No, I didn't do anything wrong. The comment was for him, which is why I wrote it to him. Weird concept, huh?
A comment in a public forum is public -- if it "was for him", it goes in a PM.
Public discourse is
public -- that means open to everyone.
Fair game, schmair game. The comment wasn't for you, so I'm not going to talk about it with you. "All in the Kool-aid and don't know the flavor". Heard this in Texas last summer and it works! Ps: Folks, you can chalk this up to me hurting his feelings with numbers and statistics in the NY Times thread. Go look for yourself.
One more way you use to dodge -- your standard tactic when called on things, and this one's equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I can't hear you!"
Then you add to your dodge by another lie, a new invention here. My feelings had nothing to do with anything in the NT Times thread. If anyone goes and looks, what they'll see is that you made blanket statements, bigoted statements, and then you lied about it, and then you hid your lies by retreating to claims about statistics.
He has an axe to grind which is why he's talking about this in a thread about the Minute Men.
Um, yeah, right -- I responded to a post you made in this thread because I have an axe to grind about another thread? I'm talking about this thread because of another thread?
Actually, I talk about things in this thread because they're in this thread. You posted something in this thread, so I talked about it here. That you had this odd notion that you could engage in private communications in a public forum is no excuse... so you make up others.
More hurt feelings folks. That above is the epitome of hurt feelings... going on tangents just to vent.
Explaining why a comment in a public forum is open to comment by everyone in a forum is not a "tangent". You pretended that you could engage in private communication in a public forum. I corrected you. That's quite appropriate, since your pretense was in place of an actual defense of your invalid argument.
Patently not true. It was always the courts and elected officials that got things changed. Not through the ballot box. It wasn't a societal thing but one done through the legal system (sounds familiar, eh, with all these states' courts deciding marriage equality).
Oh -- so none of those people, in the courts then or the courts now, or any of the people that marched in the parades and protests, who wrote letters to their legislators, were in the generation at the time? What, were they from your generation, and had time machines?
You condemn individuals because their lives fall in a certain time slot (which by definition is bigotry), but then you turn around and act as though other individuals weren't part of their own generation. That's more than a little inconsistent, besides being fallacious in both cases.
Folks, Kuli is saying he's one of the soldiers here segregating the schools in Arkansas so blacks and whites could go to school. No, President Eisenhower didn't order the troops to do it, lol, Kuli was apart of an earlier version of the Minute Men who then actually deplored racism. Brown vs. the Board of Education didn't make it illegal. Kuli and the millions and millions of people voted to end racism in education (he'll take credit for anything I know.).
What the heck have I got to do with Eisenhower? I didn't know him, I wasn't old enough to vote, I wasn't old enough to read -- Eisenhower is history to me, something I know about only because of books.
BTW,
Brown v. Board didn't make anything illegal: it was merely the case in which SCOTUS determined that the law had been unconstitutional all along. The
Constitution made something illegal; courts can't do that, because making law is the task of the legislative branch.
Just like Mitt Romney's father walked with Martin Luther King until records surfaced proving otherwise. Mitt then retracted his statement like Kuli and said the press took it out of context and that he meant his father "symbolically" (WTF?) walked with MLK.
They write their own history!
This has nothing to do with anything. Can you stick to facts?
BTW, when I retract something, I say so.
Again folks, this is him picking a fight. I hurt his feelings. I really suggest you all look at that NY Times thread. I called him on his shit early in that thread and asked that he present data contrary to what I was stating... and I'm still waiting weeks later for that data. The data doesn't exist but with all the bitching, he probably thought I forgot my request for data to back up his bitterness. He then went on to talk about my diction and now he's "defending" (in his own mind) a poster that routinely comes in threads to defend homophobes.
PLEASE look at the NY Times thread! He's so proud of it -- the place he displayed his bigotry, got called on it several times by several people, then lied about it, then tried to pretend he was talking about facts... but returned to bigotry the moment he thought the coast was clear.
Judging entire classes of people by the actions of some, and judging individuals because they belong to a certain class, is bigotry, and that's been LL's modus operandi since the election got over. It's evident in numerous threads -- and he's done it again in this thread.
And that's why your request for data was superfluous: the data needed to refute you was presented by you, because your assertion was that two entire classes of people were guilty... regardless of what they'd, as individuals, really done.
I'm not defending anyone -- I'm pointing out what someone said, and that your response was totally fallacious. What that poster does or doesn't do in other threads is irrelevant; I judged his comment, and yours, on their merits. In this case, he was correct, and you countered it with... well, bigotry, when you boil it down: you assumed something about people, without evidence, which is what the other poster pointed out.
Whether you were correct in your assumption (which you probably were) is irrelevant.
No, actually I didn't judge you by your group. (Your statements are in line with a group of people that votes against equality.) I judged you by your numerous statements which you quickly retract and say people are misreading. You're still waltzing around that bullshit comment about "wantingd gay marriage" as long as it doesn't "discriminate against the religious."
You judged me by my group, as you have others. Your automatic assumption, demonstrated over and over, is that anyone older than you has held back rights, opposes rights, etc.
If you honestly think that my "statements are in line with a group of people that votes against equality", then you just plain lack reading comprehension. I argue for more equality than you do. Your notion that I retract things is totally false -- on the topic of "gay marriage" and others of gay rights, I haven't retracted a thing: I over and over state that I favor full equality before the law for everyone. Why you can't read the plain words and wrap your mind around that fact is beyond me, but that's the case.
Look: what I want is equality before the law for all in terms of freedom of association. What you want is to continue the current regime of religious discrimination; you just want to adjust it so that you're part of the in group. That's a simple matter of logic. You can make up all the lies you want about my position, but it doesn't change anything: I favor more liberty than you do, and I have since before you were born.
PS: Maybe this fearing about discriminating against the religious is why in 2009 courts are the main vehicle for gay marriage and maybe not the people. I guess you're resigned to just taking this country to hell with you?
According to you, in 2009 I should just be happy to have sex. If that's what you've made possible, take that to hell with you. Tell Bush "hi" too when you see him.
I want to take this country to freedom, and rescue it from all the folks trying to keep it oppressive and turn it into more of a police state. If you think liberty and equality for all is hell, that's you problem. In quite plain words, that's what I constantly argue for.
Yet another lie: that I say "in 2009 [you] should just be happy to have sex". I've never said anything remotely resembling that.
The only thing I'd have to say to Bush would be communicated with lead, at muzzle velocity.
Again, that's why in 2009, courts are putting in place equality because bad elements (our real toxic assets) are still as poisonous today as they were all their lives.
At least with toxic assets on your balance sheets, you could cook the books. We gotta live with them.
You're not making sense here, but at least you've made one step: you isolate "toxic elements" from the rest. As for living with toxic assets -- you have no idea of what that really means; I grew up with it, and still deal with it. Go live for a decade in a place where if you're known to be gay, there's a decent chance you could end up dead out in the woods somewhere in a staged accident, or have all your ribs broken quite methodically, only to have the sheriff and D.A. count it a "personal altercation", a place where people will paint your truck with "Die Fag"... and then talk to me about living with "toxic assets".
](/images/smilies/bang.gif "Brick wall ](*,)")
