Race baiting for political gain (Fearless Blue)

Oh NO! YOU DIDN'T!

What exactly do you mean by:

"he voted for him despite him being black."

Would you like to explain yourself on that one?
_______________________________________________
Here, let me help you:

* Main Entry: 1 despite
* Function: noun


1 : the feeling or attitude of despising : contempt
2 : malice, spite
3 : an act showing contempt or defiance

Well this is a point by point discussion so I will stay on that path. You contradict yourself in that you say that my position calls for "thought police". At the same time you continue to state that Jimmy Carter should be put in jail for meeting heads of state as a private citizen and speaking his mind on foreign policy issues. There is nothing illegal in that.You are the one saying people should be put in jail not me.
2. As for #2, I'll dismiss it and let anyone who bothers to read our post decide whether I am contradicting myself. I obviously am not.
#3 and 4 are already adressed so I move to #5.
On #5 I speak as earlier mentioned about the out right lies perpetrated on the right to make President Obama seem to be an illegitimate President. "Wasn't born here", a secret Muslim, "Nazi", "Communist", wants to kill old people with death panels,"hates white people" (Glenn Beck), etc...Who co

I got bigger fish to fry Neidy lol

Well as I was writing my response to your last 8 points you posted your political leanings. "For the Record", you say you are no longer a conservative Republican. Unfortunately, you still sound like one.

"Do you believe all the things said about Obama? If you do, tell me why. If you don't tell me why."


This contains many of the reasons Neidy

All these posts cropped up fast. LOL, I did say "despite" lolol. Of course I was saying I voted for him regardless of race. I got to quit swigging beers when I am on this forum. So your will not answer my questions regarding the crazy accusations against Obama. It is realy a simple yes or no. Do you believe these things about him or not? Yes or no? A non answer only undermines your entire argument.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Oh NO! YOU DIDN'T!

What exactly do you mean by:

"he voted for him despite him being black."

Would you like to explain yourself on that one?
_______________________________________________
Here, let me help you:

* Main Entry: 1 despite
* Function: noun


1 : the feeling or attitude of despising : contempt
2 : malice, spite
3 : an act showing contempt or defiance
<!-/Quote-!>

See, that's the tactics of the right; taking something legitimate and twisting it into something nasty by competely ignoring context. As long as it serves your argument, right?

"Despite" was used as a preposition in that sentence, not a noun. Your definition is horribly flawed.

"He didn't vote for him because he was black. Unlike the right wing, he voted for him despite him being b

You said what you said, and I asked you to clarify the offensive statement you made. If you don't mean what you say go ahead and clarify it. Don't blame it on my 'right wing tactics' lmao!

Either master the language a little better or tolerate being called on using offensive statements when you don't realize that you're doing it.

Litas, you say: "Despite" was used as a preposition in that sentence, not a noun. Your definition is horribly flawed." (thinking we won't look it up- liberal tactic lol)

Merriam Webster is an acceptable autorhity and no 'notwithstanding'
* Main Entry: despite
* Function: preposition
* Date: 15th century

: in spite of

Is it that horribly flawed? So, it is to say: "he voted for him in spite of him being black"???

I don't get what you're saying, please show me where you could be saying a good thing here. If you didn't mean it, cool, just clarify.(which you kind of tried... I guess lol)

It's more duelism anyway, if you look up 'notwithstanding' it says "despite" (it's probably better to let Neidy speak for himself lol)

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

hahahaha. Solomon, I've seen that video already. hahaha. I can't believe you fall for all that crap. DESPITE that video, I think I'll consider you my favorite right winger. Someday I might bring you back to Earth. That video goes into the dust bin of video farce history along with "The Clinton Chronicles". That's what you use to back up your arguments? Lets see, I already have 2 labels bestowed upon me by you, "pathetic liberal" and a follower of "duelism" which I guess makes me a 'Duelist'. Which label to choose? I choose duelist. Neidy the duelist.

duelist, noun. "one who fights, or is an expert at fighting, duels"
WEBSTERS DICTIONARY

Solomon, you can't be a pathetic liberal and a duelist all at once. You got to pick one.

Thanks Latias for your moral support.

Head in the sand works better for some people.

Oh and that's immoral support, don't forget you guys are the ones that run to the wolves, the wolves that believe it's okay to harvest the brains from babies and leave them for dead if they survive an abortion. Surly you don't think I'm shocked that your thinking is all f**ked up!

you want to talk "black", gentlemen?

Fact: Roughly 75% of planned parenthood clinics are in black or other minority neighborhoods.

Fact: The black population endures 37% of the abortions in America.

Fact: The black population is about 14% of the US population.

Do your own math!

Margaret Sanger
Founder of Planned Parenthood

In Her Own Words:

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people<!-/Quote-!>

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Rev

I hope you're watching these

(and no they're not gruesome dead baby pictures)

I can hardly be held accountable for the holes in your knowledge, Solomon. If you're not aware of all the meanings of a word, that is your malfunction.

You choose to deliberated take the negative meaning rather than the literal one in which it was meant. And there is the flaw in your tactic.

Whilst we argue the point, you will argue the semantics.

C'est la vie.

I chose to deliberately take the negative meaning rather than the literal one, I concede.

Now...
Argue what I just posted... or is it time for more head in the sand action as liberals, believing by hiding you aren't responsible for what you support?


Truth's hitting the table boys.

We've been deceived gentlemen.

This brings us to a crossroad.

Which way do we want to go?

Left?

We can go the way of denial and pretend like we were never enlightened to this information and continue to support liberalism with it's hidden agenda of genocide against our brothers all the time telling people that we aren't racist denying it to the point of driving it deep into our own minds so it doesn't pierce our conscience any longer.

Or-Right?

We can choose to become right wing and conservative but in reality this is just leads to a deeper pit of denial than the first path because the evil men who run this movement are after the same exact agenda only they lie and deceive people into thinking they are the way out of the murderous evil.

Or-Forward?

We can fervently help these evil men continue and even expand their murder by engaging in a Stalinist, Maoist, Hitlerish

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Now...
Argue what I just posted... or is it time for more head in the sand action as liberals, believing by hiding you aren't responsible for what you support? <!-/Quote-!>

What you posted has little bearing upon the points already made. You willingly acknowledge that you deliberately misrepresented what was said, which links precisely into the point I was making. And now you are basing your arguments upon the counterpoint to comments which you acknowledge were taken out of context.

You are now entirely off topic, and your "arguments" do not relate in any way whatsoever to what has been said.

Anyway, I know how the following rebuttals will unfold. When one cannot attack the argument, attack the person, correct? That's the way it has been played so far.

As for the rest - the typical rhetoric of paranoia.

That excuses you from your responsibility of what you choose to support?

You don't know what I support. That is exactly the point.

All I've done is elaborate upon a point made my Neidy, and extrapolated further from a position which you failed to comprehend.

If you cannot grasp simple contextual semantics then a debate with you will be entirely fruitless.

Sure I do, You're a liberal and you refuse to even acknowledge the murderous racism I've pointed out. I think it's pretty clear.

I'm willing to speak out against murderous racists. I'm just wondering why the pussy liberals refuse to.

Going to take it to the grave aren't they? I'm just glad there are people observing who haven't gone mad and are getting the message here.


Liberals, man up, you support it, you own it.

Now how about turning from it?!

I don't subscribe to your polarised world view. Things are not so black and white.

You are all insults, Solomon, and no real substance.
Either way, my point stands.

America's social problems are not my own.

I'm happy knowing that the extreme right is less of a problem in my own country than it is in the US.

Latias takes Solomon to the only place she thinks will do him any good.