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 comes up with this stuff? Where are there any facts to back it up. Here are some fact based statements about the Bush Administration, Illegally tortured(Dick Cheney admitted to this.) Illegal wire tapping of all electronic communications in the U.S.(admitted by none other that George Bush himself). Started Iraq war based on lies,something so well documented I won't try to list credits.
We agree on #6. Thank goodness.
#7 There is no contradiction, I voted for a Black man for President. It is a statement of fact. I voted for him because I felt he would be the better candidate. In the primaries I voted for Hillary Clinton against him. I did not vote against John McCain because he is white. In fact I have tremendous respect for him.
#8. Solomon, I honstly don't think you get it. You call me a "pathetic liberal." I voted Republican from 1984 to 1994. At that point I sensed something seriously wrong with the party and switched to the Democratic party. You fail to realize that the motive beind the current conservative dissent is what bothers me, not the dissent itself. Why is the decision by the majority of the American people to move the country a little left of center such a scary prospect? Why is there such a need to question Obama's citizenship so as to say he has no right to be president? How can a president who is trying to obtain health care access to all Americans be labelled an as a person who favors death panels? Why is his religion questioned? Shouldn't a persons religion not matter in the first place? You haven't given me your opinion on these specific issues. Do you believe all the things said about Obama? If you do, tell me why. If you don't tell me why. I honestly am not sure of your political leanings. Your Lincoln quote is one I totally agree with. Corporations are all too powerful. The so called corporate rights which the supreme court supposedly bestowed to them in the late 19th century is ridiculous. Also I agree with your statement that "race baiting is a tool,a means to an end. To what end? Or in other words, what is the MOTIVE?

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 black."

despite

preposition, noun, verb.

-preposition
1. in spite of; notwithstanding.
-noun
2. contemptuous treatment; insult.
3. malice, hatred, or spite.
-verb (used with object)
4. Obsolete. to anger or annoy (someone) out of spite.
-Idiom
5. in despite of, in spite of; notwithstanding: He was tolerant in despite of his background and education.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Unfortunately, you are guilty of the typical right wing attempt to misrepresent someones view, assume the misrepresentation as fact, and then rationalize a differing view based on the misrepresentation.<!-/Quote-!>

Looks like Neidy got it right after all, Solomon. You've just completely undermined your own position.

lol

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." ~ Sir Winston Churchill

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:

I did say "despite" lolol. Of course I was saying I voted for him regardless of race.<!-/Quote-!>

I think that covers it perfectly.

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 Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2) <!-/Quote-!>

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)<!-/Quote-!>

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America<!-/Quote-!>

This is what you support? <-click


Bringing out the big guns for you liberal folk! (might as well understand what you're doing)

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 cult of personality movement that in reality promotes the same things as the men I chose to use to describe the movement.

Or-Back?

We can turn around. Learn what we stand for. Go back to the last intersection because we realize that we should have made that left turn at Albuquerque. Recognize that we've been down the eugenic road before and we know where it leads. Decide to take personal responsibility for our own views and beliefs. Oppose that which we KNOW to be evil regardless of the desire to put ourselves first.(political promises are an illusion anyway) Listen to the men who oppose(d) this evil and learn what's really going on, it's our duty. By taking this path we must go back, and that involves looking at the ugliness along the road that got us where we are.

<!-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.