We have plowed this soil before my friend. It’s not just Obama’s words but his deeds as well referenced in my previous posts.[/quote]
Yep, and I covered deeds. Obama supports amnesty? Not evidence of racism, on its face, unless you think that the the legalization of illegal immigrants is actually intended to do violence to white people. There’s no evidence that is the intent, that is Obama is legitimately thinking “I can’t wait to screw over all these white people by legalizing people of Hispanic origin because they will [intentionally cause white people some undetermined harm specific to white people.]”
That’s idiocy. There’s no evidence of that. Oh, there’s speculation- which is what you are doing. But no evidence.
Maintain it all you want, till you’re blue in the face - I don’t care. But it’s weak, unfounded, and based on speculation solely because you have a partisan as to grind, and you’ll say and believe anything to help you grind away.
Already have, and did again - see above re: amnesty. You propose conclusions that don’t have strong support. When pressed you double down, make even poorer arguments, or start changing the subject. You just make it up as you go along, and ignore the evidence that ruins your outlandish positions.
Well, sure I did - I expressly pointed out where your evidentiary chain to reach your conclusion falls flat. You provided specifics all right - just not any specifics that Obama actually hates white people and acts with racist intent.
My comment about the friends who are Obama’s beliefs demonstrate that there is a smarter, better explanation for the words and deeds of Obama that makes more sense other than he hates white people. In other words, there is a stronger and simpler argument that Obama is simply (and only) left-wing, in the absence of some other evidence he, you know, actually is racist and wants white people to suffer.
[quote]I will be very honest with you TB. I have read your posts on this site for about a decade now and have always admired your analysis on a number of various topics. In fact, I have agreed with you far more times than I have disagreed. Over all I would say that you are one of the smartest guys on this site.
But to be quite honest when it comes to political analysis you are rather weak. Claiming Joe Biden would be a great negotiator really caught my eye. Dismissing Donald Trump as an idiot and a buffoon simply because you dislike the man, even though he’s built a multi-billion dollar empire. You sometimes cannot separate your emotion from fact when it comes to this one area. And sometimes you project those feelings toward others as well. One more example would be you accusing me of liking Trump as a Presidential candidate when I never said such a thing. I simply defended him as an exceptionally good business man and promoter.
There are other examples but you get the idea. And I think you are better than this. When I point out this one weakness of yours it is not with the idea of name calling I am simply giving you my opinion. That’s pretty much part of what we all do around here.[/quote]
Super, but the rest of this is just dumb. My naming Joe Biden as a good negotiator was “weak political analysis”? Let me unpack why this is idiotic. First, it isn’t facially political. Being a good negotiator isn’t correlated to a person’s political beliefs. It’s a skill set. Biden has the skill set and the personality, and even people who have been on the other side of the table from Biden acknowledge this.
You’re only counter was that Biden is “liberal” so he must suck at it, and he invades people’s personal space, and he “looked like the Joker” in the vice-presidential debate - none of which speaks to his (or anyone else, really) skill or moxie as a person you might get to handle a negotiation.
Biden is good. So. Is Bill Clinton. So was Howard Baker. Political affiliation isn’t a driver of that skill.
Let’s be honest - you wouldn’t know if Biden was or wasn’t, because you just have no idea. There’s no indication you’re basing your opinion on any particular experience you have in this space. On top of that, everything in your world is diseased by politics - conservatives are all superheroes, liberals are all villains or morons. Someone like Biden is actually good, but you can’t concede that because he has a D beside his name. So, while you think very highly of your “political analysis” (and you can’t seem to stop reminding everyone of that with the non-stop self-congratulating), it’s clear to me you really don’t have any idea what you’re taking about on this particular subject and the more you keep tut-tutting about how you do only exposes you further.
As for Trump, I never said he was your favorite candidate, but you were clearly apologist for him and the defense you made for him became comical. Trump made his money, I don’t care about that, but he’s nothing special, and what he has accomplished in the business world doesn’t inspire any belief that he’s up to snuff in public leadership. All that is clear enough - what was so ridiculous, and what I pointed out, was your naked partisanship - Trump is to the left of hated RINOs, and if he was running as a Democrat, you’d be first in line to attack him. This clown runs as a Republican, and you’re jumping in front of trains to defend him from basic criticism.
And no, the issue isn’t separating emotion from fact - Insaid Trump is overrated in the business world (he is, and don’t take my word for it, talk to people who actually, you know, engage in business in New York) and the mere fact that he has a financial “empire” isn’t evidence (there’s both at word again) of talent or skill: ask a Kardashian. Additionally, his atrocious personality and arrogance would translate into a very poor statesman.
Problems is, and now we’ve learned this, you won’t tolerate any criticism of any Republican candidate. You’ll at most concede that someone may not be your “first choice” or that maybe someone doesn’t have much experience, but you simply won’t say there is a Republican who is a crook, a fiend, a jerk, or a clueless pretender. You won’t do it.
What does that mean? Your vaunted - well, self-vaunted - political analysis is just a bunch of partisan hot gas. You wear blinders. What you have to say isn’t all that interesting or insightful - it’s limited and predictable. And there’s not even much entertainment value in your attempts at trash-talking, which are bad.
And, once again, a thread about Ben Carson gets railroaded into a thread about Obama. Why? Someone had the audacity to criticize Carson. Instead of Zeb addressing the fact that Carson is woefully inexperienced and apparently a serial fabulist, it’s “you know who’s a racist? Obama.”
As is, I’m guilty of responding and dragging it out further, but I’d like to change that and discuss Carson, who actually is worthy of criticism.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m thinking the “dread” that some see in this dominionism has probably got more to do with secularists rabidly insisting the Establishment Clause reigns over the Free Exercise clause like an ace of spades does a three of clubs.[/quote]
The “dread” comes from certain dominionists selective interpretation of the free exercise clause, where they are quite eager to infringe on the rights of others to practice their religion (or lack of one) unmolested, i.e. Muslims for once example.
The American Taliban types are out there and they are the ones I worry about.
“…ruling over the rest of society based on their understanding of biblical law”
[/quote]
Ha! You just got punked! You quoted what some other anti-dominionism bozo wrote about the movement. If you can’t tell that entry was written by someone(s) with clear antipathy to CD then you are easily bamboozled.
I know folks who certainly think LIKE CD’ers (if they aren’t actually) and they would never say or think “rule over the rest of society.”
See if you can find a CD website where they actually use that kind of language.
And a word to wise: be careful with Wikipedia being your bulwark.
[/quote]
Uh, this is a truly odd thing for you to try. I offered that quotation specifically because…wait for it…you mentioned Wikipedia and claimed to have seen nothing wrong on the page in question. I didn’t volunteer it in my own argument, and I don’t cite Wikipedia unless for a specific reason. Did you forget this or something? Did you think I brought Wikipedia up?
Anyway, my first citation, and the only one my argument remotely needs, was from Gotquestions. That excerpt clearly describes something prohibited – textually, explicitly, and with regard to unambiguous intent – by the First Amendment. There is no argument, none whatsoever, to the contrary. There is no gray area. This isn’t theoretical physics. It’s 2 + 2.
For more on basic math, I offer the post I’d thought you would respond to:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m thinking the “dread” that some see in this dominionism has probably got more to do with secularists rabidly insisting the Establishment Clause reigns over the Free Exercise clause like an ace of spades does a three of clubs.[/quote]
With respect to establishing a theocratic government with “His Word” as governing principle and legal instrument, it does. Unarguably.
The alternative would be ahistorical (the relevant intent is crystal clear and, indeed, textually explicit) and logically nonsensical (the Amendment would essentially read “no law respecting the establishment of religion…but wait lolz nevermind”). We know that the FE clause does not allow for a Biblical government because such is explicitly prohibited a couple words prior.
I know you don’t think what Gotquestions described above is constitutional, because I know you’ve read the First Amendment. So maybe you’re saying you want to dash out part of the Bill of Rights? You can join Elizabeth Warren in that quest.[/quote]
A little test in order to illustrate the absurdity described in my last post:
Ja-al-Halaq is a movement I just invented. Its adherents believe that Allah desires that Muslims rise to power through civil systems so that His Word, as conveyed by the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him), might then govern the nation.
Good idea? Constitutional? No and no. I wonder whether anybody on PWI would search (in vain) for a way to pretend or at least vaguely/baselessly suggest otherwise. I doubt it.
And unfortunately, the First Amendment doesn’t grant any exceptions that might save the Dominionism described above from suffering the same (well-deserved) fate as Ja-al-Halaq.
We have plowed this soil before my friend. It’s not just Obama’s words but his deeds as well referenced in my previous posts.
Yep, and I covered deeds. Obama supports amnesty? Not evidence of racism, on its face, unless you think that the the legalization of illegal immigrants is actually intended to do violence to white people. There’s no evidence that is the intent, that is Obama is legitimately thinking “I can’t wait to screw over all these white people by legalizing people of Hispanic origin because they will [intentionally cause white people some undetermined harm specific to white people.]”
That’s idiocy. There’s no evidence of that. Oh, there’s speculation- which is what you are doing. But no evidence.[/quote]
I never said that he wanted them to do violence. You must know that, by allowing in illegal non whites he can change the face of America. I thought you would be able to figure that one out. Where in the heck did you get the violence angle? Oh…you made that stuff up.
[quote]I understand your argument and I am sure that you hold the majority opinion. But, after watching his deeds in office, not just what he wrote in two books and what he fails to say, or should say, but his actual deeds I maintain my original point.
Maintain it all you want, till you’re blue in the face - I don’t care. But it’s weak, unfounded, and based on speculation solely because you have a partisan as to grind, and you’ll say and believe anything to help you grind away.[/quote]
No, then I would be like you unable to separate my emotion from fact. I have actually read many parts of both of his books, have you? I have looked closely at what he has said and done as President have you? And that is why I maintain that he is a racist.
[quote]Then point out what I have made up regarding the debate we are having now regarding Obama’s racism (which I allege). Please be specific. If you don’t respond with specifics then it is you that is “making shit up” about me.
Already have, and did again - see above re: amnesty. You propose conclusions that don’t have strong support. When pressed you double down, make even poorer arguments, or start changing the subject. You just make it up as you go along, and ignore the evidence that ruins your outlandish positions.[/quote]
Wrong again TB. You drew the conclusion that I was claiming Obama allowed illegal aliens in for them to commit violence, straw man. That was something that YOU made up. It is also YOU who will not accept any evidence provided. Words written by Obama’s own hand. Words spoken by Obama regarding black thugs who are arrested by Police Officers. And on and on…
A few quotes from Obama’s book “Dreams of my Father”:
“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
He is proving that with the Iran nuclear deal placing Israel in danger. And his treatment of Israel since day one in office. As I said he hates Jews as well.
“I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13 when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.”
And heaven forbid that this happen right Barack?
Sizing up the man who would become his boss, his first job after college: “There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself maybe. And white”
Simply turn this one around. A white man saying “I’m wary because my new boss is black.” Who would not cry racism? Oh that’s right YOU.
There are many more quotes if you’d like to read them. But you have to get your head out of your ass and actually do some work by reading both (or at least certain sections) of both books. Will you open your mind? Doubtful.
[quote]Amateur? Yes, I am an amateur at posting on T Nation as I have never been paid. And you have not been able to refute my claim of Obama’s racism. I laid specifics regarding what he has said and done. Your rebuttal amounted “I have white friends who agree with him are they racists too.” You are not very convincing TB. Your argument is rather weak in Obama’s defense.
Well, sure I did - I expressly pointed out where your evidentiary chain to reach your conclusion falls flat. You provided specifics all right - just not any specifics that Obama actually hates white people and acts with racist intent.[/quote]
Name the number of racists who shout it from the roof tops. Sure there are KKK members who might do that. But barring such an event most racists as you must know are not that brash. Given his words and his actions I have drawn the conclusion that he is racist as anyone would who actually paid attention and did the work. In other words…NOT YOU.
You gave very poor examples regarding your white friends agreeing with Obama. There are plenty of white people on the left who agree with Obama’s basic philosophy. That proves nothing. Your illogical argument states that since the left has these various thoughts then Obama cannot be racist. Very poor argument as one can have left wing thoughts and not be racist. But simply because someone is left wing does not mean they are not racist. Again your logic is absent.
[quote]I will be very honest with you TB. I have read your posts on this site for about a decade now and have always admired your analysis on a number of various topics. In fact, I have agreed with you far more times than I have disagreed. Over all I would say that you are one of the smartest guys on this site.
But to be quite honest when it comes to political analysis you are rather weak. Claiming Joe Biden would be a great negotiator really caught my eye. Dismissing Donald Trump as an idiot and a buffoon simply because you dislike the man, even though he’s built a multi-billion dollar empire. You sometimes cannot separate your emotion from fact when it comes to this one area. And sometimes you project those feelings toward others as well. One more example would be you accusing me of liking Trump as a Presidential candidate when I never said such a thing. I simply defended him as an exceptionally good business man and promoter.
There are other examples but you get the idea. And I think you are better than this. When I point out this one weakness of yours it is not with the idea of name calling I am simply giving you my opinion. That’s pretty much part of what we all do around here.
Super, but the rest of this is just dumb. My naming Joe Biden as a good negotiator was “weak political analysis”? Let me unpack why this is idiotic. First, it isn’t facially political. Being a good negotiator isn’t correlated to a person’s political beliefs. It’s a skill set. Biden has the skill set and the personality, and even people who have been on the other side of the table from Biden acknowledge this.[/quote]
It shows your inability to separate your like for the man apart from his political skill set, or don’t you feel that negotiating is part of a political skill set? No, you can’t be saying that. And worse yet you chose Biden over a large group of political people where almost any one of them would have been better. Again, your political analysis is lacking.
There you go again making stuff up. My argument did not include Biden is too liberal. Go back and reread my post, refresh your memory if you actually think that and didn’t purposely make it up. As I said you paint with an emotional brush stroke. “Zeb is a conservative and does not like liberals therefore he does not like Biden as a negotiator because Biden is liberal” Wrong again TB. I said plenty about Biden, calling him a gaffe machine. He makes too many mistakes to be a good negotiator was one of my arguments. I think I also said that he has spent 43 years on the government dole and has never negotiated for anything of significance that was actually his, unlike GASP…Donald Trump. Please try to get these things right because you are falling all over yourself with inaccuracies in this post.
Stop setting them up and knocking them down as I never said such a thing.
But, you do?
But you have?
One more indication that you just don’t pay attention anymore, or at least when it comes to the political world. How many times have I said that I do not like Jeb Bush and Rand Paul and don’t want either of them to be President? Also, how many times have I said that GW should not have invaded Iraq and I thought that at best he was a President deserving of a “C-” for his 8 years in office. How many times have I said that both parties are responsible for the incredible debt load that we are carrying? How many times have I said that both parties are responsible for the growth of the US government. PLENTY on all counts!
But you decide with emotion on who thinks what when it comes to politics. That is your most outstanding flaw as I have already pointed out various examples. You walked into several more above.
Again, you are making stuff up. Never once said that he would be bad because he is a democrat. If you really believe that show me the post and I will immediately apologize which is something that you are incapable of doing regardless of the many misstatements you’ve made.
It’s easy to say but as usual on this topic you are full of shit. I have made several political predictions and gone out on a limb several times. I have been correct far more than I have been wrong. This bothers you huh hombre? LOL.
But it is you who would not bet me that Hillary Clinton will never become President. I guess it’s easy to claim political acumen when there is nothing ever at stake. Yes, yes I know Internet bets are “dumb” you don’t like them at all. Not only are they dumb after you make them you have to live with your decision win or lose and that’s just not acceptable to someone like you. I’ll leave it at that.
“He’s nothing special” You boob there are about 150 billionaires in the world, therefore he IS something special even if YOU don’t like him. Sheesh TB this is pathetic…I am the one who said as a business person he is really good. But I wouldn’t want him to be President. I even called him a big mouth and said he didn’t have the temperament to be President. You either have a very bad memory or you just like making things up. Which is it?
What is it about you that cannot separate my defense of Trump as a good business man who made billions with my analysis of him as a Presidential candidate? He could be running as a Socialist with old Bernie and I would still give him credit for building a multi billion dollar fortune. But, as you (or someone with a good memory) will remember I said multiple times that I would not want him as President he does not have the skill set or temperament. Yes those words came from me but for some really odd reason you just don’t want to admit it. I guess it doesn’t fit with your current emotional state.
That is EXACTLY your problem!
Oh I see other people who decide on emotion don’t think he’s very good at making money. Ha ha…again there are about 150 billionaires in the world and he is one of them. That takes business skill at a very high level. It matters not to me who likes him or who doesn’t (and I don’t like him by the way). But there is no denying he’s really good at making money. And you or anyone else would have to be so caught up in the fact that he is an ego maniac and acts like a buffoon to not give him credit for the success that he has had IN BUSINESS.
That might be a direct quote from ME. That is what I have maintained through the entire Trump argument. You are just trying to entertain me now right? Come on TB…
Scroll back and see the long list of complaints that I have made against republican Presidents and candidates. Stop playing the part of the fool TB. You have lumped me in with the wrong group. While I am a republican I have admitted plenty of times and will again that they have made some very bad mistakes. My gosh PAY ATTENTION.
Says the lying sack of shit who makes things up as he goes along. Yes, TB you are an amazing story teller at least in this and several of your other posts. But what if…what if…you actually had to rely on the truth and what was actually said? Oh my…
By you. Yes I have participated but you began this nonsense. One can mention Obama’s treatment by the press in comparison to Carson’s without taking the thread off course. But you in your determination to attack me have indeed taken the thread off course.
You’re memory is bad again TB. This is an easy one. simply scroll back to my first post (or near first). I agreed with everything the poster said about Carson but added that Obama got better treatment from the press. GASP!! I mentioned Obama CHARGE…in comes TB with his inaccuracies and poor memory! You knucklehead. Comparing one black candidates treatment by the press to anothers treatment is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. You have a hair trigger when it comes to me mentioning Obama. Ha ha…it’s actually funny. Now that I know I can jerk your chain that easy I am going to have some fun with you from here on in.
You really need to do the following if you want me (or anyone) to take your political analysis more seriously.
Stop with the Zeb never says anything bad about republicans. That is simply untrue. Scroll up and read what I have repeatedly said about certain republicans and the party in general.
Start taking some nutrients for your memory as you have gotten so much wrong in this post that it is laughable. I suggest Choline. And if it is not a memory problem then you are outright lying. I prefer to think it’s memory at this point. But if you keep it up I could change that assessment. Either way I won’t decide on emotion
Stop deciding whom you like or don’t like through pure emotion. The Trump example is a real beauty. Claiming a man who is worth billions is not successful because (we both agree) he is arrogant, and acts like a buffoon. You don’t like him therefore he’s a baaaaaad man…Ha
I’ll leave it at that for now.
I can’t wait to hear back from you hopefully with apologies regarding your horrible memory and mindless attacks.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Obama…never one time quotes or says anything good about the founding fathers
[/quote]
Never one time, eh? Never one time. Let’s take a look at this. Should take about eight seconds on the old Google machine.
– Though Jefferson’s personal history complicated his idealism (hardly an original or controversial thought and, in fact, echoed often by our resident Founder-lovin’ Conservative Patriots), “as one of our Founding Fathers, the person who drafted our Declaration of Independence, somebody who not only was an extraordinary political leader but also one of our great scientific and cultural leaders, Thomas Jefferson represents what’s best in America.”
– “As we read [the Constitution, Federalist Papers, and Bill of Rights], they seem so incredibly right that it’s easy to believe they are the result of natural law if not divine inspiration.”
So Jefferson “represents what’s best in America” and, along with the other Founders, did such remarkable work as to make one suspect that they were channeling the very will of god.
[This is what I mean when I ask you if you ever get tired of being full of shit. It’s perfectly possible for you to be a conservative and highly critical of Obama – without ever being provably wrong. But this never seems to suit you. It’s like a pathology.][/quote]
smh stumbling around his little room: “I have to find a way to get to Zeb with my attacks. I hate the man. Hey I have it! I’ll just stick my nose in the middle of one of his debates with another poster that will surely draw him out. Then we can call each other names for pages and pages. I love the Internet it allows me to be everything that I will never be in my real life.”
LOL Go away man you are pathetic.
[/quote]
Just happened upon the below, and the irony is too delectable, too fucking delicious, to be resisted. (I believe it went online on the exact same day that ZEB claimed that “Obama…never one time quotes or says anything good about the founding fathers.”)
“…it speaks to this vibrancy of American democracy, but also the fact that it was made by these living, breathing, flawed individuals who were brilliant. We haven’t seen a collection of that much smarts and chutzpah and character in any other nation in history, I think.”
Just a little microcosmic view into the sprawling bullshit-factory that is ZEB.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Obama…never one time quotes or says anything good about the founding fathers
[/quote]
Never one time, eh? Never one time. Let’s take a look at this. Should take about eight seconds on the old Google machine.
– Though Jefferson’s personal history complicated his idealism (hardly an original or controversial thought and, in fact, echoed often by our resident Founder-lovin’ Conservative Patriots), “as one of our Founding Fathers, the person who drafted our Declaration of Independence, somebody who not only was an extraordinary political leader but also one of our great scientific and cultural leaders, Thomas Jefferson represents what’s best in America.”
– “As we read [the Constitution, Federalist Papers, and Bill of Rights], they seem so incredibly right that it’s easy to believe they are the result of natural law if not divine inspiration.”
So Jefferson “represents what’s best in America” and, along with the other Founders, did such remarkable work as to make one suspect that they were channeling the very will of god.
[This is what I mean when I ask you if you ever get tired of being full of shit. It’s perfectly possible for you to be a conservative and highly critical of Obama – without ever being provably wrong. But this never seems to suit you. It’s like a pathology.][/quote]
smh stumbling around his little room: “I have to find a way to get to Zeb with my attacks. I hate the man. Hey I have it! I’ll just stick my nose in the middle of one of his debates with another poster that will surely draw him out. Then we can call each other names for pages and pages. I love the Internet it allows me to be everything that I will never be in my real life.”
LOL Go away man you are pathetic.
[/quote]
Just happened upon the below, and the irony is too delectable, too fucking delicious, to be resisted. (I believe it went online on the exact same day that ZEB claimed that “Obama…never one time quotes or says anything good about the founding fathers.”)
“…it speaks to this vibrancy of American democracy, but also the fact that it was made by these living, breathing, flawed individuals who were brilliant. We havenâ??t seen a collection of that much smarts and chutzpah and character in any other nation in history, I think.”
Just a little microcosmic view into the sprawling bullshit-factory that is ZEB.[/quote]
“Please pay attention to me Zeb. You debate other people why not me? Am I just not worthy?”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m thinking the “dread” that some see in this dominionism has probably got more to do with secularists rabidly insisting the Establishment Clause reigns over the Free Exercise clause like an ace of spades does a three of clubs.[/quote]
The “dread” comes from certain dominionists selective interpretation of the free exercise clause, where they are quite eager to infringe on the rights of others to practice their religion (or lack of one) unmolested, i.e. Muslims for once example.
The American Taliban types are out there and they are the ones I worry about.
[/quote]
[quote]ZEB wrote:
“Please pay attention to me Zeb. You debate other people why not me? Am I just not worthy?”
You got it!
[/quote]
Yup, that’ll get the egg off.
Speaking of which, regarding this:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Sizing up the man who would become his boss, his first job after college: “There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself maybe. And white”
[/quote]
…Why do you make it so easy? You cut the sentence off halfway through (do you realize how dishonest this is? How stupid? How utterly full of shit you are?). It actually reads, “And white – he’d said himself that that was a problem.” They were discussing the white guy’s own qualms about trying to organize blacks as an outsider with no social or cultural or economic ties to poor black neighborhoods.
(Also, a book subtitled “A Story of Race and Inheritance,” about a half-black guy, is probably going to feature some ambivalence, particularly when it’s going through the “childhood - teen - higher education” age bracket. The narrative arc of the story, I’m sure you don’t know, is toward political racial-unity fuzz.)
Anyway: Another microcosmic peek into the bullshit factory. I should thank you. I’m learning a lot about low-information voters.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
“Please pay attention to me Zeb. You debate other people why not me? Am I just not worthy?”
You got it!
[/quote]
Yup, that’ll get the egg off.
Speaking of which, regarding this:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Sizing up the man who would become his boss, his first job after college: “There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself maybe. And white”
[/quote]
…Why do you make it so easy? You cut the sentence off halfway through (do you realize how dishonest this is? How stupid? How utterly full of shit you are?). It actually reads, “And white – he’d said himself that that was a problem.” They were discussing the white guy’s own qualms about trying to organize blacks as an outsider with no social or cultural or economic ties to poor black neighborhoods.
(Also, a book subtitled “A Story of Race and Inheritance,” about a half-black guy, is probably going to feature some ambivalence, particularly when it’s going through the “childhood - teen - higher education” age bracket. The narrative arc of the story, I’m sure you don’t know, is toward political racial-unity fuzz.)
Anyway: Another microcosmic peek into the bullshit factory. I should thank you. I’m learning a lot about low-information voters.[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Not going to happen , it will be Sanders VS: Trump[/quote]
That is actually what I would like to see.
One has his own money, the evil capitalist, the other does grassroots financing, the evil socialist, both are not really part of the political establishment.
Sorry Zeb, I’m done throwing good money at a bad investment. To clarify, though:
“To do violence” to means broadly “to damage or adversely affect”, not necessarily and narrowly to cause physical violence, as in attacking people with sharp things. I wasn’t claiming you thought Obama was unleashing illegal immigrants to physically attack white people - rather, to harm them in a broader sense.
Re: knowing what I am taking about re: negotiation: yep. And clearly, you do not. You know what you know from reading blogs. And interestingly, now you claim that Biden wouldn’t be a good negotiator because he is “gaffe prone”, but somehow Trump - equally if not more “gaffe prone”, and that fact isn’t subject to debate - is turbo awesome at negotiations. Yeah, I’m not interested in wasing any more time with you on this. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
The evidence that Obama hates white people isn’t there. Believe whatever you want, but that won’t change the facts and fair inferences from those facts. And I don’t have the time or desire to explain how logicbworks again.
I’ve never said Trump wasn’t successful, or that his money is ill-gotten, I just think he’s overrated and there’s nothing special about his happening to have the money he has. Same for the Kardashians. I’m impressed with a lot of businessmen - Trump isn’t one. The fact that he is a buffoon, a loose cannon, and a carnival barker is all the more reason to reject him as someone who should be anywhere near the decision making machinery or the country.
So, would Carson be a good candidate or not? And show your work.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
“Please pay attention to me Zeb. You debate other people why not me? Am I just not worthy?”
You got it!
[/quote]
Yup, that’ll get the egg off.
Speaking of which, regarding this:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Sizing up the man who would become his boss, his first job after college: “There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself maybe. And white”
[/quote]
…Why do you make it so easy? You cut the sentence off halfway through (do you realize how dishonest this is? How stupid? How utterly full of shit you are?). It actually reads, “And white – he’d said himself that that was a problem.” They were discussing the white guy’s own qualms about trying to organize blacks as an outsider with no social or cultural or economic ties to poor black neighborhoods.
(Also, a book subtitled “A Story of Race and Inheritance,” about a half-black guy, is probably going to feature some ambivalence, particularly when it’s going through the “childhood - teen - higher education” age bracket. The narrative arc of the story, I’m sure you don’t know, is toward political racial-unity fuzz.)
Anyway: Another microcosmic peek into the bullshit factory. I should thank you. I’m learning a lot about low-information voters.[/quote]
Zeb dishonestly truncating a sentence to remove context to disingenuously manipulate its meaning to suit his political agenda?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
4. I’ve never said Trump wasn’t successful, or that his money is ill-gotten, I just think he’s overrated and there’s nothing special about his happening to have the money he has. Same for the Kardashians.
[/quote]
Comparing a billionaire business man to a trust-fund-baby porn star with a big ass and less talent than Trump’s hair. Awesome post!! Can i sign up for your news letter or blog?
ZEB wrote:
giving [Iran] the right to build nuclear arms
Are you even intellectually capable of acknowledging that your statement above is completely, demonstrably, and irrefutably false? Apparently not, given that you keep ignoring my attempts to hold you accountable.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sorry Zeb, I’m done throwing good money at a bad investment. To clarify, though:[/quote]
You don’t need to clarify all you need to do is remember properly. That previous post of yours is a mishmash of poor memory distortions and out right lies. And I see you have refused to answer me line by line as we have been doing. That usually means that the poster wants to avoid certain, or many points put forth by his opponent. I will not give you a pass on that. But…yes I will continue to correct you, if need be, as we move forward with your “clarification” process.
Which I never said nor did I imply. Once again since you can’t grasp it. Bringing non whites into the population reduces immediately the white population percentage wise. And through the years even more so. Finally got it? It’s really simple when there is no twisting of the meaning.
Now I claim that Biden is a gaffe machine? Just now? There goes your memory again. And one more correction for you. Take a trip over to that particular thread. One of my original arguments against him being a good negotiator was that he was a gaffe machine. In your previous post you claimed falsely that I said I didn’t want him negotiating for me because he was a liberal. That as you well know is a lie, or again if I’m feeling generous bad memory on your part.
You are posting that a 43 year career politician would be a better outright negotiator than a self made billionaire who deals in real estate at a high level and negotiates all the time with his own money and his properties. And you say I don’t know what I’m talking about? You are CLUELESS BUDDY! Seriously TB, you need to stop this you are simply embarrassing yourself.
You can’t explain logic because logic is not your strong suit. You are the guy who said you have white liberal friends who agree with Obama politically and they don’t hate white people so therefore Obama doesn’t hate white people.
Great logic there TB…all the people on this site can really get a good laugh from that beautiful piece of nonsense you wrote.
I noticed that you had no rebuttal to the lines that I posted that were taken directly out of Obama’s books. Why is that TB? Why did you dodge that (among other things). The great Thunderbolt running away from an argument? When it gets too hard just ignore the previous post hit the reset button and begin again. Nice technique but I have been around these parts as long as you and I’ve seen it before.
There is plenty of evidence which proves my point I posted it many times. But, you have ignored it. Here is even more for you in other peoples words:
Now make sure that after you read the above you attack the source. That is your typical line of defense when you are cornered and there’s no place to run. Pfft…
I never said that you said either of those things.
Nothing special about having the money he has? Nothing special about being worth billions? From this point forward you have forfeited the right to call anyone clueless during any of your future debates.
You continue to use the ridiculous comparison to the Kardashions. Why not also mention David Letterman or a host of other rich folks who gained their wealth from being in show business?
Trump gained his wealth from being in business. He has only over the past 10 years had a TV show. As you must know he gained his wealth in the real estate business and then other businesses as well. That takes skill buddy, and plenty of it in many different areas. You don’t like him so you take that away from him. Yes, there’s a lot not to like, I don’t like the guy either. But I don’t let my emotion take credit away from what he built…you do and that’s where you err.
We both agree he acts like a buffoon and a loudmouth. But he IS a successful billionaire and you give him no credit for that. And you do that out of emotion. You don’t like him therefore he’s just no good. Secondly, I never said he should be President or anywhere near making decisions for the country on any level. So once again your inference that I think such a thing is ridiculous. But when you act or in your case write out of emotion you make yourself look like that clown picture you posted. And as I’ve said before you are better than that. Here’s some help for you “stop seeing red when you see the name Zeb.” There you go you have your own little reminder in rhyme no less
[quote]So, would Carson be a good candidate or not? And show your work.
[/quote]
That’s funny “show your work” I like that…
I am not a fan of Carson as he is inexperienced and lacks charisma. I’m sure he’s a very good man with good character but he, like Trump is in over his head running for President. What are your thoughts on his candidacy?
Oh wait he’s a republican right? In your narrow emotional view regarding me… Zeb loves all republicans.
The fact that you did not comment on the many negative things I’ve said about various republicans and the party itself in a previous post has not escaped me. When you have no answer you simply reboot. That’s what this post was all about.
If you want to continue this I suggest that you go back and answer by previous post line by line just as I have done with each and every response to you. If you can prove me wrong on anything that I posted I will gladly admit it and also apologize but you must agree to do the same thing.
Zeb dishonestly truncating a sentence to remove context to disingenuously manipulate its meaning to suit his political agenda?
NO WAY.
[/quote]
Says the man who dodged my previous post because he simply had no answers. Your new name should be “Reboot”.
[/quote]
No, Zeb, I am not dodging what you said - I’m just not interested in going line by line. Some posters here are interesting and worth engaging on that level - candidly, you’re not one of them. And I can’t remember a time when you were.
But in any event, that’s apples and oranges from what appears to be a dishonest post. It’s one thing to be wrong, it’s another to be dishonest. Not good, Zeb. But not surprising.
