[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? [/quote]
Sure you can sign up, but it contains bigger words than you’re used to, so keep the ibuprofen close.
Zeb dishonestly truncating a sentence to remove context to disingenuously manipulate its meaning to suit his political agenda?
NO WAY.
Says the man who dodged my previous post because he simply had no answers. Your new name should be “Reboot”.
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.[/quote]
Yet, early on you were going line by line with me for several posts. Suddenly I am not worth going line by line. Why? Because they are lines that you cannot refute. And I’ve seen you do that before with others. When things get just a bit tough you either do not reply or you attempt to reboot the discussion avoiding key points from your opponent. And you don’t think people notice?
[quote]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.
[/quote]
You major in dishonesty. Claiming originally that I was a Trump supporter. Not responding to the lines from Obama’s own book which help prove my point. Claiming I did not think Biden was a good negotiator because he is a liberal. On and on and on you lied through several posts. Sometimes I gave you the benefit of the doubt saying that you had a poor memory. But in reality we both know now you simply outright lied in order to attempt to win your point. The point you finally abandoned when you could not refute a previous post line by line. You then attempted to reboot something that you are famous for around here. All noted and not just by me.
So now you throw your hands up in the air and say that I am not interesting enough to continue the debate. When a man with real character, which you are lacking, would concede certain points which are by now obvious. Rebooting didn’t work so you move to I’m not interesting enough.
You’re a fraud TB, I know it and anyone who actually followed our debate knows it as well. And I invite anyone who cares to check it out to go back and read our exchanges.
If you can prove me wrong on anything that I posted I will gladly admit… [/quote]
Well, that’s interesting - are you willing to admit you cut the quoted sentence in order to change its meaning to support your attack on Obama? That Smh23 pointed out above?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
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.[/quote]
This would be a much better analogy if one fundamentally assumes Islam and Christianity are comparable. If so, we could have a grand time playing the What If game by turning the 99% of Christian Founding Fathers into Muslims.[/quote]
There is no room with which to compare world religions in the Bill of Rights vis-a-vis the EC, which uses the term “religion.” The one is as unconstitutional as the other, and exactly so. Regarding your other post, the Christians in government thing isn’t the issue. We have many Christians in government. It’s the “His Word will govern” part. This can’t be construed as constitutional on any ground whatsoever.
More importantly, I wish you and your family nothing but the best, and hope that the wind returns to your sails soon my friend.
[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]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]
I’m going to allow you to quietly delete this post so you can save face.
[/quote]
Going after the Christian right is a lot like going after the Jewish lobby. They both fly under the radar and probably not a great idea as they tend to punch back.
I’ll move on to Carson’s foreign policy chops which are currently under attack in the media:
…although I’m not a fan of Hillary, I’d take her experience any day over Carson’s youthful naivety. He’s not ready to sit in the chair and despite his best intentions, would be quite overwhelmed even with competent counsel.
He can write as many books as he wants about what he wants to do as president, but the reality of the situation will quickly bend him to more pragmatic concerns which he seems unprepared for at the moment.
[quote]theuofh wrote:
…although I’m not a fan of Hillary, I’d take her experience any day over Carson’s youthful naivety. He’s not ready to sit in the chair and despite his best intentions, would be quite overwhelmed even with competent counsel.[/quote]
We all would. By that I mean that Carson would be savaged in a foreign policy debate against Clinton, and would lose the election, and we’d all be taking Hillary over Ben, like it or not.
It is important to note that about half of Republican primary voters are, according to polls, pushing a candidate who is unelectable on foreign policy grounds.
As for old Ben writing books, even more egregious than his (usually spoken) personal-history fabulism is his plagiarist’s sensibility. It’s one thing to let a personal anecdote get away from you, particularly when you’re older. It’s another thing entirely to be both stupid and dishonest enough to sit down and copy-paste something to which you intend to put your own name.
Sure, it’s flagrantly pro-Obama, BUT it does highlight an often overlooked debacle for the GOP - how do they get to the White House without a greater preponderance of the brown vote? Furthermore, it does highlight the feelings of many who are disenfranchised with the GOP, whether or not one finds that perspective well-grounded. Unless voters from these demographics stay home in droves, it’s an awfully tough row to hoe in 2016.
Sure, it’s flagrantly pro-Obama, BUT it does highlight an often overlooked debacle for the GOP - how do they get to the White House without a greater preponderance of the brown vote? .[/quote]
They don’t. Or, at least, soon it will impossible.
If you can prove me wrong on anything that I posted I will gladly admit… [/quote]
Well, that’s interesting - are you willing to admit you cut the quoted sentence in order to change its meaning to support your attack on Obama? That Smh23 pointed out above?
Yes? Admit it?
[/quote]
Firstly, I don’t read smh’s posts so I don’t know what you are referring to. But, if I have erred I will admit it.
Now are you willing to admit that you dodged our previous line by line exchange and rebooted because you had no answers for the multitude of responses that came from me?
If you can prove me wrong on anything that I posted I will gladly admit… [/quote]
Well, that’s interesting - are you willing to admit you cut the quoted sentence in order to change its meaning to support your attack on Obama? That Smh23 pointed out above?
Yes? Admit it?
[/quote]
Firstly, I don’t read smh’s posts so I don’t know what you are referring to. But, if I have erred I will admit it.
Now are you willing to admit that you dodged our previous line by line exchange and rebooted because you had no answers for the multitude of responses that came from me?
[/quote]
A positively Clinton’s dodge. Nice try. But here is what we need some contrition on:
You said
“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’”
To which Smh23 responded, catching you with a selective edit:
"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. "
Read it that time, chief?
So, you admit to cutting the sentence on purpose (and removing the unhelpful context) to suit your claim?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
We all would. By that I mean that Carson would be savaged in a foreign policy debate against Clinton, and would lose the election, and we’d all be taking Hillary over Ben, like it or not.
[/quote]
How do win a debate when your opponent gets to lie about everything, and never get called out for it?
Especially when you’re trying to clarify petty bullshit that happened 50+ years ago?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
We all would. By that I mean that Carson would be savaged in a foreign policy debate against Clinton, and would lose the election, and we’d all be taking Hillary over Ben, like it or not.
[/quote]
How do win a debate when your opponent gets to lie about everything, and never get called out for it?
Especially when you’re trying to clarify petty bullshit that happened 50+ years ago?
[/quote]
Foreign Policy. Foreign policy. Foreign policy (Henry Kissinger appears). Hilary doesn’t have to lie. She’s far and away the most experienced and learned candidate in the discipline. Meanwhile, we have Carson insisting that the Chinese are in Syria despite a complete absence of evidence and that the US could have snagged Usama bin Laden soon after 9/11 had President Bush merely declared that the United States would pursue energy independence. The GOP establishment is in a near panic not only because Trump and Carson have next to zero electability vis-a-vis Clinton. The GOP will get slapped across the board if they nominate either of those rank amateurs. They’re equally afraid that Clinton will hit a banana peel and one of those aforementioned pretenders - neither of whom have the experience, knowledge, or temperament to be POTUS - will become president.
