[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Things that make Donald Trump angry:

- teleprompters
- mics
- conspiracies
- Mexicans
- Chinese
- Muslims
- Rosie O'Donnell
- people that don't like sexual abuse
- people that don't think he's the best at stuff
- seagulls (probably)
- crying babies (probably)
- BadKosh and Chongo (I heard from good sources that he really hates them badly. These sources advise Trump, so they are great)

Hey, I made the list twice! (Mexicans)

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Things that make Hillary angry:

- Bill's mistresses
- gays, when it's in vogue
- Blacks, when it's in vogue
- people who keep bringing up emails after shes already decided is petty
- bringing up lost lives of Benghazi, which are completely irrelevant to her now, since "she was cleared" and all
- Secret service agents or anyone else who doesn't appreciate being cursed out by a privileged elitist snob.
- Bernie sanders
- Any competition period.
- Any political adversaries, which require assassination by the Clinton Crime Syndicate.
- Her name appearing in the Panama papers.
- people who can't be bought
- people who don't have any substantial dirt on them, aside from politically impolite speech or childish derogatory comments.
- being forced to claim she thought those white house items she stole (because she really is just that trailer trash at heart) were personal gifts.

...

[el chupacabra]

… .

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

...

I just have one question for you as somebody that seems to be reasonable, and be honest...

When did you start disliking Hillary Clinton?

i have a theory that for many people this was a long time ago, and all of this other stuff in your list is just a mix of truths and partial truths that Hillary will never be able to get out from under because of these strong preconceptions.

The same is true of people disliking Trump. You can pretty much toss out any accusations that sounds believable and his opponents will believe it without too much consideration.

[subego]

Not the one asked, but it was post 2008. I recall feeling bad voting for Obama instead of her in the primary.

What got me was the email server. Specifically, how she mounted a "Sherman's March" campaign to make it go away, rather than be accountable.

There's a saying, which applies to both politics and life... if you get caught doing something bad, make sure the next thing you do is the right thing. This is why celebrities who **** up check into rehab and get totally forgiven, despite being horrible people.

When the email story broke, it was painfully obvious she got caught with her hand in the cookie jar. Her response was to gaslight the entire country for a year, until the eff, bee, ****ing eye has to go "exhibit A: hand... exhibit B: cookie jar".

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Not the one asked, but it was post 2008. I recall feeling bad voting for Obama instead of her in the primary.

What got me was the email server. Specifically, how she mounted a "Sherman's March" campaign to make it go away, rather than be accountable.

There's a saying, which applies to both politics and life... if you get caught doing something bad, make sure the next thing you do is the right thing. This is why celebrities who **** up check into rehab and get totally forgiven, despite being horrible people.

When the email story broke, it was painfully obvious she got caught with her hand in the cookie jar. Her response was to gaslight the entire country for a year, until the eff, bee, ****ing eye has to go "exhibit A: hand... exhibit B: cookie jar".

I think you are against American culture more than you are her.

She did this for the same reason that Donald Trump (and so many other politicians) rarely admit any sort of mistake, because Americans think that politicians shouldn't make mistakes. Take Howard Dean's yell, for example, which wasn't even a mistake per say... Or, a bigger example, Bush and Cheney's decision to go to war against Iraq, and never even to this day acknowledging that it didn't go well.

I don't agree that politicians are like celebrities who can be forgiven. On one hand it would be nice if Clinton handled the email server as you described, but on the other hand is manipulating the public to overlook email server-gate that much different than manipulating the public to vote for a Donald Trump, or supporting the Iraq war, or a thousand other things?

Politics seems to be about manipulation - some for the public good, some not depending on your ideology, perspective, bias, etc.

[andi*pandi]

el chupacabra, surely your post was satire? When I got my secret feminist agenda handbook there was nothing in it about refusing to learn to type.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think you are against American culture more than you are her.

She did this for the same reason that Donald Trump (and so many other politicians) rarely admit any sort of mistake, because Americans think that politicians shouldn't make mistakes. Take Howard Dean's yell, for example, which wasn't even a mistake per say... Or, a bigger example, Bush and Cheney's decision to go to war against Iraq, and never even to this day acknowledging that it didn't go well.

I don't agree that politicians are like celebrities who can be forgiven. On one hand it would be nice if Clinton handled the email server as you described, but on the other hand is manipulating the public to overlook email server-gate that much different than manipulating the public to vote for a Donald Trump, or supporting the Iraq war, or a thousand other things?

Politics seems to be about manipulation - some for the public good, some not depending on your ideology, perspective, bias, etc.

I used to live in a neighborhood which for various reasons started to get dodgy. I walk out my front door one night, which is on a main thoroughfare, and right in front of me is a parked car, doors open, and four guys inside drinking beer. They had already built up a decent pile of empties in the gutter.

If it isn't clear, this is breaking a ton of laws.

What scared me about this wasn't the law breaking... shit, I break laws all the time... it was the (apparently correct) thought they could get away with such blatant disregard for the law.

This is what bothers me about Hillary. It's the extent to which she feels she can get away with it. This emboldens her.

It's the same calculus which says it's okay to ambush the Attorney General a few days before the FBI drops the hammer.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I used to live in a neighborhood which for various reasons started to get dodgy. I walk out my front door one night, which is on a main thoroughfare, and right in front of me is a parked car, doors open, and four guys inside drinking beer. They had already built up a decent pile of empties in the gutter.

If it isn't clear, this is breaking a ton of laws.

What scared me about this wasn't the law breaking... shit, I break laws all the time... it was the (apparently correct) thought they could get away with such blatant disregard for the law.

This is what bothers me about Hillary. It's the extent to which she feels she can get away with it. This emboldens her.

It's the same calculus which says it's okay to ambush the Attorney General a few days before the FBI drops the hammer.

I think this is pure to the point of being a little impractical.

Look at the money involved with politics on a routine basis - all of the stuff Bernie Sanders has been talking about. Some of this stuff might be against the law, a lot of it should be against the law, but politicians get away with this sort of stuff constantly (I hope I can get away with being vague here given how much this has been discussed already).

Is this ideal? No, but it's embedded into our system. I don't think voting for Hillary single-handedly will change this, but voting for Obama, as pure and boyscouty as he was in 2008, didn't either. I don't really know what will change this, but I think what you are saying here is expressing frustration over a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.

[besson3c]

You know who would do well running for president? A wealthy successful business person like Peter Thiel or Mark Cuban, preferably as an independent, committed to getting money out of politics.

Then you'd have some of the attractive qualities of Trump as a self-fundable outsider approaching politics as a business, which Republicans will love, but with more intellect and less nonsense than Trump that maybe Democrats would love too.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Hmmm. So I "lied" because you "assumed" and I didn't bother to "set the record straight" with respect to your lame-ass jabs at me? As if I'm obligated stop you from digging your own hole deeper!

But since you want to continue to talk sh*t let's "set the record straight". From the "Are we doing enough to stop ISIS?" thread YOU were the one who introduced Latin into the discussion in the first place here:

And then a couple posts later there was this exchange because YOU just had to try to argue me down on what Ad Hominem means.

You live by Ad Hominems around here, without them you have no contributions. Someone disagrees? You don't address the issue, let alone contemplate that your ideas are bigoted, you attack the person and then double-down on the stupidity. Just like you did with Snow-i (right after he rightfully called you out for blatantly racist assertions), and now he won't even talk to you anymore. Great job, there. That's like somehow provoking a Hare Krishna into a fist fight. But no, it's his fault, just like you somehow always find a way to insult, lie, and turn yourself into the victim, all at the same time.

So yes I did mention that I studied Latin for 6 years an aside. But I also said that I was NOT trying to make an "Argument From Authority" and simply directed you to look up the actual definition of Ad Hominem for yourself. But only in the mind of CTP does that constitute "bragging" on my part! And you've had your panties all in a wad about it ever since. Hence your lame-ass "professor" jabs.

I cite the above, professor victim. "Believe me, I took 6 years of Latin. But no, that's not an appeal to authority or in any way bragging. [Not that any of that Latin matters, because at the time you were too busy popping pimples and trying to look up the girls' togas.] I'm just going to act like I'm an expert and hope that you don't remember a post I made 9 years ago." Yeah, do tell...

So says Mr. Super Wealthy. Mr. Two Wives. Mr. Owner Of Any Exotic Animal Being Discussed. Mr. Current Or Previous Owner Of Any Vehicle Being Discussed. Mr. Law Enforcement Officer. Mr. Charitable Foundation Owner. Mr. PhD in Comparative Religion. Mr. Deacon Of The Coptic Church. Mr; Owner Of A Secret Microfiche*. Mr. Resident Forum Internet Expert On Any And All Thread Topics. And that's just SOME of what I can think of off the top of the dome. We could fill up an entire thread with the things that you've claimed about yourself around here!

And the manipulations and distortions continue, unabated. It's just who you are and what you do, it's no wonder you turned out like you have, another Gazi Kodzo.

* - that supposedly proves that the gun control legislation signed by Gov. Reagan in California had nothing whatsoever to do with the Black Panthers conducting armed patrols of the streets of Oakland to combat police brutality ... but instead was the result of some random white dude going on a highway shooting spree. Despite all the historical documentation to the contrary.

Because it didn't. They were drafting that bill before the Black Panthers even started patrolling, but it fits your twisted, race-baiting narrative, so you might as well run with it. (Which, coincidentally, is what's gotten you where you are... yet again.)

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I just have one question for you as somebody that seems to be reasonable, and be honest...

When did you start disliking Hillary Clinton?

The same is true of people disliking Trump. You can pretty much toss out any accusations that sounds believable and his opponents will believe it without too much consideration.

I will start by saying, even though I only defend Trump on here, if I had to choose between Trump and Hillary I'd choose Hillary for pres. Dont get me wrong, I think she will burn the country to the ground. But I think it will be a sinister intelligently controlled fire designed to funnel what power is left in the people, to the corporate government establishment; as opposed to a wild fire ignited by someone who I now think is mentally ill. My reasons are purely selfish. I'd love to see manufacturing come back from China. I hate visiting China, but it will hurt my bank if Trump cant orchestrate this in a slow civilized manner. . Same goes for Mexico, I hate our open border policy but making a DMZ line with a country I do business with wont help. Not to mention it's against my religion to wall out the less fortunate. Then again part of why I would support Hillary is because Im becoming more evil. Im thinking more and more the American middle class needs to be communized . They're too spoiled & dumb and they'll get what they deserve with Hillary. And lets be honest, aside form criminals, illegals & terrorists, she's going to hurt liberals more than conservatives simply due to the fact conservatives live a less establishment /government dependent life to begin with.

When did I start disliking Hillary? In 2008 I actually liked her. I thought her intelligence combined with experience would make a good pres. I stopped liking her when Obama came along and she lost every debate while getting agitated like Trump. The primary reason I dislike her started when this election came around and the full potential of her corruption and ties to the corporate elite were exposed.

The reason I defend Trump is because I do agree with all the problems he's brought up. Problems which liberals dont even believe exist. And the people on these forums dont address the policy stuff that matters. They give Hillary a completely free pass while criticizing Trump on political correctness. It's obvious pure hypocrisy. Take the 2005 comments for example; this is how liberals talk ALL the time. This isnt just locker room talk, it's bar talk, it's club talk, nearly every college kid says these same things. When I worked in a hospital I worked with mostly females and the stuff that came out of their mouths in normal conversation was far worse than anything Trump said. It's mostly joking but if you go to any club theres plenty of ass grabbing and the occasional crotch grab. Women are more likely to do the crotch grab than men. I know liberals have been to clubs so I know they are liars and hypocrites in pretending this is rare or qualifies as assault.

[OAW]

@el chupacabra

I appreciate the effort you put into your post. I am by no means ducking your post. But please allow me to find the time to properly digest it before I respond.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I cite the above, professor victim. "Believe me, I took 6 years of Latin. But no, that's not an appeal to authority or in any way bragging. [Not that any of that Latin matters, because at the time you were too busy popping pimples and trying to look up the girls' togas.] I'm just going to act like I'm an expert and hope that you don't remember a post I made 9 years ago." Yeah, do tell...

Actually I went to an all boys school. So once again you demonstrate that you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about.

And when you get done talking, I'll once again direct you to the dictionary in order to resolve this issue of whether or not Argumentum Ad Hominem means "attacking the SOURCE" as you insisted or if it means "attacking the PERSON" as I indicated. Like I did the first time back in March ... not nine years ago ...when you got your panties in a wad.

Ad hominem literally means "to the person" in New Latin (Latin as first used in post-medieval texts). In centuries past, this adjective usually modified "argument." An "argument ad hominem" (or "argumentum ad hominem," to use the full New Latin phrase) was a valid method of persuasion by which a person took advantage of his or her opponent's interests or feelings in a debate, instead of just sticking to general principles. The newer sense of "ad hominem," which suggests an attack on an opponent's character instead of his or her argument, appeared only in the last century, but it is the sense more often heard today. The word still refers to putting personal issues above other matters, but perhaps because of its old association with "argument," "ad hominem" has become, in effect, "against the person."

But as our Resident Forum Internet Expert I'm sure you are convinced you know better anyway though huh?

OAW

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

. When I worked in a hospital I worked with mostly females and the stuff that came out of their mouths in normal conversation was far worse than anything Trump said. It's mostly joking but if you go to any club theres plenty of ass grabbing and the occasional crotch grab. Women are more likely to do the crotch grab than men. I know liberals have been to clubs so I know they are liars and hypocrites in pretending this is rare or qualifies as assault.

I work for one of the larger semiconductor companies. We had a women (20+ years) that would do things no man could ever get away with. Flashing her bush and crotch grabbing were her staple. She was telling raunchy jokes one time and a male coworker told one. She walked out the bay and went HR and got him written up. An automatic "Incedent Report" aka final written warning. Less than a month later we had a slow down and anyone on an IR was let go. She ended up getting fired, but not for sexual harassment. She flipped out when a new supervisor wanted to move her to a new bay.

[Chongo]

I may have asked this before. How many of you were old enough to vote in 1992/1996 and did you vote for Bill Clinton?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

So you lied by omission, trying to make others think that the Latin you took was (at least in part) in college and wasn't entirely in secondary school (which is essentially the same as not taking it at all)? How am I not surprised, you misrepresent everything else (ex. "unchecked privilege turns white men into Trump"), might as well include useless high school classes. I took 4 years of Latin in HS, but I don't tell people that it's somehow part of my formal education.

See here's the thing. You are comparing the education in a quality institution provided to an individual of clearly above average intelligence to that of whatever cesspool of a rural Tennessee high-school I imagine you failed to graduate from.

Life and learning are more difficult for you because you are not particularly bright. A clever person who studied a foreign language when they are young (the time the brain is best suited to learning a foreign language) will retain a good bit of it.

The fact that you didn't know the meaning of "ad hominem" is a clear indication that you are either lying about having taken latin for four years in high school (likely), or you are just particularly dim witted (continually confirmed).

For goodness sake, I took one term of latin as SAT prep and I knew what it meant.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I may have asked this before. How many of you were old enough to vote in 1992/1996 and did you vote for Bill Clinton?

I did. That was my first election.

Voted for Jerry Brown in the primary because he was that nutty.


I was on a shoot during Election Day in '96. Days start to blend together on shoots and I didn't even realize it was Election Day until after it was too late. I hated the production (almost staged a walkout) so I would have been thrilled to show up late to work and told them to go **** themselves.

I think I would have voted for Dole, but my memory is hazy.

Past that...

Browne
Kerry
Obama
Johnson
Johnson (to be)

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

I did. That was my first election.

Voted for Jerry Brown in the primary because he was that nutty.


I was on a shoot during Election Day in '96. Days start to blend together on shoots and I didn't even realize it was Election Day until after it was too late. I hated the production (almost staged a walkout) so I would have been thrilled to show up late to work and told them to go **** themselves.

I think I would have voted for Dole, but my memory is hazy.

Past that...

Browne
Kerry
Obama
Johnson
Johnson (to be)

The reason I (re)asked is it seems the ones making the loudest noise about Trump are the same people who voted for Bubba, twice. Move On was started to encourage us to "move on" from Bubba's "private peccadillos" on get on with the business of government. We were told Gennifer Flowers and the rest happened before he was running for POTUS.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The reason I (re)asked is it seems the ones making the loudest noise about Trump are the same people who voted for Bubba, twice. Move On was started to encourage us to "move on" from Bubba's "private peccadillos" on get on with the business of government. We were told Gennifer Flowers and the rest happened before he was running for POTUS.

The peccadilloes didn't bother me. Everybody knew he had been banging Gennifer, and there was other stuff everybody knew, too.

It was banging an intern... at home. He deserved to get an ashtray hurled at him for that.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

The fact that you didn't know the meaning of "ad hominem"

I do, it applied, and still does. When OAW gets flustered he frequently resorts to child-like insults, much the same way you often decide to lose your temper in political discussions. It's representative of a lack of self-control (believing that differing ideological views are usually immoral) and a piss-poor upbringing.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Actually I went to an all boys school. So once again you demonstrate that you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about.

Boys togas, then? Either way, it's not even close to the same as a university-level course on the language, professor.

And when you get done talking, I'll once again direct you to the dictionary in order to resolve this issue of whether or not Argumentum Ad Hominem means "attacking the SOURCE" as you insisted or if it means "attacking the PERSON" as I indicated. Like I did the first time back in March ... not nine years ago ...when you got your panties in a wad.

and you still don't understand that "the source" can mean either the article referenced or the speaker you are addressing. This makes a great deal of sense, given that you've never learned to not be an abusive ass when speaking with someone who doesn't agree with you. You frequently become exasperated that anyone would dare look at a situation differently and then you start dishing out increasing levels of condescension and disdain upon them, when you aren't purposely distorting what they've said (as above) or outright lying about what they've said before or the position they hold, as if your very life depends on winning an argument at any cost. I'm not at all surprised Snow-i has abandoned you, in many ways you're an awful human being.

But as our Resident Forum Internet Expert I'm sure you are convinced you know better anyway though huh?

I'm sure you're convinced of many unsavory things, but I have no interest in wasting more of my time with you.

[Captain Obvious]

The Cult of Mormon seems to already taken their electoral votes away from Trump.
I wonder if they are going to be numerous enough in AZ push the state blue.

Utah Poll: Independent Evan McMullin ties Trump | Fox News

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

The Cult of Mormon seems to already taken their electoral votes away from Trump.
I wonder if they are going to be numerous enough in AZ push the state blue.

Utah Poll: Independent Evan McMullin ties Trump | Fox News

I'll be amused enough if they can turn it grey (or whatever color you'd like to assign McMuffin).

[OAW]

@el chupacabra

I can't respond to every single comment in your post but I'll focus on those that can be addressed with facts and not mere opinions.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

It's hard to discuss "white privileged" without separating women from men. There is no denying white women have extreme privileged. The white woman is in fact the number 1 recipients of affirmative action benefits and they aren't even a minority. How'd they pull that off?

There was a time when women faced blatant discrimination that in education, the workplace, and local/state/federal contracting. That is why they were included in affirmative action programs. And politically speaking the program was an easier "sell" it it wasn't perceived as being geared strictly towards minorities. And you are correct. Over time white women as a demographic have benefited from affirmative action far more than any other. Yet the backlash against the program from whites continue to be strongest when it is a minority who benefits. In any event, one of the biggest ways that the program has been used to benefit white females directly and white males indirectly is with local/state/federal contracting. For example, it is very common for businesses that are really controlled by white males to "officially" be listed as a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) because on the paperwork it is "owned" by the wife.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

This applies to minorities as well. You dont know what you dont know. Consider black america lives almost exclusively in inner cities; and at the very least within minutes driving distance of the nations largest cities. Their perspective of whites is quite sheltered. Because the only whites you see in inner cities are overwhelmingly spoiled shallow upper income hipster elitist liberals. If I were black, I too would hate whites based on what I saw of their out-of-touch lifestyles in the inner city. However the majority of whites are actually down to earth people living in moderately sized to small towns across the nation. And when we tell you we really didnt avoid smiling at you, or hiring you, because racist, it might actually be true.

But the part highlighted above is what a lot (if not most) white people believe. But it's just factually incorrect. Hence the author's point about most whites being "racially illiterate".

Across the country, the data show that more African-Americans live in suburbs than anywhere else.

According to Kneebone, who compiled data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Surveys from 2010 to 2014, some 39 percent of African-Americans — whether rich, middle income or poor — live in the suburbs, and 36 percent live in cities. The remaining 25 percent are spread across small metropolitan areas and rural communities.

Her analysis shows that 52 percent of African-Americans in the 100 most populous metropolitan areas in the U.S. live in suburbs.

Inside Trump's View of African-Americans and Inner Cities - ABC News

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Educated people ignore "institutionalized racial power" because it's an irrelevant made up concept. We dont need to understand something that is make believe in the 1st place.

So let's present this concept in a different way. The US military at one point was an overwhelmingly male institution. For centuries. Now that it has been integrated by gender it simply strains credulity to believe that men as a group do not collectively wield more power within the institution than their actual numbers would suggest. Regardless of how men as individuals act within that institution. From "institutional inertia" if nothing else.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

White males do not get together as a group and decide not to hire or promote blacks. They dont put enough thought or energy into it to have the ability to discriminate. Discrimination requires extra work. Nobody wants extra work...

I would agree that in most instances this is likely the case. But again, the point is that institutional racism in the modern era is more the result of "implicit bias" than it is some "conspiracy" of white dudes sitting around a table intentionally discriminating.

Unconscious bias or usually known as implicit bias is a "positive or negative mental attitude towards a person, thing, or group that a person holds at a subconscious level"

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

When a black is profiled such as in the bicycle theft thread you participated in; I said maybe the black should have dressed more professional and less 'gangsta' like.

This is rooted in the false assumption that such profiling is based upon style of dress. Professional black men in suits were hassled by "Stop & Frisk" in NYC just like the black men wearing sagging pants.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

You implied that what I was calling gangsta was essentially part of black culture and I was exhibiting a form of racism.

Now I know I didn't say anything like that. Because I do not by any means equate "gangsta" with "black culture" in any shape, form, or fashion. Feel free to produce the quote. I'm sure you simply misunderstood whatever point I was making if this is what you gleaned from it.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Blacks call white people "square" for how they dress or comb their hair. But see whites are taught to get in line, comb your hair like a square if it prevents you from getting profiled. Whites are taught that we have very little freedom, that we dont get to express our unique floweriness in dress and tattoos and command professional respect at the same time. Thats why we dont go around thinking we can command respect wearing dreads, tattoos, big rings, baggy clothes, and everything else blacks pretend they invented & have a monopoly on. In summation whites have no empathy for blacks because whites have no empathy for themselves. We're used to things not being fair so we dont care if they're not fair to you.

And wherever do you get this notion that black people think they can dress any ole kind a way in a professional environment? That's just .... crazy talk.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

You mean like making Money Penny, an established white character black, in the name of liberal political correctness? Maybe for the kids they should make ninja turtles into ninja geckos for the next movie, oh how bout black ninja geckos?. And Nemo can be made into a seabass. Any documentaries about Martin Luther king can be played by a native american. Why not.

You do realize there is a distinct difference between fictional characters and historical characters right?

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Or... it could just be an issue of not caring. Arguing with the persecution complex crowd is rather futile. Theres only a few of us stupid enough to entertain it. Lets see how much flack I get for saying anything about america's cute wittle powty wippped white women. Thats one ultra protected group nobody's allowed to touch. Absolute innocence they are. Everyone must think of them as all damsels in distress in need of a knight. They dont need help, they are MONSTERS.

The ladies must LOVE you.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

When you mix cultures you destroy all of them involved. All blacks I know agree with me on this statement. But regardless what do white people have to gain by moving people of "color" into their neighborhood? Honest question. Are they going to die if they dont? Will they be less successful? Will their crime rate go down with more diversity? What quantifiable thing do they gain? Keep in mind its big cities who are most segregated, and they are all blue counties. Liberals are more racist than rural folk.

It's not about what white people "gain". It's not about white people "moving people of 'color' into their neighborhood". It's about people having the freedom to move into whatever neighborhood their financial resources can take them without having to deal with racist BS like redlining, racial restrictive covenants, racial steering by real estate agents, a GI Bill designed to accommodate Jim Crow, etc. You see this is WHY big cities are segregated in the first place. Predominantly white and minority areas didn't come to be that way by HAPPENSTANCE. They came to be that way by DESIGN. And people are well within their rights to take issue with that.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

We understand perfectly. You dont. Racism is lynching people. Forced segregation and open deliberate discrimination. Believing in racial cast systems. Believing that blacks should have less opportunity than whites. Thats racism, people are trying to redefine racism since they have nothing to blame their problems on anymore.

Call it what you want. The systemic issues ... whether implicit or explicit .... still exist.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

We arent taught of white Jesus. We are taught of Arab/Jewish looking Jesus.

Nonsense! Jesus has been routinely depicted as a white man in western Christian iconography for centuries.

 

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Blacks hate this as they are being taught in black Jesus and black ancient Egyptians - which is false history.
How would you modify our history books if they're so bad as they are?

Actually most blacks are taught "white Jesus" as they have since our ancestors were first brought to these shores and had Christianity forced upon us under the threat of the whip. Relatively speaking, it is quite rare to see a black church openly embrace iconography of Jesus as a person of color (which is historically and biblically accurate) compared to those that either depict a "white Jesus" or no imagery at all. Mental and spiritual slavery has continued long after physical slavery came to an end. There's very popular song which spoke to this ...

Originally Posted by Bob Marley - Redemption Song

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery none but ourselves can free our minds.

As for "black ancient Egyptians" being "false history" .... all I can say is that Europeans have been trying to "whitewash" the history of Ancient Egypt for centuries. Hollywood continues doing it to this day when they always cast white actors in lead roles for films dealing with the topic. In any event, the ancient Egyptians themselves left historical records indicating their ancestry. The Papyrus of Hunefer which is a copy of the even more ancient Book of Coming Forth By Day (aka the "Book of the Dead") makes it abundantly clear ...

We came from the beginning of the Nile where god Hapi dwells at the foothills of the Mountains of the Moon.

Egypt (locally known as Kemet in ancient times) is in northeast AFRICA. The Nile River flows NORTH .... originating deeper within the interior of Africa further SOUTH. Through Nubia/Kush (modern day Sudan) into Ethiopia, Uganda, and Tanzania. The "Mountains of the Moon" are typically associated with the Rwenzori Mountains located between the borders of Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo and sometimes with Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania. Not really places known for an indigenous caucasian population.



Moreover, in the tomb of Pharaoh Seti I (reigned 1290–1279 BC in the 19th Dynasty of the New Kingdom) we have murals that exist to this day that depict what the ancient Egyptians looked like during that era.

 

Clearly the ancient Egyptians depicted themselves as a people with medium to dark brown skin. But Africa is a HUGE continent and its indigenous population (aka "black people") comes in all different shades of brown hence the differences shown between the ancient Egyptians and the ancient Nubians. But see for yourself how the skin tones and hair styles and other cultural adornments of modern day Northeast Africans are nearly identical to the images left behind by the ancient Egyptians ...

 

Even DNA tests of ancient Egyptian mummies show overwhelming Central and East African markers. "False history"? The historical evidence shows otherwise. "False media depictions" is more like it.

 

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

and you still don't understand that "the source" can mean either the article referenced or the speaker you are addressing.

No. It doesn't. As the dictionary makes abundantly clear. Again, this entire thing started because you went quoting some random, unidentified blog. You said my objection to it was an Argumentum Ad Hominem which you STILL thinks means "attacking the source". I said it meant "attacking the person" and that it couldn't be a case of that because on what basis can I attack an unknown individual? In any event, if you even remotely knew what you were talking about you would realize that my objection was actually on the basis of False Attribution. There is a distinct difference between the two. But go ahead and persist in your willful ignorance.

The fallacy of a false attribution occurs when an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased, or fabricated source in support of an argument.

OAW

[Chongo]

Here you go, a handy dandy chart.

[OAW]

^^^^

And based upon that handy little reference ...

OAW:

CTP:

OAW

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

I will start by saying, even though I only defend Trump on here, if I had to choose between Trump and Hillary I'd choose Hillary for pres. Dont get me wrong, I think she will burn the country to the ground. But I think it will be a sinister intelligently controlled fire designed to funnel what power is left in the people, to the corporate government establishment; as opposed to a wild fire ignited by someone who I now think is mentally ill. My reasons are purely selfish. I'd love to see manufacturing come back from China. I hate visiting China, but it will hurt my bank if Trump cant orchestrate this in a slow civilized manner. . Same goes for Mexico, I hate our open border policy but making a DMZ line with a country I do business with wont help. Not to mention it's against my religion to wall out the less fortunate. Then again part of why I would support Hillary is because Im becoming more evil. Im thinking more and more the American middle class needs to be communized . They're too spoiled & dumb and they'll get what they deserve with Hillary. And lets be honest, aside form criminals, illegals & terrorists, she's going to hurt liberals more than conservatives simply due to the fact conservatives live a less establishment /government dependent life to begin with.

When did I start disliking Hillary? In 2008 I actually liked her. I thought her intelligence combined with experience would make a good pres. I stopped liking her when Obama came along and she lost every debate while getting agitated like Trump. The primary reason I dislike her started when this election came around and the full potential of her corruption and ties to the corporate elite were exposed.

The reason I defend Trump is because I do agree with all the problems he's brought up. Problems which liberals dont even believe exist. And the people on these forums dont address the policy stuff that matters. They give Hillary a completely free pass while criticizing Trump on political correctness. It's obvious pure hypocrisy. Take the 2005 comments for example; this is how liberals talk ALL the time. This isnt just locker room talk, it's bar talk, it's club talk, nearly every college kid says these same things. When I worked in a hospital I worked with mostly females and the stuff that came out of their mouths in normal conversation was far worse than anything Trump said. It's mostly joking but if you go to any club theres plenty of ass grabbing and the occasional crotch grab. Women are more likely to do the crotch grab than men. I know liberals have been to clubs so I know they are liars and hypocrites in pretending this is rare or qualifies as assault.

Very interesting to hear you say that, because disdain for the corporate elite sounds like a Bernie Sanders playbook thing more than a Republican thing. In the last several years we have heard lots of talk of deregulation and tax cuts for job creators. Do you think this is shifting?

[subego]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

We arent taught of white Jesus

What about Mary?

I have seen a non-white depiction of Mary precisely once, and frankly it blew my ****ing mind.

Seriously. I had to take a time-out and let that one sink in.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think this is pure to the point of being a little impractical.

Look at the money involved with politics on a routine basis - all of the stuff Bernie Sanders has been talking about. Some of this stuff might be against the law, a lot of it should be against the law, but politicians get away with this sort of stuff constantly (I hope I can get away with being vague here given how much this has been discussed already).

Is this ideal? No, but it's embedded into our system. I don't think voting for Hillary single-handedly will change this, but voting for Obama, as pure and boyscouty as he was in 2008, didn't either. I don't really know what will change this, but I think what you are saying here is expressing frustration over a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.

I don't think my point was made clearly enough. This isn't about purity. As I said, I break the law. Everybody does. That's not a stone I can throw.

The main laws broken in my scenario were drinking in public, and drinking in a parked car. Neither of these things bother me. These are petty crimes, which probably shouldn't be crimes anyway. Certainly with the first.

What bothered me was the boldness. What bothered me was the obvious indication they felt immune to consequences.

This is what scares me about Hillary. Not that she engaged in email shenanigans, but she feels so immune to consequences it doesn't even occur to her she should cover her tracks.

What I'm scared about is the shit where she has covered her tracks.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

What about Mary?

I have seen a non-white depiction of Mary precisely once, and frankly it blew my ****ing mind.

Seriously. I had to take a time-out and let that one sink in.

Just a few.

[subego]

The top one looks kinda white. Or perhaps corpse grey.

The others amount to a 300% increase in my lifetime experience with depictions of non-white Mary.

[subego]

Maybe 200%...

The one on the bottom I think has a tan.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Here you go, a handy dandy chart.

It's appreciated, but he'll keep ignoring them. The only thing that matters is the Narrative.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

^^^^

And based upon that handy little reference ...

OAW:

CTP:

WTF? Can you even read?



vs what you said:

And when you get done talking, I'll once again direct you to the dictionary in order to resolve this issue of whether or not Argumentum Ad Hominem means "attacking the SOURCE" as you insisted or if it means "attacking the PERSON" as I indicated. Like I did the first time back in March ... not nine years ago ...when you got your panties in a wad.

You're done again, professor.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

WTF? Can you even read?

Clearly you should be asking yourself that question. Moving on ...

OAW

[besson3c]

I think OAW and CTP used to date and had a rough breakup.

[andi*pandi]

Trump's whole campaign is ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies. What isn't whining about him not getting media coverage (how is this possible, he is everywhere in the media).

“Both candidates have a chance to win voters over if they can convince voters they want to help them,” O’Reilly said.

Added O’Reilly: “I don’t think it helps [Trump] to say it’s rigged, or anything like that.” He also advised Trump to “stop the whining.”

[Chongo]

If Hillary wants to "be 50 points ahead!" she should stop attacking Trump's temperament and start taking about her successes in Libya, Syria, Egypt, and Iran.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Trump's whole campaign is ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies. What isn't whining about him not getting media coverage (how is this possible, he is everywhere in the media).

I think Trump should receive stronger pushback for his claim that the election is rigged in Clinton's favor, that sets a very dangerous precedent that further escalates the situation.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I think Trump should receive stronger pushback for his claim that the election is rigged in Clinton's favor, that sets a very dangerous precedent that further escalates the situation.

From who? If the media does it, that just feeds the narrative.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

From who? If the media does it, that just feeds the narrative.

From fellow Republicans for the most part, because if they don't that'll be another thing that'll bite them in the rear end along the road.

[subego]

A/K/A "what goes around, comes around".

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

From fellow Republicans for the most part, because if they don't that'll be another thing that'll bite them in the rear end along the road.

Well, I have seen them doing that.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Barelyliterate 

WTF? Can you even read?



vs what you said:





You're done again, professor.

Holy crap dude. You generally are as dumb as bag of hammers. The graphic you posted explicitly torpedoes your absurd argument.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Well, I have seen them doing that.

I mentioned this as a theory in the punditry thread.

Trump doesn't care if he trashes the American political system on the way down. Everyone else is counting on that system to remain employed.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I mentioned this as a theory in the punditry thread.

Trump doesn't care if he trashes the American political system on the way down. Everyone else is counting on that system to remain employed.

He's doings it because he's petulant and in denial. The rest is coincidence

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

He's doings it because he's petulant and in denial. The rest is coincidence

What is coincidence? I'm (surprise!) confused.

[The Final Dakar]

Him not needing the system is coincidental to his burning it down.