Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9057 total)
122 online now:
jar, nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, Theodoric (6 members, 116 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,897 Year: 1,009/6,534 Month: 1,009/682 Week: 62/182 Day: 7/29 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who's the bigger offender: Conservatives or Liberals?
ringo
Member
Posts: 19388
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 6.1


(4)
Message 496 of 585 (889747)
12-13-2021 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 494 by Phat
12-12-2021 1:15 PM


Re: Consensus and the role of Goverment
Phat writes:

... the whole idea of what "the government" should do is contentious.


I didn't ask what the government "should" do. I asked you what YOU, one individual, EXPECT the government to do besides throw money. You claim that problems can't be solved by throwing money; tell us what YOU think the alternatives are.

Phat writes:

Public opinion and belief is all over the map.


I didn't ask you about public opinion or beliefs. See above.

Phat writes:

Getting back to your question as to what one expects "government" to do, the problems inherent in today's society are poorly understood and no consensus on them is ever easily found.


I didn't ask how well the problems are understood and I didn't ask about consensus. I asked for a list of alternatives to throwing money.

Maybe an analogy will get through to you: Your claim is the equivalent of saying a pitcher can't win a baseball game by throwing the ball. I'm asking for a list of alternatives. What else can he do?

Phat writes:

Throw it in the right places that generate a return rather than simply trying to support every uneducated citizen who has no clue how to be productive, lift themselves out of poverty, and get educated.


So you admit that they CAN solve problems by throwing money. You just don't like where they're throwing it.

So, what kind of "return" are you suggesting? Throw the money at fat cats like Donald Trump and hope they can steal enough so that something trickles down? That's the "conservative" plan that you're supporting.

And how do you expect anybody to be productive, lift themselves out of poverty and get educated unless you support them first? How can you teach a man to fish without feeding him and his family while he's in fishing school?

Phat writes:

We need Jesus, but more importantly, we need to learn to be empathetic rather than selfish.


For god's sake, BUY A MIRROR!

"I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!"
-- Lucky Ned Pepper

This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by Phat, posted 12-12-2021 1:15 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 497 by Phat, posted 12-14-2021 12:32 PM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15816
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 497 of 585 (889771)
12-14-2021 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 496 by ringo
12-13-2021 11:13 AM


Re: Consensus and the role of Goverment
,And how do you expect anybody to be productive, lift themselves out of poverty and get educated unless you support them first? How can you teach a man to fish without feeding him and his family while he's in fishing school?
It takes far more fhan just money.

It would as if you had a drug addicted son.

Would you throw all of your spare. Money towards.helping him if he historically relapsed or would you yourself risk being homeless time after time when you saw the pattern?

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”
H. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by ringo, posted 12-13-2021 11:13 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by ringo, posted 12-14-2021 12:40 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19388
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 498 of 585 (889772)
12-14-2021 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 497 by Phat
12-14-2021 12:32 PM


Re: Consensus and the role of Goverment
Phat writes:

It would as if you had a drug addicted son.

Would you throw all oc gour spare. Money towards.helping him if he historically relapsed or would yku yourself risk being homeless time after time when you saw the pattern?


As usual, you didn't answer the question.

Yes, OF COURSE I would support my drug-addicted son. I would not watch him starve.

But you're trying to palm the pea again: You went from poverty to drug addiction. Poverty is considerably easier to cure than drug addiction.

The question was, "how do you expect anybody to be productive, lift themselves out of poverty and get educated unless you support them first?"
The key word there is FIRST. How can you do ANYTHING else for somebody unless you feed them first? How can you teach a man to fish without feeding him and his family while he's in fishing school?


"I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!"
-- Lucky Ned Pepper

This message is a reply to:
 Message 497 by Phat, posted 12-14-2021 12:32 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20507
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 8.4


(4)
Message 499 of 585 (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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 500 by nwr, posted 12-15-2021 2:00 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 509 by marc9000, posted 12-18-2021 7:43 PM Percy has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5887
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 7.9


(2)
Message 500 of 585 (889784)
12-15-2021 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 499 by Percy
12-15-2021 1:29 PM


Re: A Prime Example of Racism
I'm replying to this, because one "like" is not nearly enough.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 499 by Percy, posted 12-15-2021 1:29 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 501 of 585 (889951)
12-17-2021 5:40 PM


Is marriage a good thing?
I have known people who had to come out of retirement due to marriage. One 70 year old lost $400,000 due to his marriage to someone who got I ll. I. L l spell check weont allow I ll.lower I is made cap.

Better to "shack up" and let Medicaid cover the other spouse.

I'll

Spell check kept doing that.

Google just allowed "i" ll. Spell check wont. Keeps capping it or putting in " ' "

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 502 by dwise1, posted 12-17-2021 7:01 PM LamarkNewAge has responded
 Message 503 by xongsmith, posted 12-17-2021 10:22 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4818
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 502 of 585 (889953)
12-17-2021 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 501 by LamarkNewAge
12-17-2021 5:40 PM


Re: Is marriage a good thing?
Uh, horribly garbeled, that, what?

Please re-transmit.

 
Sorry, but I don't even know what "come out of retirement" is supposed to mean, let alone "due to marriage."

One 70 year old lost $400,000 due to his marriage to someone who got I ll. I. L l sp {{{ the rest hopelessly garbled }}}

Whisky-Tango-Foxtrot--Oscar????

Except that no male is ever immune from properly deployed pussy. OR? (the typical Germanism that my ex absolutely hated ("Das is aber komisch, oder?))

Please retransmit that last in the clear.

Better to "shack up" and let Medicaid cover the other spouse.

One fellow chief in the VTU (Voluntary Training Unit) was in the situation of being separated from his former spouse for decades without ever actually divorcing her. The moment he actually divorced her, she would have been cut off from his medical insurance coverage (my own personal experience, though I was being carried under HER medical insurance) and he didn't want their children to think of him as having done such a thing to their mother.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 501 by LamarkNewAge, posted 12-17-2021 5:40 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by LamarkNewAge, posted 12-18-2021 12:32 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2137
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 503 of 585 (889956)
12-17-2021 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 501 by LamarkNewAge
12-17-2021 5:40 PM


Re: Is marriage a good thing?
try sick as in sickness for illness.

ill is the wind that blows no one any good.

Ill is the wind that blows no one any good.

mine looks okay. strange.

of course i'm on a laptop and have spell check turned off somewhere down in the bowels of this thing.

Edited by xongsmith, : not on a phone


"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."

- xongsmith, 5.7d


This message is a reply to:
 Message 501 by LamarkNewAge, posted 12-17-2021 5:40 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 504 of 585 (889958)
12-18-2021 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 502 by dwise1
12-17-2021 7:01 PM


Re: Is marriage a good thing?
He got married, then his wife got a sickness (cant digest food) that cost him every penny (but $100,000) he ever had.

He went back to work, because he wanted to keep his house.

He said marriage was a bad idea, but he had no clue - at the time.

He said he should have moved her into his house ad a "live-in fiancee/girlfriend" instead.

He lost $400,000 due to the marriage.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 502 by dwise1, posted 12-17-2021 7:01 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 505 by AZPaul3, posted 12-18-2021 12:49 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 506 by PaulK, posted 12-18-2021 3:20 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6215
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


(1)
Message 505 of 585 (889959)
12-18-2021 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 504 by LamarkNewAge
12-18-2021 12:32 AM


Re: Is marriage a good thing?
And what do you propose to do about it?

Why the complaint?

Like when I was the boss/emperor/king o' the lab, if you bring me a problem, bring me a solution to consider as well.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by LamarkNewAge, posted 12-18-2021 12:32 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17072
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 5.8


(5)
Message 506 of 585 (889963)
12-18-2021 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 504 by LamarkNewAge
12-18-2021 12:32 AM


Re: Is marriage a good thing?
Seems to have a lot more to do with the US health system than it has to do with marriage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by LamarkNewAge, posted 12-18-2021 12:32 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1273
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 507 of 585 (889971)
12-18-2021 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 466 by Percy
12-09-2021 7:45 AM


Re: Racism Is Not A One Way Street
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.

It's probably safe to say that I'm the most hated poster at EvC of all time, far more than Faith or Buzzsaw. 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. 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. Hannity and Carlson are public figures, I'm not. They make a living with their commentary, I don't. I can say things like "black supremacy". Blunt, yes, but it's honest and descriptive. 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.

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? Is it good, or bad for political divisiveness in the U.S.? It is true that some conservatives (Rush Limbaugh) do/did that from time to time, but what conservatives do pales in comparison to the name calling here, and the mockery and scorn that routinely go on at places like CNN.

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.

Here's a recent vid from CNN;

Brian Stelter: Fox News is like a toddler exaggerating a bump in the night - CNN Video

At the beginning, they showed a few cherry picks from Fox News, then at the 38 second point, Stelter said this;

quote:
I would be so scared to leave the house if I watched that all day.

The cherry picks were so brief, we don't know what the Fox people were talking about, maybe record inflation, maybe the Afghanistan debacle, any number of things that were/are more disastrous than anything that happened during the Trump administration. Yet he's apparently forgotten about the Trump-Russian-Collusion lies and so many other divisive things CNN harped on during the Trump administration.

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".

Ask any Republican whether Biden won the election fairly and the most likely response is 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.

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.

COULD NOT have said it better myself. I've invited a cyber friend or two, and a cousin (all long distance) to read here. Whether they do or not I don't know, I haven't asked them. I guess they don't, these types of message boards don't seem to be near as popular as they were 15 years ago. But I'm sure they get a kick out of it if they do.

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".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by Percy, posted 12-09-2021 7:45 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 508 by jar, posted 12-18-2021 7:28 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 511 by Percy, posted 12-19-2021 12:53 PM marc9000 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 514 by ringo, posted 12-20-2021 11:08 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33657
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 508 of 585 (889972)
12-18-2021 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 507 by marc9000
12-18-2021 4:56 PM


None of us hates you Marc!
You're not hated Marc; rather merely pitied.

My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 507 by marc9000, posted 12-18-2021 4:56 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1273
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 509 of 585 (889973)
12-18-2021 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 499 by Percy
12-15-2021 1:29 PM


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

A lot there, but about 3/4 of it seems to be your accusations of racism, so I think the best way to streamline it all is for me to address the racism part all at once, then move through what little substance there is to the rest of it. I'll start with some quotes from Michelle Obama;

quote:
Michelle Obama has recalled her "exhausting" experience with racism using the example of a simple trip to get ice cream with her daughters during her time in the White House.

Michelle Obama talks about her experience with racism as first lady

quote:
We had just finished taking the girls to a soccer game," Obama said. "We were stopping to get ice cream, and I had told the Secret Service to stand back because we were trying to be normal, trying to go in," Obama said.

"There was a line, and once again, when I'm just a Black woman, I notice that white people don't even see me. They're not even looking at me. So I'm standing there with two little Black girls, another Black female adult, they're in soccer uniforms, and a white woman cuts right in front of us to order. Like she didn't even see us."

Obama said the girl at the counter almost took the woman's order before the first lady spoke up. "So I stepped up, and I said, 'Excuse me?' I was like, 'You don't see us four people standing right here, you just jumped in line?'" Obama said. "She didn't apologize, she never looked me in my eye, she didn't know it was me. All she saw was a Black person, or a group of Black people, or maybe she didn't even see that because we were that invisible.

"I can tell you a number of stories like that when I've been completely incognito, during the eight years in the White House, walking the dogs on the canal, people will come up and pet my dogs but will not look me in the eye. They don't know it's me."

Obama emphasized how not even being acknowledged as a human being can be hurtful.

"What white folks don't understand, it's like that is so telling of how white America views people who are not like them," she said. "You know, we don't exist. And when we do exist, we exist as a threat. And that, that's exhausting."

She also shared why having close Black friends has been important to her.

"There's a certain relief that comes when you don't have to walk into your friend group and explain yourself," she said. "My group of female friends aren't calling me to say, 'What can I do?' You guys are calling me to say, 'How you doin' girl?' You know, 'let's talk.'


This is so unbelievable to me - does she not realize that people in line in a public place just might have other things on their minds than bowing down to her, or anyone? Most people would agree that she's an attractive woman, above average. If she could spend a couple of weeks in the shoes of an unattractive white person, she'd quickly find out what it's like to be ignored, to not be taken seriously. Bush 41's wife Barbara probably could have told her some stories of things that happened to her late in her life that would have caused Michelle to turn white. Michelle was the wife of a president, now the wife of an ex-president, she's now set for life, from the tax money of mostly white citizens. Is she satisfied with that? Of course not, no matter what special rights blacks get, they're never satisfied. They hate. They're racists of the worse kind.

Now let's look at what another black person had to say, from a much earlier time, 1950, before there was Black History Month, before Martin Luther King Day, before Black Entertainment Television, before racial quotas, before minority contracts in construction, before other recent black supremacy;

Thomas Sowell, one of the people I listed in Message 457 Born in 1930, adopted as an infant, grew up in Harlem, left his family and went to D.C. in 1950. I have several of his books on my shelf. In one of the introductions, he gives a brief outline of what his life was like growing up.

quote:
I had dropped out of high school at age 16, left home at 17 to go live on my own, usually in a rented room. I discovered the hard way that there was no great demand for a high-school drop out with no skills or experience. I had no clear indication of where I was heading, if anywhere beyond the string of low-level, poorly paying jobs I held. After nearly 3 tough years on my own, if was a major advance when I received an offer of a job as an entry level clerk with the government in Washington in September 1950.

He doesn't say, but my guess is that that government job offer in 1950 came from a white person. A white person who noticed that he was a good worker, and had a brain. But in referring to this part of his life, he doesn't mention race. Now to continue;

quote:
Washington was a new experience, going beyond a change of jobs and cities. In Washington lived [sisters and brothers] - I never knew any of them existed while I was growing up. I had been adopted in infancy and was not told I was adopted until I was nearly grown. Having left the family in which I had grown up when I was 17, I now had a new family and that was a good feeling. Washington itself was not a good experience , however, when I arrived there in 1950. Racial barriers made downtown restaurants and most movie houses off-limits. The schools were racially segregated. Washington was a typical southern town in every way except that blacks did not have to ride in the back of buses and trolleys.

He then goes on about being drafted into the Korean War, spending over a page in the introduction of this book about that, leading to his graduation in 1958 from Harvard with a degree in economics. Never mentioning race , never referring to the racial barriers he briefly referred to above. So what did he 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.

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. 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.

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

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". 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.

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 exceptions (my Sowell reference) show that I go by the content of their character, not necessarily the color of their skin. Roughly 90% of them vote for the same party that enslaved them 160 years ago. The party of Lyndon Johnson. A significant percentage of them 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.

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? That's only one example, there are countless others, black supremacy doesn't allow a lot of relevant things to be discussed. 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. It's the reason there was so much anger here when I pointed it out.

A few more loose ends in your long maze;

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 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.

marc9000 writes:

dwise1 writes:

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.

And I clearly wasn't asking about the presentation, or if Ted Lieu was a personal friend of dwise1 and told him about the horrid things Fox News did. I wanted to find out where he got the information about what the networks did with it. I suspect it could have been CNN, they often don't want their audience to see the truth.

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.

When Smollett reported his faked attack, it was sensationalized. Commentators like Robin Roberts interviewed him, and broadcasted his lies for a full 16 minutes. Here's what Biden tweeted;

quote:
"What happened today to @JussieSmollett must never be tolerated in this country," President Biden, tweeted in January 2019 when he was mulling a presidential run, "We must stand up and demand that we no longer give this hate safe harbor; that homophobia and racism have no place on our streets or in our hearts. We are with you, Jussie."

quote:
Multiple politicians called the attack an attempted 'modern day lynching'

Biden, Harris led frenzy to amplify Jussie Smollett's false hate crime claims

Would have been nice if Roberts would have sat down for 16 minutes after the guilty verdict, with someone from American Renaissance and they could have discussed how we can no longer give safe harbor to Smollett's style of hate. His attempt to paint all Trump supporters as a lynch mob. What do you think the ratio of initial reports and commentary were between the initial reports of the attack, versus the corrections? 20 to 1? 40 to 1? How many blacks around the country got the message?

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

Not to black ones.

marc9000 writes:

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.

They were not my people, any more than Jussie Smollett is your person.

You seem remarkably tone deaf to the significance of the events of that day.

Yes, there were a lot of events.

jar writes:

Wasn't the Capitol Building closed to the general public that day?

Weren't there barricades and police that had to be overwhelmed before any of the insurrectionists could enter the Capitol?

Weren't the doors and windows at the Capitol closed and locked to keep the insurrectionists out that day?

Wasn't the door at the scene of the shooting closed and barricaded to keep the insurrectionists out that day?

Wasn't the window in that door smashed by the insurrectionists that day?

Wasn't Babbit shot as she tried to climb through that broken window?

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.

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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 499 by Percy, posted 12-15-2021 1:29 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 510 by DrJones*, posted 12-19-2021 11:59 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 513 by Percy, posted 12-19-2021 3:00 PM marc9000 has responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2197
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 510 of 585 (889984)
12-19-2021 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 509 by marc9000
12-18-2021 7:43 PM


Re: A Prime Example of Racism
Like Michelle Obama, and I'm sure, her husband. Their hatred of whites was probably a large part of their courtship, and subsequent marriage

and your hatred of them probably come from not accomplishing anything more than an half hearted pat on the head and a "good try boy" from your father after a particularly mediocre blowjob.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 509 by marc9000, posted 12-18-2021 7:43 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022