AND WE ALL KNOW WHICH PARTY SUPPORTS THE BLM THUG VIEW, DON'T WE???
BLM Declares Looting "OK", Says It's "Reparations"
- Thread starter Grokmaster
- Start date
Like I said...you always, always, always -by force of habit- fall back on unverifiable anecdotes to carry your argument for you when the facts cannot.
All I asked was for you to prove your anecdote, and you refuse.
So that means everything else you write here is bullshit, because you're not being honest with us about yourself.
So how can we trust anything else you say?
What does this have to do with you verifying the story you told earlier on this thread about your hiring practices?
What does this have to do with you using your wife as a prop to prove you're not racist?
What does this have to do with anything?
it's as laughable as when you said you don't support tax cuts, you just support low taxes.
Can't debate issues. You are still making personal attacks, talking about my wife, anything to avoid facts.
AS USUAL....THAT IS THE SOP FOR MUCH OF THE "STUCK ON ALINSKY" JPP LEFT....
Look, I could do what you did and invent a whole cast of characters to create a play that merely just confirms my biases but adds nothing to the debate.
OR, I could continue pressing you on the shittiness you exhibit on these boards, and force you to answer for it all.
Which do you think I prefer?
If I do the former, I might as well just move back to LA and get a job in a writer's room. No need to waste creative juices on a bunch of deplorables, fence-sitters, and sociopaths.
In a way, exaggerating or embellishing or just plain making shit up is a more contemptible action than tossing a few ad hominems your way.
I make no apologies for the colorful language I use, but you should make some apologies for the rhetorical bullshit you shovel here, from exaggerating and embellishing your past experiences to using people as props in your tragicomic play.
I proved people can simply check the citizenship box and become a registered voter. Citing the law is stronger than an anecdote which happened several years go. But you continue to harp on an anecdote while failing to admit the point of the anecdote was proven which you cannot admit.
Substitute insults for the law like you did with your claim that the courts banned the Confederate flag which I easily disproved
I would prefer you limit yourself to debating the issues and leave off the hostile personal insults. But since you cannot prove your points you have to resort to the lowest kind of conversation.
Nice try, Flash, but I called bullshit on this:
So, I think you're getting two threads confused now.
Flash, you made this personal when you invoked your fake wife.
You also made this personal when you admitted to shutting yourself down over the mere mention of PUSH.
I asked you, several times on this thread, including once where I lumped the questions together, what it was that she said that you found objectionable?
YOU COULDN'T AND WOULDN'T ENGAGE THAT. Even when prompted. Even when I cleared the landing strip for you. Even when I set you up to list out what it was she said that you found objectionable and why.
You chose to not engage. Instead, you chose to make it personal. You chose to invoke your fake wife. You chose to use her as a prop.
Those were all choices you made, and you don't think you should have to face consequences for them? Even if those consequences entail a few rude name calls? What would you prefer I called you for using your wife as a prop that won't force you to clutch pearls or fetch your fainting couch? How sensitive are you?
In other words, you cannot debate the issues which you have completely dropped from the discussion. Since I did not embellish or make up anything that makes the ad hominems below any facts or stories I presented. Mine were to advance debates, yous are to avoid debates when you had nothing left to contribute and knew you were wrong.
LMAO!
Here's how a conversation with you goes:
You: I support low taxes
Me: So you support tax cuts
You: NO!
FLASH, I asked you FIVE TIMES ON THIS THREAD what it was the woman said in the video that you found objectionable? All five times you chose to ignore it.
I asked five different ways, too! I was even nice about it! I gave you so many opportunities for you to address your grievances from what the video said, and you swatted all of them -ALL OF THEM- aside.
So it seems like you are the one who doesn't want to debate the issues, not me.
I did several times. You obviously did not read it, forgot, or lie. My objection was her phony justification for looting. PUSH had no real relevance in the discussion since we both know she did not really get any real economics from them.
If you don't remember the discussion by myself and others criticizing her for justifying looting, then you might have dementia.
And you are a real low-life for attacking my wife.
You: PUSH triggered me
Me: What was it about what she said that you found objectionable?
You: AD HOMINEM ATTACK!
Me: Oh, maybe you missed my question, so I'll ask again; what is it from what she said that you have a problem with?
You: I HAVE A WIFE WHO IS A VICTIM OF DISCRIMINATION BUT IS ALSO NOT A VICTIM OF IT
Me: Cool, but what about the economics in the video I shared that you have a problem with?
You: YOU RESORT TO NAME CALLING AND AD HOMINEMS AND DON'T WANT TO DEBATE THE ISSUES
Me: OK, so here's both of the questions from before, put in one post for you, so we can debate the issue; what did she say that you had a problem with?
You: AD HOMINEM! I HAVE A MINORITY WIFE! VOTING IN 2016! YOU WON'T DEBATE MEEEEEEEE
Me: I am literally asking you what you found objectionable in what that woman said, and have asked 4 other times
You: YOU DON'T WANT TO DEBATE THE ISSUE
Me: Sir, this is a Denny's.
Obviously the above positions are too difficult for you. I favor low taxes but do not favor tax cuts because they are low enough. I clearly said (multiple times) that I did not favor Trump's tax cuts without equal spending cuts.
Most posters can understand such a simple position, but you refuse. When I first explained my position you attacked me for not stating what I would cut which is another topic. Not listing cuts does not negate my clearly stated position.
And what was it you objected to, exactly?
The fact that black people were brought here as slaves and built the country for white people?
The fact that our founding document has entrenched racism in it, like the 3/5th and fugitive slave clause
The fact that whenever black wealth is amassed, white people come through, looting, robbing, burning, and pillaging like in Tulsa 1921, Rosewood 1923, the Red Summer of 1919?
The fact that community investment and development is almost always focused on rural, trash communities of mediocre white people that those of us in the cities work and pay taxes to support?
Wondering what it is you could object to about all of that?
You literally triggered yourself with PUSH in your first response in this thread.
That was YOUR FIRST RESPONSE. It was about PUSH. It triggered you.
SO why does PUSH trigger you so much? What about PUSH do you find objectionable, Flash? Because I suspect the answer to that question is the same one to the question about what it was in her video you found objectionable?