism frequently complain that the race card is being played. Just to help you comprehend the absurdity of your position, if you were doing this back in the 1950's, you'd accuse those complaining about blacks being thrown off white lunch counters of playing the race card.

That expressions of racism today are often different and more subtle does not mean it's not racism.

I'm not out to exploit anyone nor be exploited.

The falseness of your denials is obvious. You've developed an irrational paranoid fear of being exploited and are supporting policies that you believe guarantee anyone but you (usually those least able to defend themselves politically like minorities and immigrants) will be exploited.

The reality has been explained to you many times, to no avail. Just stick to buying your fool's gold - it does the least harm to the country.

It's ironic that the political and religious beliefs you've combined guarantee you'll end up in hell.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by Phat, posted 12-29-2021 9:32 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 578 by Phat, posted 01-04-2022 4:25 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022