csdeven on May 16, 2007 at 1:27 AM

The subject was military blogging and bandwidth issues.

Take a look at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/14/AR2007051400112.html

and you will see that your name calling and assumptions were a little premature.

So your post should read:

“bradky posts with facts. remember when he was in here a week or so ago talking like he was some sort of expert on something or the other? Several posters including me called him a fraud and didn’t believe him. Turns out he was right and I blew it in my premature rant. Sorry about that Bradky.”

And like I said before – why are you and RW only outraged when the victim is white? The refusal to answer speaks more than any of the 20,000 word manifestos you could ever publish.

Embrace your bias young skywalker…..

Bradky on May 15, 2007 at 8:41 PM

So now you’re not just spinning, diverting, and throwing out strawmen, but you’re back (once again, as you always do later in threads) to being a f**king liar? The VICTIM WASN’T WHITE RETARD! I may have thought he was for a few seconds, but it played no part in my point!

Embrace my bias? Do you even know what bias means? I honestly don’t think you do because you make absolutely no sense?

You constantly throw out ridiculous strawmen just to bait people and to get flamed for your deliberate idiocy (I hope it’s deliberate, otherwise I feel bad for you). You say stupid stuff about how I can’t possibly agree with Cosby because he’s a Democrat, etc. etc.

Do you even realize that you offer nothing of substance to this conversation? Literally, nothing! Why are you here? Seriously, just leave unless you actually have something to say that isn’t totally off topic, strawman arguments, or stupid and pointless lines about Cosby or “bias”. Seriously dude, as I’ve told you before, either get your head checked or reread what idiocy you bring to the discussion. Look at your completely irrelevant comments and say “what am I doing here?”

My refusal to answer? What refusal to answer? I can’t believe I just skimmed back and saw more unbelievable idiocy from you. And I wouldn’t have to type lengthy “manifestos” if you liberals weren’t such f-ing retards who demand things be explained to you. You play dumb so you can take things out of context and imagine other things that didn’t happen just so you can cause the conversation to devolve as it now has. This is what you always do… Don’t you see that? Why don’t you got to another thread where you can make up statistics and lie about what they say, at least that kept you busy for a while.

csdeven on May 15, 2007 at 6:43 PM

Imus had been doing that crap for years and only Rev Al calls him out does everyone puff out their chest and scream foul. Where were you in the last thirty years when he got out of hand or out right offensive. Chuckling in the background.

For you and RW I have one piece of advice:

Embrace your bias. Feel it. Revel in it. But for heavens sake be honest about it. You will get more respect than trying to speak in code about “i didn’t really mean that and the fact that you got it right means I have to use the word strawman and question your intelligence to DEFLECT that like the emperor I have no clothes.”

And like I said before – why are you and RW only outraged when the victim is white? The refusal to answer speaks more than any of the 20,000 word manifestos you could ever publish.

Embrace your bias young skywalker…..

Woah. They’re not making race an issue; in many instances race is an issue, just not this one.

Nonfactor on May 15, 2007 at 12:05 PM

Just what exactly is wrong with you? Seriously, are you in a mental institution of some sort? This is just a MILD example…….When Imus refered to Sharpton and his posse of race baiters as “you people” (meaning the people attacking Imus), Sharptons response was “What do you mean “you people?” intimating that Imus meant ALL black persons. It’s that kind of race baiting horse $hit that keeps all of america focused on a persons skin color instead of a persons intent.

Nonfactor on May 15, 2007 at 5:35 PM

The race of the victim is irrelevant, but thanks for proving again what liberals are all about. I’ve REPEATEDLY NOTED THAT I WAS WRONG ABOUT THE VICTIMS RACE, BUT THAT’S IRRELEVANT TO THE POINT I WAS MAKING, WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH THE POINT OR NOT! Please Nonfactor, stop the baiting and just shut up unless you have anything to add. You already proved my point above:

it just happens that more black people live in the inner cities than white people.

Nonfactor on May 15, 2007 at 12:05 PM

So just leave.

(here’s where you come in, focus on the unimportant and take sentences out of context so that they say something completely different than what I actually said. When I bust you, your excuse will be “don’t say things if you don’t want me to respond to them” as if context doesn’t exist, which is so utterly dishonest, but it’s how you roll.)

Because I continue to make the mistake that everyone put their big boy pants on today and thought I didn’t think I’d have to explain things like I was talking to a child. Somehow I figured you might be able to comprehend the point without it being broken down for you. But I know you did get the point, but you wanted to makes something out of nothing, so as a liberal it was your duty to do what you did. I understand, I know you guys take an oath of dishonesty and you do a marvelous job upholding that oath.

Talk about dishonesty. The bottom line is you trying to make race an issue when it isn’t (and the reason this thread is hilarious is because you didn’t even know the race of the victim before you made your assumptive post).

The only time that you care about black criminals is when a white is being attacked, then it is the end of the world, “where is sharpton” “See double standard”, ad nauseum. The day I see you give a damn about black on black crime, where statistics show most of the crime among blacks is directed, then I will quit questioning your obvious bias.

You complain about Lieberman being put in blackface but didn’t you photoshop a roots photo with Hillary appearing to be black. http://rogerailes.blogspot.com/2006_07_30_rogerailes_archive.html#115470532732842777 Not sure what the nuance is there but I’m sure you will spend two or three thousand words telling me.

Bradky on May 15, 2007 at 7:58 AM

Do you ever get tired of being a dishonest, idiot, liberal stereotype? Seriously, you must know what you do? Look at your comments here, nothing but baiting based on your own strawmen. Half of what you’re talking about relates in no way to the discussion, the other half barely relates and it’s still full of strawmen. You literally raise no points because you’re not responding to anything I actually said.

As for the Hillary blackface photoshop… YA GOT ME! … OH WAIT… No you didn’t:

Why don’t you try READING the difference between what your liberal buddies meant with the lieberman blackface and what RW meant with the hillary black face?

csdeven on May 15, 2007 at 8:15 AM

Thanks csdeven. Baitky, if you had the brainpower of a 5 year old, you could have figured this out. Hillary, on MLK Jr. Day, in Harlem, at a Church with Al Sharpton spoke to a black audience (long before her recent “black voice” events) and in one of the most disgusting displays of pandering said that the Republicans were running Congress “Like a plantation! And you know what I’m talkin’ about!” The photoshop I created was in relation to her specific comments and wasn’t done in the form of the racist “blackface”, I simply made a visual of her pandering. She was comparing the fact that the Democrat minority couldn’t get their way to what slaves went through. She’s a disgusting human being for doing it, I simply made a photoshop with the pop-culture image of the cover of Roots, showing herher shackled and with darker skin. (learn the difference, start here)

Anyway Baitky, don’t you think it’s time you left this thread? You came in doing nothing but baiting and throwing out strawmen… Why are you still here? You’ve offered nothing to this discussion, and we’re all stupider for having read what you’ve said.

Chris Rock said the same thing. Even though f-bombs and n-words are included, it was still funny and all too true.

baldilocks on May 15, 2007 at 2:09 PM

Ha! That’s old, but still funny and true. I’ve seen that a number of times over the years.

“I take care of my kids!”

I’d agree, but if that were your point all along your first post would be unnecessary.

Nonfactor on May 15, 2007 at 12:05 PM

Because I continue to make the mistake that everyone put their big boy pants on today and thought I didn’t think I’d have to explain things like I was talking to a child. Somehow I figured you might be able to comprehend the point without it being broken down for you. But I know you did get the point, but you wanted to makes something out of nothing, so as a liberal it was your duty to do what you did. I understand, I know you guys take an oath of dishonesty and you do a marvelous job upholding that oath.

It is a product of environment, it’s not just black people, it just happens that more black people live in the inner cities than white people.

Nonfactor on May 15, 2007 at 12:05 PM

Exactly, so this is a problem that is far larger for the black community, which is what I’ve been saying.

RightWinged on May 15, 2007 at 12:20 AM

Chris Rock said the same thing. Even though f-bombs and n-words are included, it was still funny and all too true.

It all started with replacing Dad with Uncle Sam.

It’s really that simple.

reaganaut on May 15, 2007 at 12:17 AM

We have a winner.

It certainly comes off as racist.

The problem is that people like Cosby, Powell, Rice, even Obama, are accused of not being ‘authentically black’. They have conflated the name for the pigmentation with the subculture. Therefore, whenever you speak ill of the ‘black’ subculture, you’re a racist.

Aw, hell, anytime you advance a logical argument against a leftist, you’re a ‘racist’.

As I’ve REPEATEDLY said, it’s not their skin color causing them to do this.

Your entire points rest on the idea that it is their skin color that causes them to do this–the don’t snitch mentality of black youth and the sense of entitlement held by blacks. You’re doing a 180 now and pretending like you never brought up skin color.

“product of their environment”. And there’s an element of that, but when does that excuse expire?

It’s not an excuse it’s a description.

I’m just talking about how this behavior is all too common within the black community, and it stems for absent parents, etc.

RightWinged on May 15, 2007 at 5:23 AM

I’d agree, but if that were your point all along your first post would be unnecessary. What does the fact that the criminal was black have to do with anything? If he was white what would that change? What does it matter whether the witnesses were black or white? Does it change anything? It is a product of environment, it’s not just black people, it just happens that more black people live in the inner cities than white people. The point still stands that you’re trying to make this about race when it isn’t (and that couldn’t be any more emphasized when you assumed the race of the victim and onlookers).

And since you’re into the race reversals thing, if a white person committed grand theft auto or white people were looking on, would that be because of their “sense of entitlement” or their “don’t be a snitch” mentality?

STOP making race an issue

csdeven on May 15, 2007 at 7:52 AM

Woah. They’re not making race an issue; in many instances race is an issue, just not this one.

Aww that’s kind of sweet to run to his defense. Kind of a Brokeback moment I’d say.

Bradky on May 15, 2007 at 5:28 AM

I do find it fascinating that whenever a liberal cannot debate an issue, the first thing they do is start calling people gay. Makes me chuckle.

Do I have that right?

Bradky on May 15, 2007 at 8:20 AM

For you to suggest to a conservative that he should analyze issues like you moonbats do, is to ask him to shut half his brain off. Ain’t gonna happen.

If there’s justice in this world, the sleeze bucket will rot in jail.

csdeven on May 15, 2007 at 8:15 AM

Ah nuance. Glad you agreed with my first paragraph. Seems to be a theme among a few who get all riled up about black on white crime.

Liberal buddies? Not mine any more than those wonderful republicans at free republic. But pointing out double standards is a particular hobby of mine … and has no political loyalty. According to the link RW did try to disassociate himself from the picture. I report you decide!

And I’m sure you are a smart young man. I’d have a little more regard for your posts if you just left off the adjectives and labels and stuck to analyzing the points.

Bradky on May 15, 2007 at 7:58 AM

For a minute there I thought you had made a salient point, but alas, you have run back to the stupidity of liberalism.

Why don’t you try READING the difference between what your liberal buddies meant with the lieberman blackface and what RW meant with the hillary black face?

I’ll tell you why…..it’s because you are a misguided disengenuous liberal moonbat.

RightWinged on May 15, 2007 at 5:48 AM

The only time that you care about black criminals is when a white is being attacked, then it is the end of the world, “where is sharpton” “See double standard”, ad nauseum. The day I see you give a damn about black on black crime, where statistics show most of the crime among blacks is directed, then I will quit questioning your obvious bias.

You complain about Lieberman being put in blackface but didn’t you photoshop a roots photo with Hillary appearing to be black. http://rogerailes.blogspot.com/2006_07_30_rogerailes_archive.html#115470532732842777 Not sure what the nuance is there but I’m sure you will spend two or three thousand words telling me.