Medicare open enrollment ends Dec. 7! Get the information you need from AARP’s Medicare resource center.

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
186
Views

Re: Another Domestic Murder in FL Perped by a Black Male

186 Views
Message 1 of 42

@Centristsin2010 wrote: (I forgot to say that what YOU wrote, Cent, is in blue.)

Below is my original post. I numbered the paragraphs for easy reference. Your response, as usual, was some illogical, incoherent statements scattered around in what I posted that took what I said out of context, accused me of saying things I didn't say, denied what you previously said and in general never addressed what was said. In other words, it was the usual. However, after reviewing it, I can't help but wonder if you actually understand what you are doing. It appears that you just find random sentences you can make comments about which is why it seems so incoherent and out of context. For example:

 

In regard to paragraph 4, you said: “Now the States Attorney is looking into hate crime charges.....did your facts reveal that?”

But the fact is in paragraph 8 I did say that. You just picked out a sentence to make a comment about before you read what was said. If you read the whole thing and tried to make a coherent response, that wouldn't happen.

 

In regard to paragraph 3 in which you said the victims were a “group of dark skinned males” when nowhere do any articles or the police report say they were dark skinned, you said: “We can agree....I DID post that.”

But then in regard to paragraph 4 you said: “Nope.....the word dark-skinned wasn't used at all in the topic you decided to attack. Again, you're distorting what was posted.”

You said they were “dark skinned.” But don't take my word for it, look back at YOUR original post. Besides, you admitted it in what I quoted above before you decided to later deny it and say I'm “distorting” what you posted. If you read the whole thing and made one coherent response it would be easier to keep track of what you say and you wouldn't be contradicting yourself.

 

In regard to paragraph 4, you said:It is YOUR opinion and you have not supported YOUR OPINION with any facts. As is most often the case, you NEVER post many facts or provide supporting information with references to support your opinion....you just claim comments are facts just because you said so.” and

“The white bozo didn't ask them what religion they were, nor did he ask them what country they were from. It's just hilarious you make this crap up as you go.”

If you made a coherent response instead picking out a random sentence here and there to take out of context, you would know that I said they were “facts based on the article YOU REFERENCED ....” The only thing in paragraph 4 that wasn't in the article YOU REFERENCED was the last sentence that stated “Police selected the "hate crime" enhancement on the report, noting that the statements made by the defendant to the victims showed that he only committed the acts due to the victim's religion but it is not clear if prosecutors will charge him with a hate crime in court." That came from a later article that's easy enough to google AND it's what the victims were quoted as saying in the article YOU REFERENCED.

 

Also in regard to paragraph 4, you said: They weren't white, they weren't American in his racist mind and that's all he needed......it's a hate crime.

Nowhere does YOUR REFERENCE or anywhere else I can find say they were “dark skinned” or “weren't white." You made that up to try to support you false claim. And by the way, all Americans aren't white. So, whether or not you made that statement for dramatic effect, it puts you in a category with Roseanne Barr.

 

In regard to paragraph 8, you said: You are hilarious.....previously you attacked me for saying it was a hate crime; now you admit it. Now that you've admitted you were wrong, do you prefer one over the other?

But, of course, I never said this wasn't a hate crime. I said it was an irrational act of a mentally unbalanced man and/or it was a hate crime based on religion, which is what the victims said in the article YOU REFERENCED. What I actually said was there is no evidence it has anything to do with race or politics, which you brought into it.

 

If you didn't understand what you've been doing, hopefully you do now. What I said is below.  Should you now care to make a coherent, honest response for a change, I will be happy to respond to it. On the other hand, should you prefer to make responses like the one I'm addressing, I'll be happy to continue pointing out the issues with them.

 

My original post (numbered):

1. Once again I see we have a lot of nonsense scattered all over instead of a coherent reply. I suspect you do that on purpose in hopes people won't recognize that your reply doesn't address what was actually said and most of the time takes what I said out of context. To make it shorter and less confusing I am just responding to the two items most relevant to subject instead of quoting the whole article. See if you can actually address what's said for a change.

2. I said: You created a thread titled "Another Hate Crime in FL Perped by a White Male" and referenced a story about a man who attacked four Muslim kids. The story had nothing to do with race and nothing to do with politics.

3. You replied: That may very well be YOUR opinion, but IMO, most intelligent adults would believe otherwise given: a white male said to a group of dark skinned males, "You don’t deserve American food!"

4. It's not "my opinion." It's the facts based on the article YOU referenced in addition to other articles I could find on the subject and the police report. There is nowhere in any of them that says the victims were "dark skinned." NOWHERE. That's just one more thing YOU made up based on YOUR bias. The articles and the police report say the defendant said "Are you American boys" and "You don’t deserve American food" both of which indicate nationality, not race. The students were quoted as saying, "The basic idea that he charged us and attacked us for this, for our religion, for our home country and background, it’s kind of scary." That's nationality and religion; not race and/or politics which you tried to make out of it. According to the last report I could find, "Police selected the "hate crime" enhancement on the report, noting that the "statements made by the defendant to the victims showed that he only committed the acts due to the victim's religion" but it is not clear if prosecutors will charge him with a hate crime in court."

5. Now, do you have ANY evidence that proves what happened was due to race or politics? ANYTHING? And your opinion is not evidence.

6. I said: It was a story about an irrational act committed by a mentally unbalanced man who was apparently drunk at the time. If anything more than that, it was about religion....

7. You replied: Again, that's YOUR take. You, for your own reasons, prefer to "white-wash" the story. But the FACTS often allude your posts because the "killed son" is working with the State's Attorney's office to "bring a hate crime charge against his father"

8. Yes, that is certainly my take. And if you think my take is wrong, tell us what part of what this guy did you consider rational? Is it the "killed son" part? You may believe it rational to lie about whether or not your son is alive and you may even do that but rational people don't. AND AGAIN, the hate crime is based on religion, not race.

9. AGAIN, YOU brought race and politics into something that had nothing to do with race or politics. If it is about race and/or politics, just show us the evidence instead of spouting your biased opinion.


 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
186
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
204
Views

Re: Another Domestic Murder in FL Perped by a Black Male

204 Views
Message 2 of 42

@CS402050 wrote:

@alferdpacker wrote:

@CS402050 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:


cs i have seen through your posts since day one.  The only posters here you are fooling are of your own ilk.<<<<< Its true. I can dig up your first  posts. There is written proof of your first posts being full of buffoonery and bluster. You fancy youself some kind of savior of America, but your lines read like a Lintball script. You arent original, you arent spectacular, and your posts ad nothing to discussion. Like this topic... you admit you created a false scenario after you presented it as fact. Keep it up, you are good comedy.


1.  Golly gee wilikers, I'm getting the distinct impression you don't like what I post.  Thank you, it's great motivation to spend more time here.

 

2.  If you disagree with what I say you might try providing some facts that prove me wrong.  Well, that's if the problem is something more than you just can't stand reading facts because they don't agree with what the liberal elite say you should be saying.

 

3.  I thought personal attacks were not allowed here.  If that's not true there are certainly some candidates.  Or perhaps it depends on AARP's bias.


 

 

Mlseker did not post a personal attack.

 

His post addressed the content of your posts, as well as inferences and implications made in the content of your posts.

 

The person of an individual poster may not be personally attacked.

 

That restriction does NOT apply to any public figure or public group - including politicians, publicans, priests, preachers and public representatives of the former - including PR releases of corporations, etc etc...

 

It's always been pretty much open season on all of them...

 

Content is not protected, and may be impugned, maligned, insulted and disproved at the option of other posters addressing that content in nearly any manner desired - excluding, of course, inappropriate use of profanity, etc... 

 

In the immortal words of Joe Bob Briggs - "I'm surprised I gotta tell you this"...

 

 


Thanks for explaining that.  It is certainly a relief to finally be able to tell you your posts are full of buffoonery and bluster, read like a Lintball script, arent original, and, that I've seen, add nothing to discussion.


 

 

Your opprobrium is highest and sweetest approbation.

 

Thank you for your inadvertent validation.

 

 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
204
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
207
Views

Re: Another Domestic Murder in FL Perped by a Black Male

207 Views
Message 3 of 42

@alferdpacker wrote:

@CS402050 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:


cs i have seen through your posts since day one.  The only posters here you are fooling are of your own ilk.<<<<< Its true. I can dig up your first  posts. There is written proof of your first posts being full of buffoonery and bluster. You fancy youself some kind of savior of America, but your lines read like a Lintball script. You arent original, you arent spectacular, and your posts ad nothing to discussion. Like this topic... you admit you created a false scenario after you presented it as fact. Keep it up, you are good comedy.


1.  Golly gee wilikers, I'm getting the distinct impression you don't like what I post.  Thank you, it's great motivation to spend more time here.

 

2.  If you disagree with what I say you might try providing some facts that prove me wrong.  Well, that's if the problem is something more than you just can't stand reading facts because they don't agree with what the liberal elite say you should be saying.

 

3.  I thought personal attacks were not allowed here.  If that's not true there are certainly some candidates.  Or perhaps it depends on AARP's bias.


 

 

Mlseker did not post a personal attack.

 

His post addressed the content of your posts, as well as inferences and implications made in the content of your posts.

 

The person of an individual poster may not be personally attacked.

 

That restriction does NOT apply to any public figure or public group - including politicians, publicans, priests, preachers and public representatives of the former - including PR releases of corporations, etc etc...

 

It's always been pretty much open season on all of them...

 

Content is not protected, and may be impugned, maligned, insulted and disproved at the option of other posters addressing that content in nearly any manner desired - excluding, of course, inappropriate use of profanity, etc... 

 

In the immortal words of Joe Bob Briggs - "I'm surprised I gotta tell you this"...

 

 


Thanks for explaining that.  It is certainly a relief to finally be able to tell you your posts are full of buffoonery and bluster, read like a Lintball script, arent original, and, that I've seen, add nothing to discussion.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
207
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
214
Views

Re: Another Domestic Murder in FL Perped by a Black Male

214 Views
Message 4 of 42

@CS402050 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:


cs i have seen through your posts since day one.  The only posters here you are fooling are of your own ilk.<<<<< Its true. I can dig up your first  posts. There is written proof of your first posts being full of buffoonery and bluster. You fancy youself some kind of savior of America, but your lines read like a Lintball script. You arent original, you arent spectacular, and your posts ad nothing to discussion. Like this topic... you admit you created a false scenario after you presented it as fact. Keep it up, you are good comedy.


1.  Golly gee wilikers, I'm getting the distinct impression you don't like what I post.  Thank you, it's great motivation to spend more time here.

 

2.  If you disagree with what I say you might try providing some facts that prove me wrong.  Well, that's if the problem is something more than you just can't stand reading facts because they don't agree with what the liberal elite say you should be saying.

 

3.  I thought personal attacks were not allowed here.  If that's not true there are certainly some candidates.  Or perhaps it depends on AARP's bias.


 

 

Mlseker did not post a personal attack.

 

His post addressed the content of your posts, as well as inferences and implications plainly apparent in the content of your posts.

 

The person of an individual poster may not be personally attacked.

 

That restriction does NOT apply to any public figure or public group - including politicians, publicans, priests, preachers and public representatives of the former - including PR releases of corporations, etc etc...

 

It's always been pretty much open season on all of them...

 

Content is not protected, and may be impugned, maligned, insulted and disproved at the option of other posters addressing that content in nearly any manner desired - excluding, of course, inappropriate use of profanity, etc... 

 

In the immortal words of Joe Bob Briggs - "I'm surprised I gotta tell you this"...

 

 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
214
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
224
Views

Re: Another Domestic Murder in FL Perped by a Black Male

224 Views
Message 5 of 42

@MIseker wrote:


cs i have seen through your posts since day one.  The only posters here you are fooling are of your own ilk.<<<<< Its true. I can dig up your first  posts. There is written proof of your first posts being full of buffoonery and bluster. You fancy youself some kind of savior of America, but your lines read like a Lintball script. You arent original, you arent spectacular, and your posts ad nothing to discussion. Like this topic... you admit you created a false scenario after you presented it as fact. Keep it up, you are good comedy.


1.  Golly gee wilikers, I'm getting the distinct impression you don't like what I post.  Thank you, it's great motivation to spend more time here.

 

2.  If you disagree with what I say you might try providing some facts that prove me wrong.  Well, that's if the problem is something more than you just can't stand reading facts because they don't agree with what the liberal elite say you should be saying.

 

3.  I thought personal attacks were not allowed here.  If that's not true there are certainly some candidates.  Or perhaps it depends on AARP's bias.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
224
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
226
Views

Re: Another Domestic Murder in FL Perped by a Black Male

226 Views
Message 6 of 42

Below is my original post. I numbered the paragraphs for easy reference. Your response, as usual, was some illogical, incoherent statements scattered around in what I posted that took what I said out of context, accused me of saying things I didn't say, denied what you previously said and in general never addressed what was said. In other words, it was the usual. However, after reviewing it, I can't help but wonder if you actually understand what you are doing. It appears that you just find random sentences you can make comments about which is why it seems so incoherent and out of context. For example:

In regard to paragraph 4, you said: “Now the States Attorney is looking into hate crime charges.....did your facts reveal that?”

But the fact is in paragraph 8 I did say that. You just picked out a sentence to make a comment about before you read what was said. If you read the whole thing and tried to make a coherent response, that wouldn't happen.

In regard to paragraph 3 in which you said the victims were a “group of dark skinned males” when nowhere do any articles or the police report say they were dark skinned, you said: “We can agree....I DID post that.”

But then in regard to paragraph 4 you said: “Nope.....the word dark-skinned wasn't used at all in the topic you decided to attack. Again, you're distorting what was posted.”

You said they were “dark skinned.” But don't take my word for it, look back at YOUR original post. Besides, you admitted it in what I quoted above before you decided to later deny it and say I'm “distorting” what you posted. If you read the whole thing and made one coherent response it would be easier to keep track of what you say and you wouldn't be contradicting yourself.

In regard to paragraph 4, you said:It is YOUR opinion and you have not supported YOUR OPINION with any facts. As is most often the case, you NEVER post many facts or provide supporting information with references to support your opinion....you just claim comments are facts just because you said so.” and

“The white bozo didn't ask them what religion they were, nor did he ask them what country they were from. It's just hilarious you make this crap up as you go.”

If you made a coherent response instead picking out a random sentence here and there to take out of context, you would know that I said they were “facts based on the article YOU REFERENCED ....” The only thing in paragraph 4 that wasn't in the article YOU REFERENCED was the last sentence that stated “Police selected the "hate crime" enhancement on the report, noting that the statements made by the defendant to the victims showed that he only committed the acts due to the victim's religion but it is not clear if prosecutors will charge him with a hate crime in court." That came from a later article that's easy enough to google AND it's what the victims were quoted as saying in the article YOU REFERENCED.

Also in regard to paragraph 4, you said: They weren't white, they weren't American in his racist mind and that's all he needed......it's a hate crime.

Nowhere does YOUR REFERENCE or anywhere else I can find say they were “dark skinned” or “weren't white." You made that up to try to support you false claim. And by the way, all Americans aren't white. So, whether or not you made that statement for dramatic effect, it puts you in a category with Roseanne Barr.

In regard to paragraph 8, you said: You are hilarious.....previously you attacked me for saying it was a hate crime; now you admit it. Now that you've admitted you were wrong, do you prefer one over the other?

But, of course, I never said this wasn't a hate crime. I said it was an irrational act of a mentally unbalanced man and/or it was a hate crime based on religion, which is what the victims said in the article YOU REFERENCED. What I actually said was there is no evidence it has anything to do with race or politics, which you brought into it.

If you didn't understand what you've been doing, hopefully you do now. What I said is below should you now care to make a coherent, honest response and I will be happy to respond to it. On the other hand, should you prefer to make responses like the one I'm addressing, I'll be happy to continue pointing out the issues with them.

 

My original post (numbered):

1. Once again I see we have a lot of nonsense scattered all over instead of a coherent reply. I suspect you do that on purpose in hopes people won't recognize that your reply doesn't address what was actually said and most of the time takes what I said out of context. To make it shorter and less confusing I am just responding to the two items most relevant to subject instead of quoting the whole article. See if you can actually address what's said for a change.

2. I said: You created a thread titled "Another Hate Crime in FL Perped by a White Male" and referenced a story about a man who attacked four Muslim kids. The story had nothing to do with race and nothing to do with politics.

3. You replied: That may very well be YOUR opinion, but IMO, most intelligent adults would believe otherwise given: a white male said to a group of dark skinned males, "You don’t deserve American food!"

4. It's not "my opinion." It's the facts based on the article YOU referenced in addition to other articles I could find on the subject and the police report. There is nowhere in any of them that says the victims were "dark skinned." NOWHERE. That's just one more thing YOU made up based on YOUR bias. The articles and the police report say the defendant said "Are you American boys" and "You don’t deserve American food" both of which indicate nationality, not race. The students were quoted as saying, "The basic idea that he charged us and attacked us for this, for our religion, for our home country and background, it’s kind of scary." That's nationality and religion; not race and/or politics which you tried to make out of it. According to the last report I could find, "Police selected the "hate crime" enhancement on the report, noting that the "statements made by the defendant to the victims showed that he only committed the acts due to the victim's religion" but it is not clear if prosecutors will charge him with a hate crime in court."

5. Now, do you have ANY evidence that proves what happened was due to race or politics? ANYTHING? And your opinion is not evidence.

6. I said: It was a story about an irrational act committed by a mentally unbalanced man who was apparently drunk at the time. If anything more than that, it was about religion....

7. You replied: Again, that's YOUR take. You, for your own reasons, prefer to "white-wash" the story. But the FACTS often allude your posts because the "killed son" is working with the State's Attorney's office to "bring a hate crime charge against his father"

8. Yes, that is certainly my take. And if you think my take is wrong, tell us what part of what this guy did you consider rational? Is it the "killed son" part? You may believe it rational to lie about whether or not your son is alive and you may even do that but rational people don't. AND AGAIN, the hate crime is based on religion, not race.

9. AGAIN, YOU brought race and politics into something that had nothing to do with race or politics. If it is about race and/or politics, just show us the evidence instead of spouting your biased opinion.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
226
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
252
Views

Re: Another Domestic Murder in FL Perped by a Black Male

252 Views
Message 7 of 42

@CS402050 wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:



First a quick review.  


You created a thread titled "Another Hate Crime in FL Perped by a White Male" and referenced a story about a man who attacked four Muslim kids.  The story had nothing to do with race and nothing to do with politics.  It was a story about an irrational act committed by a mentally unbalanced man  was apparently drunk at the time.  If anything more than that, it was about religion, something I keep reading on this site that most of you liberals are against anyway.  However, you chose to make it about race and politics by saying:


"Another piece of white trash who I bet voted "to MAGA"....obviously he doesn't understand the term "liberty".  What an embarrassment to REAL Americans/patriots."


"Most all hate crimes are perpetuated by white males.  It's not a racist statement; it's a fact according to the FBI.  Pointing out another hate crime was initiated by a white male has become redundant; just as mass murders are most always white.  I think whites are a greater problem than they are willing to admit, but they are **bleep** good at pointing the finger at blacks, Hispanics and Muslums.   It's sad to see."

 

(As an aside, I feel obligated to make a couple of comments about your next to last sentence.  First, I was born here but my parents came here from Mexico.  LEGALLY.  I, like everyone I know, am proud of my ancestry and proud to be an American.  Therefore, I am Mexican-American, not hispanic.  In fact, I don't know a single person who is "hispanic."  The people I know are just as proud of their heritage as I am.  Second, whether one's heritage is Mexican, Columbian, Cuban or whatever, it designates a nationality, not a race.  So when you say whites are "good at pointing the finger at blacks, Hispanics and Muslums" in the majority of cases it's the same as saying whites are "good at pointing the finger at blacks, whites and whites."  And that is what's sad to see.)

 

To  prove how utterly ridiculous that is, I started this thread using the exact same words you used but exchanging "black" and "white." 

 

In this post, as always, you do everything to deny what YOU did and make a lot of comments that don't really have anything to do with it.  For example:


I said:  Third, liberal Democrats, throughout history, have ALWAYS been the worst racists.  Lincoln, a Republican, had to bribe liberal Democrats to get the Thirteenth Amendment passed.  Johnson, a liberal Democrat, could not get other liberal Democrats to vote for the Civil Rights Act.  Everett Dirksen, the Republican Minority Leader at the time, got the bill passed and was on the cover of Time Magazine for his efforts.  Liberal Democrats only give race lip service to divide the electorate.  If they actually believed in equality, all race-based statement would be just as bad regardless of the race they are directed at.  

 

You replied:  Yeah, Cons are so stuck in history, they want "to go back"

 

I referenced the two most important things that were done for race relations in this country.  They were done by Republicans over the objections of Democrats.  I then used what YOU SAID as an example of how Democrats are making race relations worse today.   And your reply was....  Nothing other than a comment to avoid the subject.  You are fooling no one.  If you want to refute what I said, tell us what legislation Democrats have passed or what they have done that comes anywhere close to what Republicans have done for race relations.


I said:  In summary, once again the person who started all this by trying to make a racial issue out of something that wasn't....

 

You replied:  LOL....if the 4 victims of this guy were white, he wouldn't have acted as it did.  HE made it racial!  You, are defending him.  Racists always cover for each other. 

 

Not only is that foolish, you just made your worst racist statement yet by assuming what the victims' race was.  It was not mentioned in any of the news pieces and it wasn't in the police report.  The only things mentioned was that they were Egyptian and Muslim, neither of which designates a race.  So you don't know what their race is but assumed what it is based on your bias which makes you a racist.


Here are my other favorite posts in this thread:


cs i have seen through your posts since day one.  The only posters here you are fooling are of your own ilk.
The third favorite response of liberals.  Actually, I tend to say liberals this and liberals that because I see so much of the same nonsense coming from little liberals on this site who do nothing but repeat the nonsense the liberal elite put out.  That's probably unfair to some liberals so I'll rephrase.  The third favorite response for liberals ON THIS SITE; innuendo.  The first is name calling; the second is avoiding the subject by responding with something that has nothing to do with it.


In response to a post about domestic violence:
IMO, your hyjacking topics on this forum "HAS TO STOP".  Many empathize with you, and support your position, but there are more appropriate ways to spread your story other than hyjacking non-related topics.  PLEASE STOP.

The post being referred to was about domestic violence.  The title of the thread is "Another Domestic Murder..."  The article referenced was about domestic violence.  But to the liberals ON THIS SITE, it's off topic if they don't don't want to hear it.  It's the number four response, say it's off topic when they don't want to hear it.  Here's an idea.  Just stick your fingers in your ears and shout real loud, "LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA" until the bad old man stops talking.  Or perhaps find yourself one of those famous liberal safe zones where you can happily hear nothing but liberal elite dogma that you can repeat later.

You STILL don't understand the term, racist.  So sad....
I understand that liberals ON THIS SITE (and some elsewhere) like to make up their own definitions but the dictionary defines racist as "a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another."  I assure you I understand that definition and that's what I mean when I use the word.  But I'm curious, is that the definition you use or did you make up your own?

It's a factually accurate description of a significant proportion of trump voters - what's wrong with a factually accurate description?
It's factually more accurate say that Clinton supporters (both Clintons) are morons because there is more proof that the Clintons are criminals and belong in jail than there is actual proof of your claim.  But repeating those accusations over and over accomplishes nothing, at least on this site.  On this site, regardless of how much evidence is presented, Clinton supporters will deny it and go on supporting them.  And few Trump supporters are going to change their minds even if you really had any evidence.  So your little attempt to inflame is futile.  Nobody cares.

In regard to what makes the country so divided:
... is unquestionably divided as to Citizen's opinions as to whether trump unlawfully (possibly treasonously) conspired with Russians and Ukrainians to win the election...
Actually, on this particular point it would be more accurate to say the division is caused by the liberal elite saying that "trump unlawfully (possibly treasonously) conspired with Russians and Ukrainians to win the election..." and all the little liberals who can't think for themselves repeating it while thinking people understand there is still no evidence of that.


Is that why BENGHAZI gate gowdy was defending an informant inside the Trump campaign? indeed defending the entire investigation? dont let those pesky facts get in the way do you.

 

So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
252
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
257
Views

Re: Another Domestic Murder in FL Perped by a Black Male

257 Views
Message 8 of 42

@CS402050 wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:



First a quick review.  


You created a thread titled "Another Hate Crime in FL Perped by a White Male" and referenced a story about a man who attacked four Muslim kids.  The story had nothing to do with race and nothing to do with politics.  It was a story about an irrational act committed by a mentally unbalanced man  was apparently drunk at the time.  If anything more than that, it was about religion, something I keep reading on this site that most of you liberals are against anyway.  However, you chose to make it about race and politics by saying:


"Another piece of white trash who I bet voted "to MAGA"....obviously he doesn't understand the term "liberty".  What an embarrassment to REAL Americans/patriots."


"Most all hate crimes are perpetuated by white males.  It's not a racist statement; it's a fact according to the FBI.  Pointing out another hate crime was initiated by a white male has become redundant; just as mass murders are most always white.  I think whites are a greater problem than they are willing to admit, but they are **bleep** good at pointing the finger at blacks, Hispanics and Muslums.   It's sad to see."

 

(As an aside, I feel obligated to make a couple of comments about your next to last sentence.  First, I was born here but my parents came here from Mexico.  LEGALLY.  I, like everyone I know, am proud of my ancestry and proud to be an American.  Therefore, I am Mexican-American, not hispanic.  In fact, I don't know a single person who is "hispanic."  The people I know are just as proud of their heritage as I am.  Second, whether one's heritage is Mexican, Columbian, Cuban or whatever, it designates a nationality, not a race.  So when you say whites are "good at pointing the finger at blacks, Hispanics and Muslums" in the majority of cases it's the same as saying whites are "good at pointing the finger at blacks, whites and whites."  And that is what's sad to see.)

 

To  prove how utterly ridiculous that is, I started this thread using the exact same words you used but exchanging "black" and "white." 

 

In this post, as always, you do everything to deny what YOU did and make a lot of comments that don't really have anything to do with it.  For example:


I said:  Third, liberal Democrats, throughout history, have ALWAYS been the worst racists.  Lincoln, a Republican, had to bribe liberal Democrats to get the Thirteenth Amendment passed.  Johnson, a liberal Democrat, could not get other liberal Democrats to vote for the Civil Rights Act.  Everett Dirksen, the Republican Minority Leader at the time, got the bill passed and was on the cover of Time Magazine for his efforts.  Liberal Democrats only give race lip service to divide the electorate.  If they actually believed in equality, all race-based statement would be just as bad regardless of the race they are directed at.  

 

You replied:  Yeah, Cons are so stuck in history, they want "to go back"

 

I referenced the two most important things that were done for race relations in this country.  They were done by Republicans over the objections of Democrats.  I then used what YOU SAID as an example of how Democrats are making race relations worse today.   And your reply was....  Nothing other than a comment to avoid the subject.  You are fooling no one.  If you want to refute what I said, tell us what legislation Democrats have passed or what they have done that comes anywhere close to what Republicans have done for race relations.


I said:  In summary, once again the person who started all this by trying to make a racial issue out of something that wasn't....

 

You replied:  LOL....if the 4 victims of this guy were white, he wouldn't have acted as it did.  HE made it racial!  You, are defending him.  Racists always cover for each other. 

 

Not only is that foolish, you just made your worst racist statement yet by assuming what the victims' race was.  It was not mentioned in any of the news pieces and it wasn't in the police report.  The only things mentioned was that they were Egyptian and Muslim, neither of which designates a race.  So you don't know what their race is but assumed what it is based on your bias which makes you a racist.


Here are my other favorite posts in this thread:


cs i have seen through your posts since day one.  The only posters here you are fooling are of your own ilk.
The third favorite response of liberals.  Actually, I tend to say liberals this and liberals that because I see so much of the same nonsense coming from little liberals on this site who do nothing but repeat the nonsense the liberal elite put out.  That's probably unfair to some liberals so I'll rephrase.  The third favorite response for liberals ON THIS SITE; innuendo.  The first is name calling; the second is avoiding the subject by responding with something that has nothing to do with it.


In response to a post about domestic violence:
IMO, your hyjacking topics on this forum "HAS TO STOP".  Many empathize with you, and support your position, but there are more appropriate ways to spread your story other than hyjacking non-related topics.  PLEASE STOP.

The post being referred to was about domestic violence.  The title of the thread is "Another Domestic Murder..."  The article referenced was about domestic violence.  But to the liberals ON THIS SITE, it's off topic if they don't don't want to hear it.  It's the number four response, say it's off topic when they don't want to hear it.  Here's an idea.  Just stick your fingers in your ears and shout real loud, "LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA" until the bad old man stops talking.  Or perhaps find yourself one of those famous liberal safe zones where you can happily hear nothing but liberal elite dogma that you can repeat later.

You STILL don't understand the term, racist.  So sad....
I understand that liberals ON THIS SITE (and some elsewhere) like to make up their own definitions but the dictionary defines racist as "a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another."  I assure you I understand that definition and that's what I mean when I use the word.  But I'm curious, is that the definition you use or did you make up your own?

It's a factually accurate description of a significant proportion of trump voters - what's wrong with a factually accurate description?
It's factually more accurate say that Clinton supporters (both Clintons) are morons because there is more proof that the Clintons are criminals and belong in jail than there is actual proof of your claim.  But repeating those accusations over and over accomplishes nothing, at least on this site.  On this site, regardless of how much evidence is presented, Clinton supporters will deny it and go on supporting them.  And few Trump supporters are going to change their minds even if you really had any evidence.  So your little attempt to inflame is futile.  Nobody cares.

In regard to what makes the country so divided:
... is unquestionably divided as to Citizen's opinions as to whether trump unlawfully (possibly treasonously) conspired with Russians and Ukrainians to win the election...
Actually, on this particular point it would be more accurate to say the division is caused by the liberal elite saying that "trump unlawfully (possibly treasonously) conspired with Russians and Ukrainians to win the election..." and all the little liberals who can't think for themselves repeating it while thinking people understand there is still no evidence of that.


cs i have seen through your posts since day one.  The only posters here you are fooling are of your own ilk.<<<<< Its true. I can dig up your first  posts. There is written proof of your first posts being full of buffoonery and bluster. You fancy youself some kind of savior of America, but your lines read like a Lintball script. You arent original, you arent spectacular, and your posts ad nothing to discussion. Like this topic... you admit you created a false scenario after you presented it as fact. Keep it up, you are good comedy.

So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
257
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
277
Views

Re: Another Domestic Murder in FL Perped by a Black Male

277 Views
Message 9 of 42

@CS402050 wrote:

@Centristin2010 wrote:

 

Once again I see we have a lot of nonsense scattered all over instead of a coherent reply.  I suspect you do that on purpose in hopes people won't recognize that your reply doesn't address what was actually said and most of the time takes what I said out of context.  That's nonsense, but that's your typical claim as another poster pointed out. Think your heritage was relevant?  It wasn't. To make it shorter and less confusing I am just responding to the two items most relevant to subject instead of quoting the whole article.  See if you can actually address what's said for a change.  I usually do but many don't understand when some disagree's with their biased view.  I understand.


I said:   You created a thread titled "Another Hate Crime in FL Perped by a White Male" and referenced a story about a man who attacked four Muslim kids.  The story had nothing to do with race and nothing to do with politics. You are wrong; it had everything to do with a hate crime.  Again, that is your opinion and your welcome to it.


You replied:  That may very well be YOUR opinion, which it is....but IMO, most intelligent adults would believe otherwise given: a white male said to a group of dark skinned males, "You don’t deserve American food!"

 

We can agree....I DID post that. It doesn't make your claim that it isn't about race accurate.

 

It's not "my opinion."  It's the facts based on the article YOU referenced in addition to other articles I could find on the subject and the police report.  LMAO!  It is YOUR opinion and you have not supported YOUR OPINION with any facts.  As is most often the case, you NEVER post many facts or provide supporting information with references to support your opinion....you just claim comments are facts just because you said so.  Most can see right through that nonsense.  Now the States Attorney is looking into hate crime charges.....did your facts reveal that?  There is nowhere in any of them that says the victims were "dark skinned."  NOWHERE. So?  Prove they weren't. That's just one more thing YOU made up based on YOUR bias. Nope.....the word dark-skinned wasn't used at all in the topic you decided to attack.  Again, you're distorting what was posted.  The articles and the police report say the defendant said "Are you American boys" and "You don’t deserve American food" both of which indicate nationality, not race. LOL.....If someone hates all Mexicans, are they a racist?  If someone hates those from the Middle East, like this white bozo, are they a racist?  The students were quoted as saying, "The basic idea that he charged us and attacked us for this, for our religion, for our home country and background, it’s kind of scary." The white bozo didn't ask them what religion they were, nor did he ask them what country they were from.  It's just hilarious you make this crap up as you go.  That's nationality (ethnicity) and religion; not race and/or politics which you tried to make out of it. And he asked neither....They weren't white, they weren't American in his racist mind and that's all he needed......it's a hate crime.  According to the last report I could find, "Police selected the "hate crime" enhancement on the report, noting that the "statements made by the defendant to the victims showed that he only committed the acts due to the victim's religion" But he didn't know their religion. but it is not clear if prosecutors will charge him with a hate crime in court." Doesn't mean it's not a hate crime. 

Now, do you have ANY evidence that proves what happened was due to race Yep, they weren't white. or politics? Hate crimes have increased significantly since trump threw his hat into the rink.....trump has made race, and hate about politics.

I said:  It was a story about an irrational act committed by a mentally unbalanced man You don't know that.....where's your evidence?  You're making an assumption.  who was apparently drunk at the time. Yep, and alcohol can cause one to loose all their inhibitions.....and without much inhibitions, a racist will spew their hate.  If anything more than that, it was about religion....LOL.....in YOUR opinion.  There is zero evidence reported that religion was ever discussed.....they weren't Americans (European whites), so he went after them.

You replied:  Again, that's YOUR take. And again, that's your take. You, for your own reasons,  prefer to "white-wash" the story.  But the FACTS often allude your posts because the "killed son" is working with the State's Attorney's office to "bring a hate crime charge against his father"  

Yes, that is certainly my take. Good for you....you finally "get it". And if you think my take is wrong, tell us what part of what this guy did you consider rational? Your take is wrong and I've never claimed he did anything rational.  Why the straw argument?  The facts aren't convenient enough for you?  Is it the "killed son" part? You may believe it rational to lie about whether or not your son is alive and you may even do that but rational people don't. LMAO.....your post isn't rational..... AND AGAIN, the hate crime is based on religion, not race. You are hilarious.....previously you attacked me for saying it was a hate crime; now you admit it.  Now that you've admitted you were wrong, do you prefer one over the other?

 

AGAIN, YOU brought race and politics into something that had nothing to do with race or politics. Again, that's your opinion. I think you're wrong. If it is about race and/or politics, just show us the evidence instead of spouting your biased opinion. Naw, only to a rational person.

 

And btw, many consider those who hate another's ethnicity, a racist.  It's the hate because "they aren't like me" that's reflective, it's not as black and white as you want it to be.

 

"Often ethnic conflict is enhanced by nationalism (the political part enhanced by trump) and feeling of national superiority. For which reason inter-ethnic hatred borders with racism, and often the two terms are conflated."

 

Ethnic Hatred / Racism

 

You see, it's not too hard if you have an open-mind and actually interested in learning something vs. looking for reasons to attack another.

 

How's that hyphen discussion going?


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in Washington DC, January 21, 2017.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
277
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
290
Views

Re: Another Domestic Murder in FL Perped by a Black Male

290 Views
Message 10 of 42

@Centristin2010 wrote:

 

Once again I see we have a lot of nonsense scattered all over instead of a coherent reply.  I suspect you do that on purpose in hopes people won't recognize that your reply doesn't address what was actually said and most of the time takes what I said out of context.  To make it shorter and less confusing I am just responding to the two items most relevant to subject instead of quoting the whole article.  See if you can actually address what's said for a change.


I said:   You created a thread titled "Another Hate Crime in FL Perped by a White Male" and referenced a story about a man who attacked four Muslim kids.  The story had nothing to do with race and nothing to do with politics.


You replied:  That may very well be YOUR opinion, but IMO, most intelligent adults would believe otherwise given: a white male said to a group of dark skinned males, "You don’t deserve American food!"

 

It's not "my opinion."  It's the facts based on the article YOU referenced in addition to other articles I could find on the subject and the police report.  There is nowhere in any of them that says the victims were "dark skinned."  NOWHERE.  That's just one more thing YOU made up based on YOUR bias.  The articles and the police report say the defendant said "Are you American boys" and "You don’t deserve American food" both of which indicate nationality, not race.  The students were quoted as saying, "The basic idea that he charged us and attacked us for this, for our religion, for our home country and background, it’s kind of scary."  That's nationality and religion; not race and/or politics which you tried to make out of it.  According to the last report I could find, "Police selected the "hate crime" enhancement on the report, noting that the "statements made by the defendant to the victims showed that he only committed the acts due to the victim's religion" but it is not clear if prosecutors will charge him with a hate crime in court."  

Now, do you have ANY evidence that proves what happened was due to race or politics?  ANYTHING?  And your opinion is not evidence.

I said:  It was a story about an irrational act committed by a mentally unbalanced man who was apparently drunk at the time.  If anything more than that, it was about religion....

You replied:  Again, that's YOUR take. You, for your own reasons,  prefer to "white-wash" the story.  But the FACTS often allude your posts because the "killed son" is working with the State's Attorney's office to "bring a hate crime charge against his father"  

Yes, that is certainly my take.  And if you think my take is wrong, tell us what part of what this guy did you consider rational?  Is it the "killed son" part? You may believe it rational to lie about whether or not your son is alive and you may even do that but rational people don't.  AND AGAIN, the hate crime is based on religion, not race. 

 

AGAIN, YOU brought race and politics into something that had nothing to do with race or politics.  If it is about race and/or politics, just show us the evidence instead of spouting your biased opinion.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
290
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Roundtable Discussion:
Ask questions and get advice from fellow entrepreneurs
Now through Nov. 22

Top Authors