Race baiting for political gain (Fearless Blue)

lol

Unfortunately America's social problems are your own. Unless of course you're missing the whole concept of 'global government'.

LOL what integrity you display! The right is the problem? as to mean 'solomon'? rather than the murderous racists?

Yeah, half the world is crazy and you're in the crazy camp for sure!

I'll rephrase then; your personal paranoia is not my concern.

You project it upon me simply because you don't know how to effectively deal with it. So you rant and you rave in self-righteous rhetoric in the hopes of appearing smarter and more "knowledgable" than anybody else.

Besides, the right wing are usually the murderous racists. BNP. KKK. Nazis. Despots and dictators. The list goes on.

I'm warning you... but hey, it's YOUR defense mechanism.

Better than the paranoid alternative.

Since I've recognized that your only goal here is to frustrate the thread I've decided you and I are finished conversing.

That's awfully big of you. But the meaningful conversation ended when you acknowledged your deliberate misrepresentation.

The rest has been thoroughly amusing. Keep up the good work.

actually you, out of ignorance, used the wrong word and I took advantage of your ignorance. Just for the record, read it for yourself.

**Warning graphic link 18+ please**
If this continues though, I fear I may go off the deep end!

Yeah, I can't bend on this: Jimmy Carter is wrong. People are not protesting because Obama is black.

He's crazy, he says The overwhelming majority are in the tea parties because of racism.

Could it possibly have anything to do with things like the things I've been posting?

Dividing the American people is counter productive and not done by accident.

I've now concluded that Solomon, may like the racism that is charactherized as dissent in our country.

I am sure to be right. Right, Solomon

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Besides, the right wing are usually the murderous racists. BNP. KKK. Nazis. Despots and dictators. The list goes on.<!-/Quote-!>

Don't forget Stalin and Mao, those right wing lunatics!

Solomon. I left the debate because you are clearly are off topic. When one is losing the argument, one goes off topic. However, I can't help but reply to your posts regarding Margaret Sanger. I have read and heard a little bit about her and from what I recall there is some merit in what you say concerning her views. I don't know about the quotes you give since you don't put them in context so I won't offer an opinion. However the entire issue is mute. She died I think in the 1950's and nothing she may have said in the early 20th century is relevant to todays debate about abortion.
You once again are guilty of painting a broad brush on people and assume they believe in certain things. I in fact, am against abortion. However, I believe in our constitution. That constitution established a supreme court to interpret our laws. The supreme Court ruled that abortion is a legal right woman have. Follow up tests of that ruling have failed to overturn the original Roe Vs. Wade decision over the past 37 years, thus making it established law. I don't like it. But that is the way it is. The same constitution offers the remedy of amending it. I support an amendment outlawing abortion except in certain circumstances. However, I would only support it if required that any child born to a mother who does not want the baby be completely supported by the state and given at lease a middle class type upbringing. If we are going to force woman to have babies out of our sense of moral supremacy, then we as a society should put or shut up. And please don't give me the crap about responsible behavior, People are people and will at times make mistakes or act recklessly. A newborn child should not have to be brought up by parents who if given a "choice" would abort it. If we as society "choose" to force birth giving, then we have become the defacto step parent.
Solomon, you oversimplify issues. You are, if I may now offer a label , an absolutist. Your belief system is obviously theocratically based.When your verdict on an issue is threatened by a few inconvenient facts, you retreat to the tactics of taking quotes and facts out of context to preserve your absolute conclusion. Why? Because your conclusions are 'absolute' and therefore any deceptive technique that can be used to defend that absolute is justified.
Take for instance your statistic concerning the abortion rate among African Americans. It is a true and correct statistic. Did you offer your statistic because of your concern for African Americans?No, it is there merely to support your outlandish belief that Planned Parenthood is secretly trying to eliminate the African American race through Eugenics! But actually you don't believe that either. Your true concern about abortion actually falls in line with the undeniable fact that you are afraid too many white people aren't being born and eventually whites may no longer hold majority status in the nation. A major tenet of the white supremacist movement is that we gotta have more white children!
Now, the real reason for a higher incidence of abortions in the African American community. There is a pattern to abortions. It doesn't run along racial lines, but it does run along the line of economic status. The lower ones income level, the more difficult it becomes to maintain a larger family. Even one child may be one too many to afford.The higher incidence of abortion among low income families is true for all racial groups, withour exception. However, since African Americans in general have a much lower standard of living, a double the national average unemployment rate and earn less that than white counterparts,coupled with the unfortunate reality of much higher births out of wedlock, ( a problem acknowledged by African Americans in general)obviously would mean that they would have a higher incidence of abortions. Again, you took a statistic and put it completely out of context.
The good new is that abortions among blacks, and other groups in general have dropped significantly in the past 15 years, mainly due to increase sex education and use of condoms.

Cut the shit!

You deliberately tried to frustrate an otherwise productive topic and NOW you claim to be anti-abortion?

You absolutely refused to condemn the practice of aiming abortion at a certain race in order to control their population, you now call it only theory. NOW you claim you're pro-life? Maybe you can answer how murdering people because of the color of their skin is off of the topic of racism too.

You are deceptive and it appears that you have a lack of value for truth. This is clear to anyone reading through the posts.

You claim the eugenic beliefs of the powerful people of only one generation back are irrelevant. I recommend finding a good federation so you can get help removing your head from your butt! lol

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

There is a pattern to abortions. It doesn't run along racial lines<!-/Quote-!>

After the evidence you saw... I need to ask you, are you okay in the head?

You saw the evidence for yourself. You heard from black victims of forced sterilization and saw the racial demographics on abortion. Does denying the truth and then arguing for lies help? Oh that's right, those black people are only paranoid when they look at the fact that HALF of the black population is missing.

You don't want to believe anything other than what you display, why are you responding? Oh I know, to frustrate the message.

You are what they call a "Bullshitter" and people spot it right away, you're not hiding it from anybody.

Now go ahead, take your childish final word, make it an good over-worded long one...
...because I'm done with you.

This thread is getting awfully hard to follow, esp when one reads it late at night.
Text walls proving......what?
That the US is full of murderous raceists, usually white & right wing. That there are evil sterilisation programs in place to wipe out the "black"? race in the US.
Well, it hasent been very successful at all has it. Makes me suspect it is all B/S exaggerated & distorted for political ends.
If you are looking for murderous raceists how about looking at either Rwanda ot The Sudan for starters.
In fact this whole thread is irritating - how about Alien abductions instead, equally as fanciful & less nasty

I agree that the abuse of the race card is a political stunt that will cause further division in a country where recent elections SHOULD have done a lot of good.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

actually you, out of ignorance, used the wrong word and I took advantage of your ignorance. Just for the record, read it for yourself.<!-/Quote-!>

Solomon, Solomon, Solomon... You miss the point like an Irish sniper on St Patrick's day.

I had hoped that it wouldn't come to this, but it seems like it cannot be avoided. For your benefit - and my own amusement - here is a brief lesson in English.

Language is a beautiful thing - quite possibly the greatest achievement of mankind as a species. It allows one to communicate abstract concepts in a generally meaningful way, provided, of course, that it is wielded with sufficient articulatory skill.

Now English, like most human languages, affords one the ability to exchange and impart knowledge based upon a common, shared set of conceptual alphanumeric characters commonly referred to as letters. These letters can be arranged into a wide variety of idiomatic forms which, individually or combined, allow one to articulate a concept, thought or shared supposition. These "forms" are commonly referred to as words, which form the lexis of any given language - in this case, English.

Now the purpose of words is to act as a functional carrier of meaning, acting through an assumed shared common association, the nature of which links in quite strongly to the aforementioned articulation. The nature of this meaning held by words is better known as semantics.

In terms of expressing conceptual devices through a common lexical function, one must assume an affirmed semantic commonality between any persons wishing to express a given concept and those who are to be informed.

The very mechanism of which can prove quite cumbersome when one takes into account the multi-faceted nature of any singular lexical device, in this case the varying multiplex of semantic definition offered to each individual word.

In order to ensure that such troublesome occurrences are not overly common, many languages then rely upon the formation of patterns within word formation, such as inflection, derivation and composition - or morphology, as it is better known - and the patterns of formation within the sentence structure itself - the syntax.

In combination, these are part of a larger group of functions which aid in ensuring a common semantic framework which is more commonly known as grammar.

This framework, rather conveniently, assigns almost all alphanumerical forms and entities a lexical category which help to define meaning.

These include, but are not limited to:
Nominals (nouns and pronouns),
Adjectives,
Verbs,
Pronouns,
Prepositions.

Now, to apply this to a "case-study" in order to render an example of confused semantic meaning we will require an appropriate phrase and all of its definitions.

Rather conveniently, we have the following sentence:

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

...he voted for him despite him being black.<!-/Quote-!>

And the subsequent misrepresentation of the word "despite" therein.

As this example sentence has been disastrously truncated in order to remove the primary context, and thus deprive it of any subsequent contextual framework, we must take it at face value. Luckily for us, this does not alter the original meaning significantly at all, and in applying known grammatical constructs one is able to quite easily decipher a meaning.

Turning back to the criticism offered regarding the above quoted statement, which referenced the usage of the lexical entity "despite" as a cause for contention, we must primarily break down the offered definition of "despite" and then proceed to redefine the word from the implied semantic nature offered in the criticism, and return it to the original context-oriented form as given prior to the truncation.

First, the criticism attempted to narrow the meaning of the word "despise" by falsely categorising it as a noun within the above context;

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

* 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-!>

It is important to note, at this time, the precise nature of a noun.

Nouns, and the similar construct known as pronouns, are part of a group known more widely as nominals. Nominals are referential in nature, in the sense that they are typically indicative of an observable entity or concept within the real world - in the case of the above offered definition, an emotion.

Deconstructing the sentence,

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

...he voted for him despite him being black.<!-/Quote-!>

we find a single noun (black) and some recursive pronouns (he, him). In this case the offered definition of "despite" in the form of a noun expressing an emotive state would render the sentence meaningless within its original, untruncated context by simple virtue of a more clear semantic intent.

Indeed, the purpose is far better served by the logical assumption that "despite" in this case is in fact a preposition - or a lexical form indicative of a relationship between a noun/pronoun and another function, sometimes acting as a grammatical modifier thereof. In this case, the preposition is an indication of a relationship between two pronouns, altering effective definition of the form "despite" and as such redefining the implied shared semantic derivation of the entire concept,

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

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-!>

In this case, we see the prepositional form taking the definition of "in spite of," further referenced with an example of "Notwithstanding."

By supplanting "notwithstanding" for "despite" we retain the following observed meaning:

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Notwithstanding

-preposition
1. in spite of; without being opposed or prevented by<!-/Quote-!>

Feeding these definitions back into the original example, we can thus entertain possible alternatives for the truncated sentence which retains a similar functional semantic nature.

"...he voted for him despite him being black."
Alternatively,
"...he voted for him in spite of the fact that he was black."
"...he voted for him regardless of the fact that he was black."
"...he voted for him without taking into account that he was black."

Or, of a completely different form but with the same conceptual functionality,

"...the fact that he was black did not factor into his decision to vote for him."

So, ultimately, the original semantic intent of the sentence was retained effectively within the grammatical construct of the lexical concatenation itself. Rather, the fallacious conclusions, as drawn within the body of the critique, stems from the original erroneous constraints placed upon it by the miscategorisation of the form "despite" as a noun rather than a preposition, and the ensuing dispersion of shared conceptual devices became inevitable. As a result of this an erroneous semantic structure was given to the form "despise" and the example "case study" sentence by direct extension.

But you were right about one thing, Solomon; this conversation will bear no further fruit. So I bid you farewell, and leave you to it.

Wow you did make it a good one. I doubt that I will be able to refrain from responding. lol

Latias,
I'm going to read it now... first though (and I'll probably be sorry for saying this first lol but) I wanted you to know that hard-lining you like I have isn't my intention. You seem like a nice person and I'm sure in other forums we could have a lot of fun. I truly hope I haven't offended you by saying things like "crazy camp", "I'm done with you" etc.

If I have please accept a heart felt apology, I'm sorry.

Ok, now to go read what you had to say...

OMG you go into a long English lesson and you're still wrong.

You misused the word because you didn't mean to say "he voted for him despite him being black". As in "I lent him money despite him being a theif" or "I went swimming despite the fact that I had no suit".

When would you ever say "I went swimming despite my bathing suit" and mean that your bathing suit is perfect and ready to go? It means the opposite. That sentence tells anyone reading it there is some kind of issue with the bathing suit.

You and I both know what that means and that you didn't mean it as it reads. The fact that I, by accident, copy and pasted the NOUN version of the definition from Merriam Webster with out first taking it's part of speech into consideration is my mistake but really has no bearing as it is the same as the preposition definition. Like I said, when I look up 'notwithstanding' the definition is "despite" LOL!

(here is a good example why you would need the thought police again. You judged my intent and claimed I did it to mislead when in fact I simply copy & pasted with out considering it's part of speech)

You used the wrong word and are still kicking and screaming trying to make it the right word yet the definition STILL doesn't match the communication you meant to get across so, yes it is still wrong.
Moving on...

OH, It's ALL about that hehe cool, in that case I won't even need to respond, forget I said anything lol

You know BC, on a lot of levels this election is doing a lot of good. Not as much as it is going to harm, from the top down, but between us little people? I think getting issues on the table is very helpful.

I just can't believe so many people seem to be okay with that evil bitch Margaret Sanger.

...can't figure that one out.

This is a human problem.

This is a superhuman answer.

OMG. Nowhere in my post do I say I support eugenics. I just don't buy the crap that eugenics is the reason for the abortion problem in the country.I offer the real reason. READ THE POST! DUMMY.You contradict your own argument so much that it is laughable. To paraphrase Solomon, 'Neidy doesn't condemn eugenics because she really wants all black people to die, and umm... umm, that's why she voted for a black man for president!! Yeah that's right!! and...ummm...and... uh, in spite of her despite... >Good bye Solomon.

Is that what you get? I question your sanity.

You can't stop the healing

Yes I dared to question motives.

Neidy, After rereading your first post I hope you don't rejoin the discussion to be honest:

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

No one "bludgeons" dissent by unmasking it. Rascism masked as dissent is what we are seeing in America today. Solomon's Lincoln quote is very prescient. False patriotism which in itself strives to undermine a democracy by attempting to make illegitimate an elected president is nothing short of veiled treason. Today we see a fifth column in America which holds up the constitution as it's banner while at the same time atempting to destroy the same.<!-/Quote-!>

YOU ARE ONE OF THE WORST KINDS OF RACISTS!! And I stand behind that.

Calling 'dissent' racism, outrageous! I hope you're not American. You don't even know what you're saying. Disagreeing with the government is racism? and claiming those who want to save the Republic are actually those out to destroy it? If you think you're going to pull a "I didn't say that" stunt it isn't flying either. I'm cutting you off at the pass this time, if you have that bad of a command of the English language that you can say that and not mean it... then get the hell out of here, you should be in 3rd grade.

LET THE EVIDENCE STAND!

Everyone can clearly see for themselves which is the light and which is the absence thereof, I need not go on.