DescentBB

Well- one thing is for sure. There are no republicans in this crowd:

I like it when a white person tells me I can't say anything about them because I'm white. That's always golden.

ThunderBunny wrote:Well- one thing is for sure. There are no republicans in this crowd:

Ain't no liberals in there either. It's a mob and it thinks like a mob, crazy and violent. Mobs know no political affiliation.

You mean like Occupy Wall Street ?

woodchip wrote:You mean like Occupy Wall Street ?

FACT: Occupy had anarchists and socialist and everything in-between. There was no binding political affiliation and that was one of the reasons the movement didn't go anywhere.

That's the problem, woody thinks liberals are anarchists. I say in reality conservatives are the anarchists. They're the ones that want everyone be able to do their own thing whenever they want without that pesky government interfering. FREEDOM! YEAH!

tunnelcat wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:Well- one thing is for sure. There are no republicans in this crowd:

Ain't no liberals in there either. It's a mob and it thinks like a mob, crazy and violent. Mobs know no political affiliation.

You can quibble over the definition of liberal but regardless of how you parse it that mob of 'non liberals' as you need to phrase it most likely vote 99% Democrat. And the highly charged illogical state of emotional rage they are operating under is fueled by Democrat rhetoric. They are not a seperate political entity or apolitical as you try to imply.

So 'liberal-by-your-definition' or not, we know who they are and who their handlers are. We know the self serving irresponsible group that are to blame for the danger this mob presents.

Will Robinson wrote:You can quibble over the definition of liberal but regardless of how you parse it that mob of 'non liberals' as you need to phrase it most likely vote 99% Democrat.

You think 99% of them vote?

Will Robinson wrote:...we know who they are and who their handlers are.

So these people have handlers? Who is your handler?

Jeff250 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:You can quibble over the definition of liberal but regardless of how you parse it that mob of 'non liberals' as you need to phrase it most likely vote 99% Democrat.

You think 99% of them vote?

No. I should have phrased it: 99% of them that do vote, vote for the Dems.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:...we know who they are and who their handlers are.

So these people have handlers? Who is your handler?

Handlers in the sense that their actions/motives are the result of professional left wing community agitators.

I'm a white guy. We white people don't vote en bloc like the vast majority of the black community does.

We aren't so easily fooled in the way the black Americans are. We aren't beyond being fooled but there is no 'easy button' someone could push to get the group to fall in line behind one candidate...one party...etc. like you see among the black people.

Of course you can now attempt to play your race card now to try and obscure the point but what I said is factual so if there is "racism" at the root of this factually documented behavior it isn't the kind you are hoping to imply.

Will Robinson wrote:I'm a white guy... We aren't so easily fooled in the way the black Americans are.

Perfect. Thanks.

Will Robinson wrote:Of course you can now attempt to play your race card now to try and obscure the point but what I said is factual so if there is "racism" at the root of this factually documented behavior it isn't the kind you are hoping to imply.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I'm a white guy... We aren't so easily fooled in the way the black Americans are.

Perfect. Thanks.

Perfect. Thanks

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I'm a white guy... We aren't so easily fooled in the way the black Americans are.

Perfect. Thanks.

"easy button"...dodge the implications of that crucial component of my commentary all you want but it is there shining for all to see and your attempt to obscure its meaning just exposes the weakness of your character.

If you want to honestly discuss what I said instead of misrepresent it I'll be glad to explore it with you.

To make it completely clear for you, counter to what you seem to want to imply, I'm not suggesting black people are easily fooled due to their genetic makeup. I'm suggesting all humans share the weakness in character that allow them to be manipulated, used or 'fooled' in the way I am alluding to.
The particular circumstances of slavery/post slavery, unique to black people in america, have made their manipulation easy to do for the lefties who are willing to exploit them.

How else would you explain the sweeping sentiment and rhetoric of black people, and lefties who claim to represent them, that Michael Brown was a victim of 'white people', 'white cops', 'murder', 'racism', etc. etc.?
Michael Brown was a criminal who's got himself justifiably shot during the commision of a crime by a policeman doing his duty.
But the narrative supported by "those people" we are talking about denies that reality completely and instead proclaims he was murdered by a racist white cop oppressing a black man.
Michael Brown's fate is held up as justification to kill cops in 'revenge' for his 'murder' in spite of there being no murder and no rational justification for a law abiding person to blame the white race for his fate.
Your attempt to dismiss that distinction is a despicable tactic.

You are in complete denial. Naturally, almost no one wants to admit they are a racist, but you are and you rationalize it away with pseudo-libertarian bull★■◆● and a "these are just the facts" defense. You really do believe that black people are more susceptible to propaganda than whites and that is just stupid, stupid, stupid.

vision wrote:You are in complete denial. Naturally, almost no one wants to admit they are a racist, but you are and you rationalize it away with pseudo-libertarian **** and a "these are just the facts" defense. You really do believe that black people are more susceptible to propaganda than whites and that is just stupid, stupid, stupid.

The denial is yours apparently.
You lack any substance to your charge that I am racist. Please try to refute that with evidence instead of empty charges or retract the claim.

As to my pointing out that blacks in america vote almost unanimously as a bloc as opposed to whites...it is a fact. So I refer to it as a fact.
And it supports the assertion I made. An assertion that is quite narrow and accurate AND was stated with the stipulation that it was not a behavior that exists BECAUSE OF their race or any inequality attributed to their race. It was pointed out that ALL humans have the same degree of weakness of character that could lead them to the same behavior. In this case it happens to be the blacks that have been used.

I don't buy into the premise that because of past suffering we cant cite behavior of their sub group. That kind of self censorship would be the epitome of bad-science!
My motive for pointing this one out isn't because I think whites are any better (I clearly stated the opposite)...my motive is to point out how people like you are exploiting the history of their suffering to serve a political agenda.

Feel free to try to use a substantive argument to prove that otherwise as well...

Evidence....learn to use it... or remain a silly white boy trying to play the race card as an excuse for not having any real argument to shield him from the painful truth he is faced with.

(so is wiki now an approved source? Or only when you need it to prop up some bull★■◆●?)

Will Robinson wrote:
I'm a white guy. We white people don't vote en bloc like the vast majority of the black community does.

Yes, they did, in the last midterms. A whole bunch of white Republicans came out a voted en mass just to give that black Obama a good smack down.

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:
I'm a white guy. We white people don't vote en bloc like the vast majority of the black community does.

Yes, they did, in the last midterms. A whole bunch of white Republicans came out a voted en mass just to give that black Obama a good smack down.

what was the ratio? Nothing near unanimous thus it makes a good rhetorical dig at the Dems loss but not even close to an actual rebuttal of the point raised.

It's a pretty damn high percentage of lily white males, 64%, that came out to vote. I'd say that makes it a revenge block white vote. Gee, don't those white boys looks happy.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/20 ... lican.html

So many bad conclusions drawn there TC, by you and that author.

Here is the same data, same picture too, different reasoning for the vote.
The big difference is you attribute the result to racism with no evidence.
The Forbes article attributes it to actually researching the motives instead of just reaching up their butt and pulling out what suits them.

Also, if over one third of black voters were known to vote other than Dem every election I wouldn't be comfortable assigning anything to the group as a whole. I guess you set a much lower standard before assigning behavior to a group than I do. Or maybe you only set the bar that low for white guys and would reject your own methodology if we're turned on you/yours?

Will Robinson wrote:And it supports the assertion I made.

This one?

• "And the highly charged illogical state of emotional rage they are operating under is fueled by Democrat rhetoric...We know the self serving irresponsible group that are to blame for the danger this mob presents."

An assertion that implies these poor black souls are helplessly controlled by evil democrats? Because "[Whites] aren't so easily fooled in the way the black Americans are."

Yeah, no racism there...

Will Robinson wrote:my motive is to point out how people like you are exploiting the history of their suffering to serve a political agenda.

What's my political agenda again? I vote independent for multiple parties. Is that my agenda? What kind of world do you live in where everyone has an evil agenda?

Will Robinson wrote:(so is wiki now an approved source? Or only when you need it to prop up some bull★■◆●?)

That wiki entry is just the quickest means to illustrate a point. You have an extremely low opinion of blacks and you have made this clear over and over again. Each time you hedge it with some statement that is the equivalent of "I'm not a racist, but..." You are doing it right now, haha!

Will Robinson wrote:So many bad conclusions drawn there TC, by you and that author.

Here is the same data, same picture too, different reasoning for the vote.
The big difference is you attribute the result to racism with no evidence.
The Forbes article attributes it to actually researching the motives instead of just reaching up their butt and pulling out what suits them.

Also, if over one third of black voters were known to vote other than Dem every election I wouldn't be comfortable assigning anything to the group as a whole. I guess you set a much lower standard before assigning behavior to a group than I do. Or maybe you only set the bar that low for white guys and would reject your own methodology if we're turned on you/yours?

White, older, working class males, and the Asian population, what strange bedfellows, are the ones who are voting Republican. Women, Hispanics and Blacks are still voting Democratic. You look at race in the data below, and whites and the over 45 age group are the only ones solidly voting Republican.

http://mic.com/articles/103422/3-charts ... -elections

Whites, especially white males, are the ones feeling especially aggrieved with Obama, and they turned out in force during the midterms, staunchly voting Republican. Maybe you don't think race has something to do with it, so go ahead and stay in denial, but it does run deep in some white male's psyches. Enough to change political parties when they feel it's necessary, en mass.

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/10/03/how- ... 73001.html

Vision show me where I have to expressed a "low opinion of blacks". I've expressed a low opinion of some black individuals behavior. Big difference.

And why dodge the question where I asked you to explain the Michael Brown-was-murdered-because-he-is-black narrative? I contended it is illogical to seek the death of police for the Michael Brown shooting. It is left wing-nut rhetoric that makes excuses for those people who promote the narrative feeding unfounded rage that props up that hate speech as rational 'protest'.

It isn't racist to point out this phenomena. Your race card defense is a lame substitute for honest debate.

TC, in 2012, when there was a black man on the ballot, turnout for white men voting republican was LESS than the last election when there was no black man to vote against! That runs against your racist theory completely.

Conversely, during the 2012 election black voters turned out at a higher rate to vote for the black candidate than they did in the last election when there wasn't a black man to vote for.

Will Robinson wrote:Vision show me where I have to expressed a "low opinion of blacks".

Easy. Here it is again...

Will Robinson wrote:I'm a white guy... We aren't so easily fooled in the way the black Americans are.

Will Robinson wrote:And why dodge the question where I asked you to explain the Michael Brown-was-murdered-because-he-is-black narrative?

Also easy. The narrative exists in popular media because it sells advertising. Other narratives that sell advertising include "Obama is Muslim communist", "Benghazi was a cover-up", and pretty much anything conservative white media peddles to whites who eat it up, just like you. They are your handlers as much as blacks have handlers. I personally don't think Mike Brown was killed because he was black, but being black sure didn't help his situation, or countless other blacks that get killed by white cops, which is an unfortunate and very important issue that needs to be addressed by our entire society.

Will Robinson wrote:It is left wing-nut rhetoric that makes excuses for those people who promote the narrative feeding unfounded rage that props up that hate speech as rational 'protest'.

Please don't forget, black people have experiences that makes this narrative plausible. You have no idea what it's like to be black. A good friend of mine is a black man who grew up in DC. I witness the negative treatment he gets first hand, on what seems to be a weekly basis. It makes me furious.

Will Robinson wrote:It isn't racist to point out this phenomena.

Right, but that's not what you did. You said "[Whites] aren't so easily fooled in the way the black Americans are." That is a purely racist statement if I've ever seen one.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Vision show me where I have to expressed a "low opinion of blacks".

Easy. Here it is again...

Will Robinson wrote:I'm a white guy... We aren't so easily fooled in the way the black Americans are.

If you were honest, instead of a white guy thinking he is authorized to play the race card for blacks 'because he has a black friend' ... you would have to reconcile the meaning of the stipulation I put in that comment: "in the way the black Americans are".
Is 'the way' I specified such that I suggests they are easier to fool BECAUSE of their genetic make up? That perhaps whites or other races are inherently more resistant to manipulation of the kind I was talking about? If that is what I suggested then I made a racist comment.
But we all know I wasn't alluding to their genetic makeup. In fact I specified three times now that the weakness that they are being used by is one that exists in all races of humans.
So you can quit your childish game and engage in the debate or continue to be an ass.

I clearly indicted the character of Dems that exploit the sensitivities of blacks to the specter of bigotry/racism to create a political advantage and did NOT suggest anything to do with racial traits or the superiority of one race over the other etc.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:And why dodge the question where I asked you to explain the Michael Brown-was-murdered-because-he-is-black narrative?

Also easy. The narrative exists in popular media because it sells advertising. Other narratives that sell advertising include "Obama is Muslim communist", "Benghazi was a cover-up", and pretty much anything conservative white media peddles to whites who eat it up, just like you.

That is such bull★■◆●. You are shameless to suggest such a thing.
The narrative that Michael Brown was murdered by a racist police force was not advanced to sell advertising. It is propped up to sell the race-baiting Democrat party rhetoric that if not for the Dems the Repubs would have slaves today.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:It is left wing-nut rhetoric that makes excuses for those people who promote the narrative feeding unfounded rage that props up that hate speech as rational 'protest'.

Please don't forget, black people have experiences that makes this narrative plausible. You have no idea what it's like to be black. ...

Forget?!? I have told you repeatedly that phenomena is central to my point!

Funny how you can know it when you think it serves your spin but totally ignore it, repeatedly, in order to misrepresent my comments.

You are a true piece of work. Dishonest to the core.

Will Robinson wrote:TC, in 2012, when there was a black man on the ballot, turnout for white men voting republican was LESS than the last election when there was no black man to vote against! That runs against your racist theory completely.

Conversely, during the 2012 election black voters turned out at a higher rate to vote for the black candidate than they did in the last election when there wasn't a black man to vote for.

Don't look to me for the answer. Voter emotions and decisions are etheral and flitty and rarely based on the facts or reality. That's why voters give us weird election results. But I insist that the result THIS midterm was "influenced" by race, the race of an unpopular president and the race of a particular group of voters fed up with that particular president. They're the ones who got off their butts and voted this time. If Democrats had voted in force this midterm, then we'd would be having a whole different conversation.

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:TC, in 2012, when there was a black man on the ballot, turnout for white men voting republican was LESS than the last election when there was no black man to vote against! That runs against your racist theory completely.

Conversely, during the 2012 election black voters turned out at a higher rate to vote for the black candidate than they did in the last election when there wasn't a black man to vote for.

Don't look to me for the answer. Voter emotions and decisions are etheral and flitty and rarely based on the facts or reality. That's why voters give us weird election results. But I insist that the result THIS midterm was "influenced" by race, the race of an unpopular president and the race of a particular group of voters fed up with that particular president. They're the ones who got off their butts and voted this time. If Democrats had voted in force this midterm, then we'd would be having a whole different conversation.

You insist the midterm results were based on race because of white man turnout yet when a black man was on the ballot running for president just two years earlier the white man turnout was lower than the white man turnout in the mid term when there was no black man to vote against!

So your 'insistence' is based on your perception/bias/etc. not on real data/science/logic/etc.

Unless you want to prove lots of white bigot voters only discovered Obama was black two years AFTER his final election and decided to come out to vote against him two years too late in a symbolic gesture....lol
Why do you need to cling to such a ridiculous false narrative when there are volumes of data and polling to show actual reasoning based on economy, policy, etc?

Will Robinson wrote:But we all know I wasn't alluding to their genetic makeup. In fact I specified three times now that the weakness that they are being used by is one that exists in all races of humans...I clearly indicted the character of Dems that exploit the sensitivities of blacks to the specter of bigotry/racism to create a political advantage and did NOT suggest anything to do with racial traits or the superiority of one race over the other etc.

So, the "Dems" (whoever they are, and I'm not sure you know since roughly 47% of the US populations are Democrats, and that would mean all of them are in collusion with each other, even the blacks) are manipulating blacks so they don't become Republicans? Doesn't the superior Republican message speak for itself? So why is it again the blacks are more susceptible to "handling" as you like to call it?

I would love to hear your reasoning. You are a true hero to the black community, Will. A true hero.

hilarious first read after the Christmas hoopla!!! Vision, TC, thanks for holding up the sanity/reality focus in my absence. Thanks, also, to Will, for removing any last doubt that he thinks(for some goofy reason) that white people and himself are somehow superior in decision-making.......

callmeslick wrote:hilarious first read after the Christmas hoopla!!! Vision, TC, thanks for holding up the sanity/reality focus in my absence. Thanks, also, to Will, for removing any last doubt that he thinks(for some goofy reason) that white people and himself are somehow superior in decision-making.......

Could you quote any post I made where I suggested black people are being manipulated due to an inferior characteristic?

No, you can't.

Can you quote any post where I specified that the manipulation they are victim to was one that preyed on a common characteristic that ALL humans share?

Yes. If you weren't a completely dishonest and shameless person you could cite at least three instances in this thread.

You should have asked Santa for some integrity.

vision wrote:...since roughly 47% of the US populations are Democrats...

Having another bad math day?

Spidey wrote:

vision wrote:...since roughly 47% of the US populations are Democrats...

Having another bad math day?

The poll numbers for political views are usually based on whether someone is, for example, strong dem, weak dem, or independent dem, and different polling organizations cut up those numbers different ways. Some will say independents make up as much as 36% of the population. So yes, my number is a ballpark figure, but based on research. You aren't going to find hard numbers on this stuff.

Will Robinson wrote:You insist the midterm results were based on race because of white man turnout yet when a black man was on the ballot running for president just two years earlier the white man turnout was lower than the white man turnout in the mid term when there was no black man to vote against!

So your 'insistence' is based on your perception/bias/etc. not on real data/science/logic/etc.

Unless you want to prove lots of white bigot voters only discovered Obama was black two years AFTER his final election and decided to come out to vote against him two years too late in a symbolic gesture....lol
Why do you need to cling to such a ridiculous false narrative when there are volumes of data and polling to show actual reasoning based on economy, policy, etc?

Yeap. It just TOOK longer, like until this last midterm, for all those white male worker voters to finally get fed up enough to get off their lazy asses and go out and vote and outvote the Dem voter block. Maybe it's because Fox News finally got it's white, racist base riled up to that critical frenzy point that action was taken, or the stars and moon finally lined up, who knows? But it happened and now Congress is in the hands of Republicans. Maybe in 2 years, the presidency. It's the Dems, youngsters, blacks and women who were disillusioned and lazy this time, so they LOST. That's all it takes to determine the outcome of an election, not getting off one's ass and doing one's civic duty.

Lol, so the Dems are just women the youth and blacks, but the Reps are a bunch of white racists…my god woman…you need to quit the crack.

What bull★■◆● TC.
Voter turnout was down from the last three elections. Even over the 10 mid terms. So you go off on a race bait rant trying to say that the old whitey crackers came out in force to over throw the black presidents agenda. Shame on you making this about Race. Attitude like yours is what feeds slime balls like Sharpton.

CUDA wrote:What **** TC.
Voter turnout was down from the last three elections. Even over the 10 mid terms. So you go off on a race bait rant trying to say that the old whitey crackers came out in force to over throw the black presidents agenda. Shame on you making this about Race. Attitude like yours is what feeds slime balls like Sharpton.

Yep, voter turnout was down, especially for the Dems, (mostly made up of women, younger people and minorities like it or not Spidey), except for those white working class males, (which have become more and more Republican or conservative over the years). So, logically, since they made up the larger proportion of the electorate this midterm, even though voter turnout totals were lower, THEY ruled the results. As unpleasant as it is, race is a factor with many of these particular white males. I'm not race baiting but pointing out a little bald-faced denial. Denial is futile.

tunnelcat wrote:?.. As unpleasant as it is, race is a factor with many of these particular white males. I'm not race baiting but pointing out a little bald-faced denial. Denial is futile.

For it to be denial there would have to be some actual evidence of racist motivation turning out the vote that cost the Dems the election as you claim happened. Evidence would have to be something other than your opinion for us to 'deny'.
You have offered none. Challenging your fantasy based opinion with facts that prove it wrong is not denial, it is logical and proper.

The Dems lost the mid term due to the publics perception that they did a piss poor job. Both, white and black politicians, were voted out by white and black voters. Additionally white and black dem voters stayed home instead of voting.