Lin-sanity: The chink in AAJA’s armor
I’ll get to the ridiculous AAJA “media coverage guidelines” on basketball star Jeremy Lin in a moment.
First, some background. I’ve been poking fun of the “Asian American Journalists Association” for more than a decade. The idea of color-coded journalism steeped in identity politics has always grated on my nerves. But no one does a better job of parodying AAJA than AAJA itself. As I reported after a 1999 “Unity of Color” journalist confab co-sponsored by AAJA:
Ignore the smoke screen platitudes about “valuing differences.” Unity demands unanimity. If you don’t accept the left-leaning agenda of advocacy journalism, you’re enabling racism. If you don’t support the pursuit of racial hiring goals as a primary journalistic goal, you’re selling out. If you don’t buy the idea that a first-generation Filipina should feel ethnic solidarity with a fourth-generation Japanese-American simply because they share the same hair and eye color, you’re denying your “identity.”
This pressure to bow and scrape before the false god of skin-deep diversity was overwhelming at two typical workshops I attended.
“Tracking Hatred” was a session on hate crimes and the media. The moderator, reporter Gary Fields of USA Today, gained national attention in 1996 with an extensive series on the purported epidemic of racist church-burnings in the South. After printing a year’s worth of Fields’ fear-inducing pieces claiming an increase in black-church burnings and blaming “a climate of racial hostility,” USA Today debunked the hate-crime conspiracy theory.
So did the president’s National Church Arson Task Force, the New Yorker, the Associated Press, and investigative reporter Mike Fumento, who noted the irony that “no media outlet in the country had done more than USA Today to build the myth in the first place.” Yet, no one at Unity ’99 questioned Fields’ authority.
The session was more of a late-night college gripefest than a professional forum on providing accurate news coverage. One panelist, Brian Levin, railed about critics on the “extreme right” who question the legitimacy of federal hate-crimes legislation. Reporters nodded approvingly. Levin, an activist academic whom Fields frequently quotes, glossed over the constitutional perils of punishing people for their personal biases or political beliefs. Instead of a coherent discussion on case law, participants shared dubious anecdotes.
When one news reporter complained that her editors wouldn’t let her write a story about an alleged hate crime against a personal friend, the panel expressed collective empathy without asking for any of the facts or noting the obvious conflict of interest. The session climaxed with an emotional appeal from Karen Narasaki, an Asian-American activist whose organization peddles an annual hate-crimes audit – which the panelists unanimously praised and distributed to the audience.
The second workshop was titled “How to Arrive, Thrive, and Survive as an Editorial Writer or Columnist.” I served on a panel with writers who were black, Hispanic and Native American. I was not there because the organizers had actually read my work before inviting me. I was there because my brown face – not my dissenting opinions – counted first.
My fellow panelists won hearty applause for ridiculing reverse discrimination and dissing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Calmly and civilly, I argued against ethnic pigeonholing and expressed my opposition to racial preferences. No cheers here.
…Treating minority journalists as trinkets to be tallied and displayed does not enhance diversity. It fosters cynicism. A newsroom that looks like America is worthless if it doesn’t reflect the diverse and discordant beliefs of its readers. Journalism doesn’t need more like-minded foot soldiers who march in political unity. It needs straight shooters who think fearlessly for themselves.
AAJA has made quite a business for itself mau-mau-ing everyone else to avoid ethnic and racial group-think, while it enforces that same very orthodoxy among its predominantly left-wing, Obama-worshiping membership. “Asian America” is itself a phony ethnic construct tying vastly different generations of immigrants, immigrant children, and grandchildren from across Asia and the Pacific Islands.
Now, the group is milking NBA sensation Jeremy Lin for all he’s worth. After pressuring ESPN to discipline two sports guys who used the phrase “chink in the armor,” the AAJA sensitivity police squad is back with a “handbook to covering Asian America.”
No kidding.
OUR GUIDELINES
Stop to think: Would a similar statement be made about an athlete who is Caucasian, African American or Latino? Use caution when discussing Lin’s physical characteristics, particularly those that feminize/emasculate the Asian male (Cinderella-story angles should not place Lin in a dress). Discussion of genetic differences in athletic ability among races should be avoided. In referring to Lin’s height or vision, be mindful of the context and avoid invoking stereotypes about Asians.
THE FACTS
1. Jeremy Lin is Asian American, not Asian (more specifically, Taiwanese American). It’s an important distinction and one that should be considered before any references to former NBA players such as Yao Ming and Wang Zhizhi, who were Chinese. Lin’s experiences were fundamentally different than people who immigrated to play in the NBA. Lin progressed through the ranks of American basketball from high school to college to the NBA, and to characterize him as a foreigner is both inaccurate and insulting.
…
3. Journalists don’t assume that African American players identify with NBA players who emigrated from Africa. The same principle applies with Asian Americans. It’s fair to ask Lin whether he looked up to or took pride in the accomplishments of Asian players. He may have. It’s unfair and poor journalism to assume he did.
4. Lin is not the first Asian American to play in the National Basketball Association. Raymond Townsend, who’s of Filipino descent, was a first-round choice of the Golden State Warriors in the 1970s. Rex Walters, who is of Japanese descent, was a first-round draft pick by the New Jersey Nets out of the University of Kansas in 1993 and played seven seasons in the NBA; Walters is now the coach at University of San Francisco. Wat Misaka is believed to have been the first Asian American to play professional basketball in the United States. Misaka, who’s of Japanese descent, appeared in three games for the New York Knicks in the 1947-48 season when the Knicks were part of the Basketball Association of America, which merged with the NBA after the 1948-49 season.
DANGER ZONES
“CHINK”: Pejorative; do not use in a context involving an Asian person on someone who is Asian American. Extreme care is needed if using the well-trod phrase “chink in the armor”; be mindful that the context does not involve Asia, Asians or Asian Americans. (The appearance of this phrase with regard to Lin led AAJA MediaWatch to issue statement to ESPN, which subsequently disciplined its employees.)
DRIVING: This is part of the sport of basketball, but resist the temptation to refer to an “Asian who knows how to drive.”
Both of the ESPN employees that AAJA targeted say they had no intention of offending. One of them is married to a woman of Asian descent. But even as it admonishes others to “be mindful” of “context,” AAJA chooses to ignore the context and intent of the supposed RAAAAAAACISM it decries.
Have there been truly tasteless jokes made about Lin?
But I contend that the p.c. overreaction and opportunism have been even more vulgar. Jeremy Lin is no victim and he doesn’t need the AAJA herd or anyone else to shield him.
If the Asian American Journalists Association has anyone to blame for the collective impulse to lump people together by race and ethnicity, look no further than the ideological agenda of AAJA itself.
I daresay its sanctimonious selective enforcement of sensitivity standards is the fatal chink in AAJA’s armor.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Who’s sorry now? Marion Barry’s life saved by Filipino nurses he despised
May 20, 2012 10:25 PM by Michelle Malkin
40 CommentsHigh school fined $15,000 for… selling soda pop during lunch
May 19, 2012 01:29 PM by Doug Powers
101 Comments
Bigoted anti-bigots: How the gay-marriage mob slimed Manny Pacquiao
May 18, 2012 08:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
116 Comments1997 Fordham Law Review article: Elizabeth Warren was Harvard’s ‘first woman of color’
May 15, 2012 11:38 PM by Doug Powers
83 Comments
Conservative consumers: Stand your ground
April 25, 2012 04:22 AM by Michelle Malkin
183 CommentsWhere’s the DOJ? Twitter lynch mob thirsts for Zimmerman’s blood
April 23, 2012 10:58 AM by Michelle Malkin
93 CommentsWaPo: Florida special prosecutor to charge George Zimmerman; Update: 2nd degree murder
April 11, 2012 02:28 PM by Doug Powers
302 CommentsDon’t do business with progressive appeasers
April 11, 2012 09:24 AM by Michelle Malkin
294 CommentsMediaTakeout.com embarrasses itself in attempt to paint me as a raaaaacist
April 10, 2012 08:42 PM by Michelle Malkin
65 Comments
Categories: Political Correctness,Race Hustlers,Race relations
JustOneMinute
» Barack, Youthful Leader!JustOneMinute
» Patterico And The Brett Kimberlin GangBabalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the Year
Oh, WE overreact and get confused?
I could care less about this particular topic. I didn’t even post on it until you showed up with your usual wild-eyed accusations of hypocrisy.
It is quite a stupid discussion, since Congress DID pass the DADT repeal, and the GOP and right leaning democrats had a chance to kill, but chose not to. I sent you a poll showing that 67% of Americans were in favor of the repeal. So your conjecture, that these members of Congress, with free mind and free will would have killed the bill months earlier than when they decided to let it pass, is patently ludicrous, and not based on any type of poll of the electorate or poll of members from Congress. It’s just something you made up. You’re like: “But the GOP was overwhelming against it, and many democratic members of the House where against it.” Yeah, and it still passed, when they had a chance to filibuster, or try to flood the media with propaganda, or generally raise holy hell. They did not. One could argue that it would have passed EASIER, earlier, because conservative members of Congress had bigger fish to fry upon the start of the session. I won’t make that argument, because I’m not you. I deal in facts. The bill passed fairly easily. I deal in facts. You deal in good ole’ Blackstone conjecture and made up BS. Sorry the repeal bothers you so much. Too dang bad.
Now answer my question.
“Off the cuff guess” is the same as saying a made up BS number, not based on any type of actual facts, that you pull out of you butt. The writer believes that FoxNews has a major ability to influence the way citizens think. You on the other hand, believe that the MSM has more influence than FoxNews, and can control the minds of the electorate. Newspapers are considered part of the MSM; the same MSM that you believe overrides alternative sources like FoxNews and the internet. The writer opined that people “don’t read newspapers”. The two of you have polar opposite opinions on the influence of FoxNews.
Blackstone, this is simple. Quit making a fool of yourself.
I don’t even think you’re an “idiot”. You just try so hard to be, and don’t know when to throw in the towel. This is becoming shameful.
Here is another important difference between you and the writer: he has the common sense and integrity to know that FoxNews is played in waiting rooms and various business establishments; further rebutting your absurd paranoia, victim mentality and blatant dishonesty.
Now answer my question. You fascinate me. You’re my new project.
I see your point, and I am one of the few lovers of track and field, still around. I used to run the 400 back in high school.
This will frustrate some of the folks here who think they have me figured out, but I don’t think the obsessive testing of Bolt has as much to do with stereotyping Jamaicans or bias against them.
I think it’s because, outside of cycling, track and field is the most PED tainted sport on the planet, in my opinion. So many stars over the years have turned out to be “dirty”. Bolt’s times are so amazingly fast, I think, fair or not, people just assume he is dirty. And there are many ways to “beat” the PED tests, and every day the PED business is designing newer and “better” HGH drugs to get around standard PED testing.
I think, even if Bolt were a caucasion American, he’d still be under a cloud of doubt and suspicion, because his times are so fast, in such a dirty sport.
Ota:
I’ve followed the sport for years and you’re right about it being “dirty”.
I should have made it a little clearer.
Your pride in President Obama can be compared to the pride that Jamaicans had and have for Bolt. You might not see that, but here he became a hero. In a country with so few prominent people Bolt became more than just a guy that runs track.
I’m not trying to put you in a “gotcha moment”, but like you’re sensitivity about and for Obama can be compared to the Jamaicans for Bolt. Again it’s Jamaica and not America. You’re not here.
Interesting you ran the 400. My youngest daughter is running the 400
this year, last year it was the 100. Her first meet is next month. She has a huge crush on Bolt. Teenage stuff you know?
Obama is just a typical shady politician. All politicias are shady. I just happen to favor him over the GOP, mainly for “social policy” reasons. I also take SCOTUS appointments extremely seriously. But I’m actually extremely conservative on matters like the War on Islamic terror. I’m in favor of domestic drilling. I strongly believe in the 2nd amendment. I don’t hate conservatives the way some here hate progressives. I’ve voted for republicans in some local elections over the years. I won’t lose any sleep if Romney kicks his butt.
I’ve predicted repeatedly that Romney will beat Obama in the general election, due to the economy and gas prices. I’m not afraid of losing my country or, um “re-education camps”, if Romney wins. I’m fascinated by the boiling over anger from both fringes that causes double standards and an “us vs. them” mentality.
But, I digress. I get your point. I’m sure Bolt is looked upon as a true national hero there. I hope his is clean.
Good luck to you and your daughter. The 400 is a tough, tough race. “Girl Power”!
Thanks Ota, I will pass that on to her.
I’m with you on the “shady” politicians. All of them are.
Hating progressives is going a little to far for me. Most of the time I say to myself, “do you really believe that will work”?
As I’ve stated before to you violence is not the way to go. I know, I’ve been there and not for political reasons.
I’ve taught and teach my 3 kids how to defend themselves, and never start a fight, but to always be prepared, ALWAYS.
We’ll have disagreements in the future here, but I wish you good luck too.
It was based on the fact that the overwhelming majority of those I interact with don’t show any signs of paying attention to poltics or public policy or anything like that. It was not an assertion, which most normal people would be clued into by the way it followed the words “probably about”. It was just conjecture. But I’m willing to bet it’s a fairly large number, whatever it is.
Well that’s a good little way of weaseling out of the fact that he explicitly used the word “HYPNOSIS”. You can’t characterize my views as “mind control” (even though I never said those words) and then let him off the hook for saying the same thing. Not gonna work.
There is absolutely no difference in what he’s saying and what I’m saying, except for what we’re citing as the source of the influence on people’s minds. No other difference whatsoever.
You say that like that’s some sort of admission on his part. That’s his thesis. You can’t “admit” to what it is you’re trying to argue.
Ahhh, yes. Thank you.
Yeah, you believe the MSM has “mind control” over the electorate, and the writer believes that FoxNews may have “mind control” over the electorate.
In that since, you’re both two fringe folk on opposite sides of the same coin. You’re both paranoid, and are want to blame some faction of the media, when votes or poll answers, done by free-thinking Americans, don’t go your way.
Me, I don’t blame ANY media source. Citizens have multiple media options for information. I’m not the one blaming election results and legislation on the media’s “hypnosis” or “mind control”. You never once see me blame ANY media source on the 2010 results. I’m a grown-up, and I know that other grown-ups have free mind and free will to make voting decisions. There are countless media sources, and if folks don’t care to “investigate”, oh well. I’m not one to whine like a victim and blame any type of source in the media, if an election or legislation doesn’t go my way. I’m also not the one pulling numbers out of my butt, through conjecture or otherwise.
Sigh, his thesis concerns what effect FoxNews being played in business establishments, has on the voting habits of the electorate.
He’s not trying to argue or prove the fact that FoxNews is played or shown, he’s arguing about the effect it has on the public, since it IS played and shown in various business establishments.
The fact that FoxNews is played in business establishments, is a fact established as known and understood by any reader with honesty and common sense. Sorry if you’re at the “may God strike me dead” stage.
The fact that FoxNews is played in some American business establishments is a fact, and one understood by anyone who doesn’t feel the need to lie, or quibble about obvious matters.
What I love about my exchanges with you, is this is EXACTLY the type of interactions I have with teenagers when I tutor them, in preparation for the reading section of the SAT.
If you need similar help, my rates and information can be found on Wyzant.
Now answer my question
Good, so then why on God’s green earth would you cite him as a source for factual information if that’s the opinion you have of him?
Even those who’ve never come across it in a waiting room, ever? Do they understand this? Such people do exist, by the way. You’re conversing with one.
Funny, that’s exactly the impression I’ve been having of you, given your propensity for harping on side points and blowing them up, caricaturing them into strawmen, and then beating up on those strawmen. It’s a sophomoric tactic that seems to be rubbing off on you quite well.
Your obsession with the 75% thing is a perfect example. I experience life, I draw likely conclusions from it, I state what those are in a way that makes it clear that it’s just an informal estimate, and you act like I’ve just tried to give court testimony under oath, and give me this whole melodrama about “lying” or whatever. Because it’s so much easier than backing up your argument.
So let’s say you cite an opinion poll about some issue. You say the poll is a fact. No doubt it is. But that does not mean it’s also a fact that this will reflect how people will actually vote when given the opportunity. If that’s what you’re asserting, then you need to back that up. I was just pointing out likely reasons for why it’s probably not true, but it’s not up to me to disprove your assertions. It’s up to you to prove them.
Yay!
Oh Blackstone, honey, you’re so predictable. You’ve been waiting a couple days to write that foolishness.
See, just because I disagree with the final theory of a paranoid loon, doesn’t mean I’d discount an obvious underlying fact.
If a loon such as yourself were a blogger, and you wrote a column about illegal Haitian immigrants working in kitchens across the country, I may discount your final theory or hypothosis, but that doesn’t mean I’d say illegal Haitian immigrant kitchen workers don’t exist; even though I’ve never personally encountered an illegal immigrant Haitian worker.
Nah, unlike you, I’d take somebody’s word for the obvious fact that there are illegal Haitain workers in kitchens across the country.
So, yeah, even loons can have accurate underlying facts, with a ludicrous final theory, based on those facts.
One may disagree about man-made global warming, without having a dispute about whether men ever burn tires, despite the fact that a person never actually seen someone burn a tire.
I only linked the article as an example of another person, and a couple in the comments section (if it shows on your page), who know that FoxNews is sometimes played in business establishments.
You’re a trip. lol
I’m still giggling about your last point in #207, when you infer that you think the author was trying to prove a thesis that FoxNews is played in business establishments. That’s basic reading comprehension, and it really is similar to a simple SAT-type question.
Next, if you pull a number out of your a$$, to make a point, I’m going to call you on it. It goes to your lack of credibilty and overall lazy mind. You tend to make up facts. Your point is negated by the phony number, and by your failure to supply in non-phony evidence to back your point up.
Uh, back to reality. You’re the one’s making points, and failing to prove them. You seem to fail at logic, as much as you fail a reading comprehension.
You made an point about FoxNews/conservative programming. It’s disproved by my personal knowledge and the article I linked. If you think all of the sources are lying, for whatever reason, your point can be disproved by driving to random doctor’s offices in your city, and counting the waiting rooms that show FoxNews.
Your DADT point is your burden, because you’re soooo certain it wouldn’t have passed after the election and use words like “I damn well, know” . I’ve argued counter points to YOUR theory, but neither point can be “proven” without a time-machine, and the ability to enter the bodies of relevant Congressmen like “Freaky Friday”. lol
You’re permitted your own opinion, just not your own facts.
You made the assertion, and it’s simply not provable or disprovable. I’ve just poked holes(poll #s, actual easy passage) in your theory, while being bemused by your “psychic-like” conviction and certitude, in a position that’s not provable or disprovable.
This is hilarious.
Now, explain to me why you feel the need to “prove” yourself to a so-called Marxist. You fascinate me. I can bring up a random point you made 7 months ago, and you go through mental gymnastics and frustation in trying to explain or prove yourself.
Some members here ignore so-called trolls. You not only engage, you spend hours arguing trivial matters and semantics, with phony facts and willfull ignorance. I’m guilty of morbid curiosity, and I’ve working on a book about conservative blogs. What makes YOU tick?
BTW, I’m placing the over/under of this thread on March 2nd, and I tend to lean toward the over. I’m fascinated.
By the way, why on earth do you think MLK would likely be a republican today, despite evidence of his near-Communist ideology, and his being flattered by his receipt of the Margaret Sanger award?
lmbo
Would you cite me as evidence to this effect?
Go for it if it makes you feel happy. But since I already “called” myself “on it” by making it clear that it was just an estimate, you’re not really adding anything to the discussion.
On the other hand, if you make up your own rules of logic, I will definitely call you on it. An example of that would be you pretending that a poll result on one issue will predict election results.
The 75% thing had nothing to do with how Republicans would have voted on the issue. We know what their position on the issue is. At least any observer with a smidgen of common sense does. Obviously that doesn’t include you, so there’s no point in wasting time on that one.
Speaking of pulling facts out of your azz. You must have gotten that one from the same part of your rectum where you claimed that I was showing “fake outrage” about the whole lipstick thing, even though you couldn’t even cite a single post I allegedly made to that thread.
I love how you leave multiple points alone, where you’ve already been made to look foolish. That is for the best.
I know. You’re confusing your various silly and baseless positions.
By the way, THAT, is a strawman. I’ve already conceded the GOP position- multiple times. It’s just irrelevant since the bill was passed and your theory on timing is baseless and otherwise not capable of being proved or disproved.
Now you’re lying again.
All the poll shows is another factual point against your unprovable theory, nothing more, nothing less. I deal in facts. I don’t predict hypothetical and imaginary votes. That’s your role. I damn well know that. lol. The facts are Congress passed the bill without too much butt-hurt, and a recent poll shows that 67% supported a repeal. I’m just citing facts, nothing more, nothing less. You’re the, ahem, conjecture guy.
God knows you’d be citing the poll if it said 33%
You’re getting weary, and confusing agreement with tone, with fake “outrage”. You’re getting loopy. Uh-oh. I may be leaning towards the “under”.
Yay, now we get to discuss MLK again. Tell me more about this pro-life man, who would be appalled with black abortions today, proudly accepting and being complimentary of the Sanger award.
I’m shooting for the over. BTW, can you please link me a pic. I need to put the bizarre “awesomeness” that is Blackstone, to some type of image. This is surreal.
I love you.
MLK: There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist — a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.
So that wasn’t you predicting that Santorum would lose to Obama? That was someone else I remember?
Still no quote from me on that thread. You were caught telling a blatant falsehood about fake outrage, then when called on it started in with another falsehood that only the liberals on the thread were arguing that he wasn’t being malicious (at this point you had a link to the thread readily available to you), so now you’re trying to save face by making some incoherent point about “tone”. Just face it: you were wrong about the thread, and wrong about my position on the matter.
OK, I’ll humor you. He was talking about contraception. At the time he spoke, abortion was still practically a taboo subject.
Yeah, that was me. I should have been specific and told you that I don’t predict hypotheticals based on alternate “possibilities” of past action- your bag. Facts are facts; even if the actual facts and results turn you into a sad and frustrated panda. I don’t do woulda couldas about the 2010 election, even though it was bad for my party. I’ll predict the future, for craps and giggles- The Miami Heat will win the NBA title this year. Romney will win the nomination. Romney will beat Obama. Blackstone will finish up some miscellaneous thread with me sometime in September.
Wrong, bubba.
You either forgot or are purposely not recalling that I ADMITTED, that I exaggerated “outrage” and missed the relevant quote you found. I recall that thread being clearly partisan with so-called “trolls” defending Obama, and Malkinites largely condemning him, and acting like he was calling Palin a pig. That’s uh, the way stuff goes around here; a rare, rare exception not withstanding After that, even you admitted MM’s different tone and gave “excuses” of why she read Obama’s mind one way, but read Federico’s mind another way, or at the very least, clearly, gave Obama a harder time. That’s just obvious. You two act like you KNOW Federico meant no harm. And you said you agree with her. Those are facts. You did agree with MM’s tone or slant. I think her tone or slant is completely politically motivated. That’s her right. It’s her partisan blog . I just call BS. Feel free to click “older comments”. lol.
To take your “under oath” gag further, you’ve just been impeached with a prior statement. lol
That’s HUMOROUS alright. Abortion was “taboo” but it was sure known about and carried out. MLK was no naive fool. If he was that offended by abortions, I doubt he would have had a damn thing to do with Sanger and her “evil” award, from a “baby killer”. Hell, Roe v. Wade was just 7 years later, and based on a fact pattern that began in 1969. I’m sure MLK knew what was going on in Sanger’s clinics.
I’ll let you off the hook on MLK, because you didn’t blatantly lie about that one. You showed your 2% humility and admitted that perhaps you were being wishful and biased.
Most fringe conservatives just blatantly claim that MLK would be a republican today, and ignore clear evidence to suggest otherwise.
Ahhhhhh. I just did a shot.
Love it.
What is your racial/ethnic background? I need more info. This is awesome.
Make any predictions you like or assertions you like. Just be prepared to back them up if you want to be taken seriously. You tried to back up that particular one by pointing to poll results on one minor issue, which I called you on for its illogical reasoning.
You can jump up and down all you like and keep saying “But it’s a fact!” but that doesn’t mean it’s a terribly relevant fact.
After which you continued to double down on your falsehoods. You said, “you mindless scumbags spent the rest of the thread opining that Obama was calling Palin a pig”. That is simply an untrue statement. Trying to weasel out of it by talking about the tone isn’t going to work.
But you’re right, I did give a detailed explanation accounting for the difference in tone, which you didn’t rebut. You just moved on to the next inane point.
By the way, I’m still interested in hearing your “excuse” for why it’s reasonable to take Federico’s comment as a personal dig but not Obama’s.
No, I’m saying I have no reason to believe otherwise. It’s very simple: those charging racial motivation in his comments should be the ones to back that up. That burden is not met when there’s no history of racial animus on Federico’s part that anyone can point to, nor anything fishy about his explanation or unusual about his choice of words.
You, on the other hand, immediately passed judgment on him. You called him a jackass without knowing anything about the guy.
Based on what, if I may ask? You mentioned something about a “pattern of facts” that began in 1969, 3 years after he accepted the award and one year after he was killed. Sanger herself spoke against abortion, as did Planned Parenthood around that time.
How much did he know about her or her organization anyway? Did he know she was a racist who played footsie with the KKK?
Woot. Dance monkey, dance. What do you tell your family about this thread? I thought you said I was a Marist troll. Dance!
My boy is back to lying again. Here is one of many mindless scumbags right here:
Dummy this your assertion. YOUR matter of fact statement. You can’t prove it, and all I’ve done is tell you can’t prove it, and give FACTS to poke holes in YOUR stupid assertion.
Blackstone(apparently stoned):
And you know damn well that it wouldn’t have passed at all had it been voted on by the Congress that the American people had just elected. There’s nothing “overwhelming” about that.
Liar or ignorant? Which one are you? I never PREDICTED anything. You did and said I “damn well” should know that it wouldn’t have passed closer to the start of the term. You can’t wrap your mind around the fact that YOU can’t PROVE that. That was your assertion and your burden. The poll, just pokes further holes in your unprovable and frankly, bizarre, assertion. Blackstone, why do you lie? You just can’t let your DADT idiocy go. The poll doesn’t predict anything. It’s a FACT that pokes further holes in your theory. I don’t know how an earlier vote would have gone. You know why, because it’s irrelevant. Maybe it would not have passed, maybe it would have passed easier. Maybe Obama and Cantor would have gotten drunk one night talking about it, and made passionate love. It’s only relevant to you, Mr. “damn well know”. You say that you KNOW. You’re a joke.
If I rebutted every stupid point you made, I’d have to quit my job. The convention speech is irrelevant, and stealing the word “lipstick” from that speech, doesn’t mean he was calling the woman a pig, any more than Federico using “chink on the armor” after a new Asian starter for the Knicks had many articles written about him, and spoke of being called racial slurs related to his play, since his Harvard days.
Federico is a jacka$$ if he intentionally used the slur, and he was a jacka$$ for not using better editorial judgement, if it was a conincidence.
MM has her slant, plainly for political reasons. You follow her, because you’re shallow. None of us can read minds.
Probably. You may disagree, but I think MLK was a brilliant and well-read man. He seemed to focus on the “good” that Sanger did. It’s sort of like how Reagan treated the Aparthied sponsoring South Africa in the 80s. One can give countles examples of strange alliances over the years. The concept may be lost on you.
Dude, pro-choice people aren’t pro-abortion, they are pro-choice. i.e wanting the option available as opposed to ENCOURAGING them. lol. You’re weak.
Oh yeah, again, since I know MLK to be a brilliant and well-read man, and since you stupidly seem to think that since the Roe case’s fact pattern starting in 1969, means abortions started in 1969(God U. are Stupid), maybe take a journey back to the late 50′s and early 60′s, just to keep the time-frame relevant keep up your stupidity and denial.
I’m making progress. I’ve evolved from a panda to a monkey.
You having trouble reading your own statement? You didn’t say that there were some who were opining that he called her a pig. You said that we (like, including me, somehow) spent the rest of the thread arguing this. Some did, some didn’t.
Oh. My. God. I mean, I know you have a faulty memory, but you’re seriously telling me you can’t remember what you just wrote in your previous post? That’s what I was responding to, not the thing about the DADT vote in Congress (you already conceded what the near-unanimous GOP position is on that anyway, so I don’t even know what the hell you’re still arguing about there).
So…innocent in both cases, or jackass in both cases?
OK, kids, time to play “Spot the Irony”.
So Dr. King was into realpolitik, huh? Even to the point where he allowed himself to be silenced? Not even any record of a private misgiving?
Intelligent and well-read people can still see only what they want to see. He no doubt was well-read about the things that interested him, but that doesn’t mean he was any better than anybody else at making himself see the whole truth about something he happened to be enamored with.
Sanger called abortion “a disgrace to civilization”. But she wanted it available!
OK, actually there’s not a single inkling from her that she had the slightest disagreement with the stringency of abortion laws as they existed during her lifetime. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
If the purpose of your link was to demonstrate that not only was Planned Parenthood performing abortions by 1966, but that it was a publicly available fact that they were, it contains no statement to either effect.
You clearly need to read the link again.
And spend some time on Google, and research when PP started performing abortions. If you think it was “secret” until after MLK’s death, there’s no help for your denial.
Yeah, and since abortions were being performed for centuries, and absolutely in America during the the 1st half of the century through 1966, maybe MLK was not so concerned about this action, to the point where he wanted to refuse the award named after, racist Margaret Sanger. Like many public and political figures, strange “bedfellows” is very common. When Muhammad Ali was much younger, he spoke AT Klan rallies, about how the black and white race should be kept apart. Look it up. MLK’s words speak for what he feels about Sanger’s services, and her record speaks for itself.
You are strangely “obtuse” if you think I’m talking about 100% of all posts. The mindless scumbags who decided that Palin was called a pig, just happen to be Malkin-ites. I didn’t see any Malkin-ites on this thread showing any empathy about the feelings of the AAJA. And MM’s difference in tone is clear.
Federico is more of a jacka$$ than Obama, because assuming either the “best” or “worst” of how things could be interpreted, a slur directed at a race of people is more offensive, than a slur directed at one individual.
What’w worse, calling First Lady Obama a shady pig, or calling him an uppity ni….?
I’ll post it below, and what I predicted before is that Obama would beat Santorum in the election. That has nothing to do with polls, or past actions, or you “damn well” knowing some alternative, retro, prediction that you CANNOT prove. So yeah, here is what I wrote. This is too easy:
I think I’m over writing about your
Now tell me, how do you explain this thread to your family. What is your racial makeup. How old are you?
Heh. So this is how it ends. With you running out of cards to lay down.
No more than you thinking I claimed that there isn’t a single waiting room anywhere in the country where Fox is played. But I was just going by your rules of interpretation. If you want to read my posts with extreme literality, don’t be throwing a snit when the same thing gets done to you.
So why would you have to “twist your head into a pretzel” to go with the “worst” option in the case of Obama, but not in the case of Federico? It’s not like you haven’t had ample opportunity to exlain this.
Oh, they’re about to disown me for daring to question whether Planned Parenthood performed abortions prior to 1967 and made it public knowledge. That’s a pretty major heretical offense in their religion. Speaking of which:
That seriously the best you can do? You’ve posted link after link purporting to back up your position in this discussion, and if you had one that simply stated that they were performing abortions during this period you’d have laid it on the table by now.
I, on the other hand, quoted Sanger denouncing it in scathing terms that left no room for any interpretation that she thought it should be made available as an option. I also showed you PP’s own pamphlets at the time describing as abortion as “kill[ing] the life of the baby”. In case you really need to be clued in to this, that is not how the pro-abortion (excuse me, “pro-choice”) crowd describes abortion. No organization in its right mind would go around calling itself a bunch of baby-killers.
You’re spent, bub. I knew it would only be a matter of time.
Good luck with the “book”, by the way.
You ever heard of a person’s words, not matching their actions? You take the words of a racist eugenics proponent, over her actual legacy?
One link I posted showed PP hiring a pro-choice doctor as early as 1962. Colorado had abortion available in 1963. Some states had laws allowing some abortions in the late 50′s. You either can’t read, or choose not to read.
I’ll be sure to add your thoughts on the “pro-life”, Sanger, next time MM does a thread about her, just like I’ll add your words on “doctors for Obamacare”, on the next Obamacare thread. But you’re the same guy who thought that Huffpo writer had a thesis that FoxNews existed in waiting rooms. Unbelievable.
Why do you take time out of your day to respond to, and lie to, a so-called Marxist. I find it to be fascinating.
Like your lies and idiocy about the DADT
posts, it’s been explained away too much already. See the previous two posts. Or ignore and lie about it. Whatever gets your rocks off.
I’m hardly in a snit. lol. You talk in absolutes. You say FoxNews isn’t shown in waiting rooms, you make assertions about unprovable prior scenarios, you make up facts and numbers, you purposely lie about previous posts, when you’ve clearly lost an argument, you take on the claims of the fringe left (doctors for Obamacare), or just drown in willful denial,(the brilliant MLK would accept an award without knowing the policies of the person it’s named after).
You are absolutely, utterly, fascinating. I’ve chose “you” for a reason. You fascinate with how you stifle your basic intelligence, by being painfully stubborn and willfully dishonest. And you’ve called me a “Marxist” troll; meaning you don’t really know what the term means.
What makes YOU tick. I’ve been reading about and writing about RW bloggers for years. I would ask why you lie so much, but that could be a sign of mental illness. I’d really like to know, why do you find me, an alleged Marxist troll, so worth spending time on.
You work ( I assume), live your life with family and friends, and then you ponder what some alleged “Marxist toll” has to say. You sign on, read and respond. I know why I care. Why do you care?
Age?
Race?
Where do you live?
Yup, I knew you’d try to fall back on that idiocy. Of course I don’t believe that that evil witch was telling us her true feelings on the matter, any more than her outfit was when they released that pamphlet. I’m saying that was the public image they wanted to promote at the time, so if they were performing abortions, they weren’t exactly shouting it from the rooftops.
Read it and weep, fool.
Coming for someone with your pitiful level of reading comprehension, that’s practically a compliment.
Because it’s fun watching you collapse under the weight of your own puffed up overcockiness.
A head of Planned Parenthood in 1962 was an adamant pro-choice doctor. Your lying a$$ read that and ignored it. Some states started legalizing abortion in the late 50′s, and on through 1966 and beyond. Those numbers you link are not worth the paper they’re written on, and you admitted as much in your last most. And to think that the politically connected and well-read MLK didn’t know what many others have known, and take into account the effing head being a “safe” abortion proponent, you’re so laughably dishonest and pathetic.
And don’t back-peddle off of your Sanger claims, just because I promised to rub your nose in it of future treads. Maintain the courage of your “convictions”. Convictions? Oh yeah, don’t have any. smdh
Basic projection from a guy who doesn’t know how to recognize a thesis. lol. At least I’m honest.
Cockiness because I’ve been toying with you. lol. I guess.
There’s been no “collapse”. You type some pathetic, ignore your lies and omissions, and claim a “win”. Typical. lol. Your past few posts have grown increasingly absurd. It pains you to be exposed by a so-called Marxist troll.
I’ve chosen YOU, because I’ve seen hints of intelligence stifled by partisan ideology, stubbornness, and abject core dishonesty.
Now, since we’ve reached the “over”, tell me your:
Age?
Race/Ethnicity?
Where do you live?
This is really pathetic. Quote him in 1962 expressing these pro-choice opinions you speak of. The fact that he had these positions doesn’t mean he spoke of them publicly right from the beginning.
For all I know, the current leadership of PP may favor post-natal euthanasia, but don’t expect them to be flashing that in neon lights anytime soon.
Here’s your awful reading comprehension showing up again. I admitted absolutely no such thing.
You really are as dippy as they come. Pointing out that I wasn’t saying what you imagined I said isn’t backpedaling in the slightest. Feel free to quote me in future threads all you like, but you’ll only be making a total fool out of yourself if you try to tell everyone that just because I quoted her I believed her.
You still trying to make an issue out of that? Maybe I should start harping on your spelling errors and pretend that they say something about your intellingence.
Or, I could just point out that far more clueless than my misuse of the word “thesis” in that post was your misuse of the word “admitted” in the post it was in response to.
But you don’t see me harping on petty things like that. Know why? Because I have actual points to make. So I don’t need to fall back on these kinds of idiotic tactics in order to prove something.
Now, you accuse me of inventing facts, but that’s exactly what you’re doing when it comes to Planned Parenthood’s history. You have not a scintilla of evidence of PP-provided abortions in the 1960′s, and evidence to the contrary provided to you, but you keep “stubbornly, dishonestly” clinging to your fantasy.
Oh yea, you’ve done plenty of “exposing”. Just not what you think.
So MLK will accept the Sanger award in 1966, from the organization she founded, with a pro-choice president, when PP having a legacy of supporting abortion rights is known even by YOU. But for some reason, YOU have insight that King didn’t have at the time, the same King who gladly accepted the award.
LOL. Ok.
Maybe you weren’t sober or otherwise lucid, but you’ve admitted that you don’t believe Sanger or PP’s claims of not advocating and practicing abortions services. You made a big “thing” about it:
Of course I don’t believe that that evil witch was telling us her true feelings on the matter, any more than her outfit was when they released that pamphlet.
So you’re quoting someone, and you don’t even believe her assertion. I don’t believe, her, now YOU say you don’t believe her, and somehow, MLK, who is brighter, more poltically connected and was around during that exact same time, was somehow stupid enough to believe her? Only in your world Blackstone. I have a higher opinion of King than you do.
It’s not “petty” at all. It goes to your basic character and desire to make up facts (hypotheical DADT votes, %s). I’ve seen your facts and “evidence”. And I’ve been especially bemused by your quoting of “evidence”, that you yourself don’t even believe. You seem to think that King is dumber than either you or I, and would blindly believe public claims, that non-brilliant thinkers like you and I reject.
You’re a beauty.
Age?
Race?
Where do you live?
Except that that legacy had not yet begun by 1966, or even by 1968, at least according to any evidence whatsoever that you’ve been able to cite. That’s what doesn’t seem to be getting from one neuron to another in your brain. The legacy you speak of had yet to come. You and I have the benefit of hindsight that King did not.
Are you even getting this concept at all? Man, this is like trying to teach algebra to a monkey.
Here’s a clue for the clueless boy: There’s far more compelling evidence that the current Congress would have voted against repealing DADT than that Planned Parenthood ever publicly advocated for the loosening of abortion restrictions during the lifetime of Martin Luther King, Jr. (regardless of what their leadership may have opined quietly amongst themselves behind closed doors)
Your BS about the timing of the DADT vote is without a doubt the most asinine, unprovable, and pointless BS I’ve seen from a rightist on this blog. And I’ve read Redpill. The repeal PASSED..EASILY…LITTLE FUSS. NO FILIBUSTER…LITTLE DRAMA. You’re a nut, who wastes time making retro-predictions on things that can’t be proven one way or another. Good ole Blackstone, trying to predict unprovable theories again. Sorry DADT still sticks in you crack. Learn to love it, because the repeal ain’t going anywhere. This, ahem, argument of yours is when I knew you were the most compelling loon on this blog. It tells so much about you. You have no idea….
LOL. Unbelievable. Sanger’s legacy started when she was a public figure, espousing racist theories, and soliciting black ministers to reduce black reproduction. I already gave your dumba$$ that link.
The legacy was being established when a pro-choice PP president took over in 1962, and founded a study on abortions in 1964, while more and more states loosened abortions restrictions.
MLK was freaking THERE during that time, and he wasn’t as stupid as you seem to infer. He still decided to accept the Sanger award and spoke well of PP.
You really showed how pure and utter garbage your argument is by writing:
Of course I don’t believe that that evil witch was telling us her true feelings on the matter, any more than her outfit was when they released that pamphlet.
And then you start opining that a brilliant man like MLK, who was THERE, and knew more black ministers, politicians, advocates, historians, doctors and journalists, than you can build a time machine and try to poll, can’t hold similar insight.
MLK was well-read, and politically connected. You think there wasn’t talk of Sanger’s true feelings and her outfit, during that time? Maybe he thought she was a “reformed” racist. Maybe he thought it’s more important to reduce the number of unwanted black babies, than worry about the how
Maybe MLK was as stupid as you infer, and he thought Sanger was pro-life, and PP was pro-life, despite her history, the feelings of the then PP president, and the wave of loosening abortion restrictions leading up to 1966. Maybe you really think MLK was really that naive and stupid, and didn’t know what WE know, though he was freaking there. And KNEW people who KNEW her.
Maybe, maybe, maybe- but I know this. He happily accepted the Sanger award. The same Sanger that you say:
Of course I don’t believe that that evil witch was telling us her true feelings on the matter, any more than her outfit was when they released that pamphlet.
Your whole “existence” on this blog, is just a desperate mess of how you want things to be.
I know you wish DADT wasn’t repealed.
I know you wish MLK didn’t accept the Sanger award, which fell in line with a mountain of leftist acts and positions that even your stubborn ass conceded in the past.
I know you wish you knew how to recognize a thesis.
I know you wish you knew why you will indefinitely respond to what you call “a Marist troll”.
It’s because you’re my monkey, my project. And by watching you step back in the absurdity of your DADT obsession, I must say that you continue to fascinate. Tell your family hi, and that I’m sorry for distracting you. It is what it is. Dance!
You’re a beauty.
Age?
Race?
Where do you live?
Then I’m in good company, because you do the same thing. Go back to the MLK thread where this subject first came up. You were making “retro-predictions” about what King would do, right along with everyone else. In fact, I was probably the only person on that thread who was as cautious as I was in my “what-iffing”. You were plenty more adamant than I was in your conclusionmaking.
And let’s not forget this:
You, me, and your “God” knows that even if McCain picked a safe “RINO”- Crist, Spector, Thompson, Pawlenty, Santa Clause- you still would have gotten off your collective a$$eS, and voted against the ultra liberal, young community organizer, with no executive experience, with fears of Muslim ties, and coming from a racist black church.
Hmm, sounds an awful lot like a “retro-prediction on things that can’t be proven one way or another”. So what kind of a nut does that make you?
Another lame Ota tactic bites the dust.
And I bet you wonder why you keep getting slammed for having zero reading comprehension. I was referring to PP’s legacy of abortion, not Sanger’s racism. Can you point to a single quote from Sanger, Planned Parenthood, or its leadership making any sort of public advocacy for loosening abortion restrictions prior to about 1970? Just one? Even one that so much as obliquely suggests it? I didn’t think so.
In fact, let me help you out a little. Regarding this “pro-choice” leader you speak of, Alan Guttmacher, here’s a glowing bio of him from his own namesake institute. See all the stuff he said about abortion? Neither do I. Again, it’s something he was obviously very careful not to be too loud about.
I never said he couldn’t. I said it was not inevitable that he did. It is you who keeps making assumptions about what he “must” have been like, although you’ve provided little evidence to back it up beyond vague talk about him being “well read” and such.
So what evidence is there? Consider the case of Stanley Levison. He was a very close associate of King, and was also quite active in the leadership of the U.S. Communist Party, with its close ties to the USSR. Now presumably (one would hope), the USSR was the very antithesis of what Martin “Let Freedom Ring” King believed in. But did he really bring himself to see that fact? Or was he unwilling to face facts that brought him outside his own comfort zone? You may have a hard time fathoming this, but even intelligent folks can succumb to that.
And let’s not forget what this discussion is about: whether King’s acceptance of Sanger’s award meant that he had no problem with legalizing abortion. Let’s say he was aware of PP’s support for that, despite their studied attempts to make it appear otherwise at the time. What does that prove? You’ve already opined that he was “probably aware” of Sanger’s racism. But that doesn’t mean he approves of racism just because he received an award named after her. So likewise, if he was (unlike most Americans at the time) aware of PP’s pro-abortion pedigree, that does nothing to show that he he didn’t regard those views with just as much revulsion as he regarded racism.
At least I know the meaning of the word “admitted”. Good luck to you in rectifying that situation.
I understand it just fine. He admitted/submitted/explained that FoxNews is played in waiting rooms. Something you denied, for some strange reason. Lies or willful ignorance on your part, as always. I just saw FoxNews in the lobby a few days ago, when I got my oil changed too. lol. Now tell me about his thesis. Give it another try. Read the whole thing again. I’m on Wyzant if you need me.
You take one bio and deduce that MLK didn’t know anything about this doctor’s feelings about abortion. I linked to the PP site earlier, and they explained Guttmacher’s legacy on the matter.
It’s funny. You’re so damn certain that MLK didn’t know of the legacy of PP and Sanger, but yet YOU know it. You seem to have NPD. You can’t get around that. Give it up. You look stupid. All of your talk of “behind closed doors” and “careful not to be too loud” doesn’t change the facts that even YOU know about it. Yet MLK just can’t know, what YOU know. Ooookay. You’re a joke.
And oh yeah, sorry, but MLK WAS a commie sympathizer. Even the Kennedys had concerns about that. So, take you “freedom ring” and take another trip around the web, while your false image of MLK causes you to break out in tears, and kick rocks.
I’m flattered that you’r so obsessed with me, that you’ll look up my posts on months old threads.
Apples and peaches. The members here can tell me their opinion of what they would have and not have done. I can believe it or not, based on their posts.
Find me a bill killing number of congressmen that stated they would not have voted for the DADT repeal close to the beginning of the 2010 term. It’s a such a loony claim, and completely baseless. At least I can base my opinions on RW hatred of Obama, and typical strong GOP turnout. You take an issue, that conservatives in Washington clearly didn’t give much an eff about, by letting the repeal pass, and just make up what would have happen sooner. Of all the topics and issues on this blog, that’s the one you come back to, one that your idol MM never even blogged about on the eve of passage. It’s a Blackstone “thing”. You’re amazing.
You can try to read minds of congressmen, make up facts and percentages, and all it shows is that you’re a bitter loon- and likely a closet case(so that’s why I call you beauty..American Beauty). Sorry the DADT repeal weighs on your mind so much. Get some help for that.
That’s not retro, dummy. It’s an unprovable hypothetical of what party MLK would vote for today, if KIng had lived. As I can remember you stateting on that King Day thread, “I make my case pretty well”. You’re damn right I did, like I always do, my dear sweet monkey. His acceptance of the Sanger award is just another factor that supports my argument, in the unprovable hypothetical. It’s you conservatives that try to claim MLK by stating: “but, but, he was a registered republican.”
I’ll call folks out on that idiocy every time, until you get sick of reading it, because, as you ADMIT, I make my case pretty well. Thanks, my monkey.
Yep and that link concerning her solicitation of black ministers I gave my monkey, Blackstone, earlier, mentioned her true feelings about abortion.
Nice try projecting your reading comprehension issues on me, Blackstone. That’s your bag. I can give you some memory tips, too. Go to Wyzant. xo
Gawd this keeps kicking you in the nads. It’s irrelevant, because you and I both admit that PP and Sanger were really abortion proponents. Do you read what you write?:
You just seem to think that MLK was naive and/or an idiot
I just know he accepted the Sanger award, the same chick who’s legacy speaks for itself.
Good you’re weak. And sooooooo strange. Next time somebody calls me a useless “troll” who needs to stop coming around here, I’ll point to this thread, and how good ole’ Blackstone, captivated by being my monkey on a daggum 2-week old thread.
Introduce me to you woman or man, so they know who you’re cheating on them with.
You’re my favorite loon on this blog. You’ll be a reoccurring character for sure:
age?
race?
where do you live?
Yet you’ll take opinion polls as rock-solid proof of how people would vote based on a given issue. Got it.
As I have to keep reminding you, it was you who brought it up. You post misconceptions, I’ll correct them. For some reason that seems to bother you.
*snicker* Umm, no, you obviously don’t understand the meaning of the word. Either that or you can’t bring yourself to “admit” that you misused it, and are now trying to obfuscate your way around that fact. As you like to say, “Dance!”
There’s that legendary (lack of) reading comprehension again. I didn’t deduce anything. I’ll let you know when I do.
The purpose of that cite was to just help drive home how poor a job you’ve done at making your case. If he was such a forceful advocate, quotes would have shown up somewhere, anywhere. You have nothing. Literally nothing from him.
Yet you’re somehow convinced that he was brilliant enough and “well read” enough not to be blinded by evil hiding right in front of his face. It’s like I said: brilliant people can still succumb to the tendency to see only what they want to see. What you just said about him proves it.
You mean you still don’t get the concept of hindsight? You’re seriously that freaking dense? I mean, I realize you’re not anybody’s idea of Mensa material or anything, but really.
Not only read it but understand it, which is obviously beyond your mental capability. Another clue for the clueless boy: being a believer in something and being a proponent of it are not always the same thing at all. Back in the mid-60s and prior, it was not a good idea to be an active proponent of certain things if you didn’t want all of decent society to treat you as a pariah.
But of course, because your half-dozen brain cells can’t even process the concept of hindsight, this is all lost on you anyway.
My monkey is back. My new over/under is “Zombie Jesus Day”.
That lie of your was debunked earlier…days ago. You need new lies/material. The poll is only evidence of what it says, and it’s further evidence of your idiocy.
I’m not at all bothered, by your obsession with the DADT repeal. I love it. Again, you’re a closet case, and bitter.
So you being distracted by me saying admitted as opposed to say, stated, causes you to fail to figure out what the thesis of what the article was all about? Oh really? lol. Find me on Wyzant. Try again, and tell me about the thesis, my monkey. And the point of the link was to provide further evidence to debunk your simply bizarre rant, about how FoxNews isn’t played in waiting rooms. You’re a typical conservative wanna-be victim.
Ole’ Blackstone projecting his reading comprehension problems again. And my case has been made, even you admit that PP and Sanger were lying about their views back then. You just think MLK is too stupid/naive, to realize the same. That’s where we differ. All I know is that the man is smart, he was there, and he accepted the Sanger award. You’re convinced that he didn’t know, what WE know, because that intellectually dishonest BS makes you feel better about yourself, and your feelings about King.
Only in your world is communism “evil” and King blinded by such so-called evil. Typical conservative arrogance. Doesn’t your dumba$$ recall that Youtube clip I provided about MLK calling for a “radical redistribution of political and economic power”. Do you know how many FBI documents link MLK to communism; not to mention association and his own words and actions. Typical conservative arrogance calls the great man “blind”, when everything about the great man suggest that his eyes were wide freaking open about communism. Again, I think MLK was smart. You think he’s naive and stupid. It’s a fundamental difference and standard of respect. And like most conservatives I’ve encountered, you’re in abject denial about King’s politics. As you told me on the King Day thread, “I make my case pretty well”. You’re damn straight. That’s because I’m honest, and unlike you, don’t let my feelings, get in the way of facts.
I love how your tone has gotten increasingly less “Blackstone-like”, as your veneer of professionalism starts to crack. I love it. You’re gonna spazz in a few days. It’s because you’re looking like a fool.
And now you’re shamelessly pathetic. If you were a dog, they’d take you out back and shoot, you, because you’re out of life.
I get you’re trying to make up some phony ‘hingsight’ to fit your phony and struggling argument. Sell that garbage somewhere else. It’s baseless BS. Sanger’s legacy started in the 20′s. Guttmacher became president in 62 and founded an abortion study group in 64. Sorry if your phony hindsight didn’t start to come into pass until starting on, say…. April 5, 1968 or later.
Oh yeah, you love to create hypothetical and arbitrary timelines to “fit” your baseless and asinine assertions.
Sorry if facts conflict with your “feelings”. That’s a pattern of yours, and why I’m fascinated by you.
I’ve been having you bite the pillow for quite some time now. So please, tell me about your family, and how do you explain your obsession with a so-called “Marxist troll”?
Age?
Race?
Where do you live?
And that so far is the only piece of evidence you’ve posted that even comes close to backing up your claim that PP’s pro-abortion legacy began before 1970. The fact that Guttmacher founded a group to “study” abortion. Yeah, that’s real groundbreaking and edgy of him.
You like to claim to live in the factual world, but the facts just don’t back you up, no matter how hard you wish them to. You can’t point to any public statements by Guttmacher or Planned Parenthood at the time even suggesting that abortion laws should be eased up on. They’re just not there. So tell me, what exactly was King supposed to go on given the information available to him? Can you just answer that simple question? It’s really not that complicated.
And by the way, yes, Communism was evil, and you certainly don’t have to be anybody’s idea of a conservative in order to see that. I figured you were at least normal enough to understand that much, given the number of times in this discussion you demurred at allegedly being called a “Marxist”. I certainly know better about you now.
Yeah, like I need to prove what you already know. You don’t think MLK can know what you know, even though he was there during that time. You think MLK needs “public statements”. Yeah, whatever. Unlike you, I don’t think he’s an idiot.
I guess Israel doesn’t have any nukes, since they don’t tend to issue “public statements” about their nuclear arsenal.
Hey dummy, communism was and IS considered evil to some people, but not so to others; past or present. It apparently wasn’t considered evil to MLK–you know, the guy we’re writing about here. MLK’s commie ties are well documented. So I guess you opine that MLK was evil, or at least, willingly associated with evil. Compared to a Jim Crow- church bombs, lynching,segregation ect..- real freaking US of A, EVIL, maybe MLK didn’t think that communism was all that bad, as his actions and associations conflicted with his words, or desire to be publicly labeled a communist. Gee, that sounds very familiar. You’re so weak. I’ll pimp your dumb a$$ all spring long, dummy. Dig?
Since this whole “hindsight” thing is still kicking your ass, I’ll put this in terms so simple even you could understand.
If I were also “there at the time”, I also wouldn’t know what I do now, because the information wouldn’t have been available to me then that’s available to both of us now. That’s because PP’s abortion legacy was at the time, (for lack of a better term) highly embryonic, at best. It would have taken some kind of superhuman foresight to see what was in store in the relatively near future.
So I’ll ask you once again: What information was King supposed to go on? The fact that Guttmacher (did he even know Guttmacher?) formed this very obscure group to “study” abortion? The fact that he had the views on abortion he had, but likely didn’t tell anyone except those he knew wouldn’t react with revulsion?
I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was likely blinded by an “enemy of my enemy” mentality. The alternative is far more unsettling.
Yeah, you have Jim Crow on the one hand, and the gulags, extrajudicial executions, constant dread of being labeled an enemy of the state if you say the wrong thing to the wrong person, “reeducation camps”, and all-around zero freedom on the other.
Maybe we should ask Herman Cain which system he would have preferred growing up under.
Your hindsight argument is garbage, as there is not a helpful fixed period of time of when your hindsight starts to establish itself. You just come up with arbitrary time-frames that fit your BS argument. King was there during that time, and your hindsight is based on what occurred during that time and before.
Are you so stupid that you don’t realize that hindsight, just doesn’t come out of thin air, but rather is based on sh** that was actually going on at the time in question? Why…maybe you are. You speak in abstracts and I deal with reality.
Yet, for some magical reason, not based in any reality, King couldn’t know about it, because a dearth of “public statements?. Again, he’s not as stupid as you think. And comparing some slug like you to a guy like King, who um, was a lot more politically connected, is effing laughable. Good luck building that time machine, btw.
I just know he gladly accepted the Sanger award, and spoke well of PP and their legacy. You’re the one stating–very poorly–that King couldn’t know all about said legacy, due to lack of “public statements”; the same King who was by any estimation, a well-read, well -known and committed leftist by 1966.
Revulsion? Did Guttmacher know everyone in the legislatures and courts of the states that were loosening abortion restrictions? You’re a freaking joke.
Considering that some states were loosening abortion restrictions beginning in the late 50′s, and most especially, as stated in the link, from 1963 and beyond, your statement is completely baseless. More baseless considering that PP spoke of Guttmacher’s legacy as being pro-choice. But in your world, nobody, especially King, knows about what Guttmacher and PP were up to, because of lack of “public statements”. Just stay in your absurd world where nobody knows ANYTHING , unless it’s in some “public statement”. You’re a joke.
I just know he gladly accepted the Sanger award, and spoke well of PP and their legacy. You’re the one stating–very poorly–that King couldn’t know all about said legacy, due to lack of “public statements”; the same King who was by any estimation, a well-read, well -known and committed leftist by 1966.
Because you have no common sense or integrity. You’re also extremely disrespectful concerning King and amazingly patronizing. Blinded?? Seriously! How old are you. Once again, you let your FEELINGS and desire to read minds, to interfere with objective facts.
Your parents must have had a bear of a time convincing you in your late teens that there was no Santa Clause.
You’re a joke.
Or just like capitalism can be practiced in a evil fashion, so can communism. King’s words, associations, and actions speak for themselves. Sorry if that conflicts with your feelings and how you freaking WISH things to be; no matter how unsettling it is for you. I’m so sure you give president Obama the same benefit of the doubt, when it comes to his words and associations; huh you intellectually dishonest little closet case.
When can I learn about your family?
Age?
Race?
Where do you live?
And that’s why it’s always a good idea to cross-check clearly biased, at least this one instance, erroneous “sources”. That Colorado law they were referring to was passed in 1967, not 1963. You can look it up. And I have no idea where you pulled this “1950s” garbage from. Probably from a similarly unreliable source.
So, what other “facts” at that revisionist PP link did you fail to cross-check? I’m betting all of them. You just took everything they said at face value, didn’t you?
That has got to be the biggest joke of your entire post. I’ve been asking you a simple question more than once now: What information was available to King at the time that would have enabled him to know PP’s abortion legacy?
If dealing with reality rather than abstractions is more than just a slogan, then let’s see a concrete answer to that question.
No, I tend not to be given to naive fairy tales, either about Saint Nicholas or Martin Luther King.
Assuming that there’s any other option for communism, the fact remains that one regime that was indisputably practicing it “in an evil fashion” was one that happened to have the explicit support of the Communist Party of the United States, in which that very close associate of King I linked to played an active leadership role.
Benefit of the doubt has to be earned. What has Obama done to earn it that remotely compares with King?
Besides, if King were actually running for President, I would certainly have considered his associations a disqualifying factor, however innocently idealistic his motivations may have been.
But, it’s entertaining watching you lose your composure over this anyway. Too bad your analytical ability doesn’t come close to matching your blind incoherent rage.
This is killing you, you retarded closet case. It’s the same information that allows you to claim what is now considered “hindsight”. You write about imaginary “closed doors” and write about what’s embryotic, but you suppose that King can’t have knowledge of what Sanger was doing with black ministers and doctors, and can’t have knowledge that Guttmacher was pro-choice. You’re the one writing in absolutes. You’re also the same closet case who patronizes Dr. King as some type of blind moron, when his actions conflict with your image.
I’ll take your word on Santa Clause, but your posts clearly show that you believe in fairy tales concerning King. And you’re also a Christian, so please don’t write something stupid like, I tend not to be given to naive fairy tales.
That was your quote in response to King accepting the Sanger award and praising PP. You spoke in absolutes. This is the same Sanger and PP who have a legacy of supporting abortion. So it’s always been you burden to prove it. BTW, despite you desire to be wishful and read minds, it’s not provable.
You wrote this:
Of course I don’t believe that that evil witch was telling us her true feelings on the matter, any more than her outfit was when they released that pamphlet.
Which you laughably, lazily and vaguely just attribute to “hindsight” as if it’s absolutely impossible, that King would know of Guttmacher’s feelings, or Sanger and PP’s legacy. This may blow you mind, but not every conversation and demonstrations of one’s knowledge is found on the internet. Hindsight, is based on actual facts, facts that existed during the time of King and before, but you state that King can’t know, because that’s what makes you most comfortable. I just know this, he was by all accounts a committed leftist by 1966, and a well-read, who knew a great deal of people with; people maybe not prone to belive what’s written in every pamphlet they see. So if it makes you feel better to think that King couldn’t have known, what you know, because of lack of “public statements”, on the matter, then keep on with whatever makes you feel better. You think the man is an idiot, and needs public statements to know anything about what’s going on in the world. You wanna read minds and speak in absolutes. I’ll do the same:
By 1966, King was a committed leftist on pretty much every political topic. King knew exactly what Sanger and her “outfit” were up to, and had associates who knew all about the “real her”. However, King didn’t wanna “throw out the baby with the bath water”, and knew the importance of preventing unwanted children, even if it meant abortion. Heck, King was a serial adulterer, and likely paid for a few abortions of his own.
That’s me playing your “absolutist” game. Now get on the internet and prove any of that wrong. lol
Coming from the same guy who has quoted Sanger and PP in his initial arguments, and then backed off with,
when mocked about how you will be exposed on future threads with a view that conflicted with standard conservative talking points. Your point: accept PP as fact when it fits “Closet Case-Blackstone’s” point at the time. Got it.
Something Blackstone never does: I must have been mistaken. I misread something about the prochoice movement and the model penal code guidelines.
I love this quote, and that’s why I keep rubbing you face in it. Why, Blackstone? Why don’t you believe Sanger? And why don’t you believe what PP put that in the pamphlet to be fact… specifically why not? Yes, your answer is going to make you look stupid, so go ahead and get it over with. Be specific.
Rage, because I insult you? Insults are flying both ways, dummy. You’re just projecting again, as I mentioned the cracks in your veneer several posts ago. And I enjoy watching it happen.
I feel no sense of rage, honey. My “analytical” ability has kept you on a a thread for a few weeks with someone you’ve called a “Marxist” and a “troll”. I bet none of your conservative buddies here are revisiting this thread. I’m gonna keep this thing going–for my purposes–for as long as possible. I may even rope you into a new topic. I’ve exposed you as a liar on multiple threads, or at best, having a reckless disregard for facts/#’s. Your whole being, (imaginary votes, numbers, reading minds, willful ignorance), is all about how you wish things to be. There is no rage, but rather fascination. I’m fascinated that you’re a closet case, and fascinated that this thread will last past Easter. Again, you’re my favorite loon on this blog.
What do you tell your family about revisiting a thread that is several weeks old?
Age?
Race?
Where do you live?
I missed this idiocy while addressing your other idiocy.
Are u dense? King was clearly seduced by communist ideology. That’s what “indisputable”. One can be pro-Captialism/Democracy back then without explicitly supporting institutional racism, as one can be pro-Communism or Socialism, while not supporting the gulags and extrajudicial executions. It’s about the ideology. Since you’re a big proponent of what’s found on the internet as proof what’s “known”, or rather, if it’s not on the internet, it can’t be known–lol– feel free to spend some time researching King’s ties to communist and socialist ideology. Oh yeah, you just think he did it “blindly”, you disrespectful patronizing, denial-ridden, lover of fairytales. You think that because, as you wrote, the alternative is “unsettling” for you. You and your feelings.
Please, twist yourself in knots debating me about King’s leftist legacy. Please do rebut your former more rational 2% self from the MLK Day thread. I love it when you give in to your loonier side. Love it, I tell you. There’s nothing like a conservative actively trying to suppess their inner honesty and common sense, just to spout your asinine RW talking points. I love it. Please override your MLK Day thread self. Get loonier for me, my dearest closet case.
What do you tell your family about revisiting a thread that is several weeks old?
Age?
Race?
Where do you live?
So was the Reverend Martin Luther King given to naive fairy tales? Careful now, you wouldn’t want to come across as “disrespectful” and “patronizing” to the good man.
And those are two indisputably true facts. That was indeed the subject of his speech, and that was indeed the state of public opinion at the time he gave it. What’s your point?
I never expressed either opinion. Not once. And I pointed that out to you before.
You, on the other hand, had this to say: “I’m sure MLK knew what was going on in Sanger’s clinics. That’s what I’m trying to get you to back up.
See what I’m trying to get through to you, you of limited reading comprehension? I didn’t say that he couldn’t have known about it. You’re the one with the burden of proving your assertion that he must have known it was going on. So far, you haven’t even provided evidence that it was going on in their clinics.
But one could not have supported the CPUSA without supporting the regime that committed these atrocities. I really can’t put it any clearer than that. Sorry you’re having so much trouble with this.
Blackstone, I’m loving pimping you out, but you forgot my standard questions. But before that, answer this question:
*giggle*, Specifically, tell me why you’re so sure that Sanger and her “outfit” was lying about the true beliefs concerning abortion.
Dance, monkeyboy, dance.
I’m not a socialist who pals around with communists either. I don’t throw out the “baby with the bathwater”. I understand the weakness in man of needing to believe in a fairytale to explain his existence. But no, I don’t think a brilliant man, would “pal around” with communists, without knowing what it means to be a communism. I wouldn’t smugly call a man “blind” for such political belief.
The point is, you infer that he didn’t know about abortions, and didn’t want to support abortions. That’s BS mind-reading. He coulda supported “behind closed doors” and in secret, that good ole leftist S.O.B; like that “evil witch” and her “outfit”.
And I’ve pointed out in multiple posts that’s it’s not provable- as your reading comprehension fails once again. I think he knew, but I don’t know for sure. You think he didn’t know, because of a lack of “public statements”. If you’re know conceding that you have no earthly idea whether or not King knew of the abortions, then I must say you’ve come a long way.
I just know he gladly accepted the Sanger award–from a group that even you knew was performing abortions–and spoke well of PP and their legacy; the same King who was by any estimation, a well-read, well -known and committed leftist by 1966.
If you agree with this sentence, then the point is clear:
You have no earthly idea whether or not King knew of the abortions.
That’s all I know. Got that? If not, there’s no help for you. I’ve written it several times.
Yes, you can. And by stating your stupid statement over and over, doesn’t make it a fact. I’ve supported presidents whose “atrocities” I didn’t support.
You’re just being conclusive and willfully ignorant, if you don’t think it’s humanly possible to support the Communist Party in the US at the time, and abhor how a particular regime practices said ideology. It’s really quite simple. I’ll gladly continue to chuckle to myself while your closet a$$ tries to prove such an absurd statement in ABSOLUTE terms. You just forgot to write “damn well” this time. lol Dummy.
Blackstone, I’m loving pimping you out, but you forgot my standard questions.
What do you tell your boyfriend when he’s calling you to bed, but you have him waiting while you surf the net and spend all this time of what you refer to as a Marxist troll?
Age?
Race?
Where do you live?
Get to it. And make me an egg sandwhich.
Unintended irony in that statement.
Do you have even the slightest conception of how that diametrically contradicts what you wrote earlier? A reminder: “I’m sure MLK knew what was going on in Sanger’s clinics.” But now you’re not sure? Well that’s progess, my boy.
I, on the other hand, have been completely consistent in my position: I think he didn’t know, but I of course don’t know for sure. That has not changed, so I’m not “conceding” anything that wasn’t my position right from the beginning. You even acknowledged that of me when you first reintroduced this subject on this thread.
Calm down, slow down, and pay attention to what you’re reading (and writing).
At the time he accepted the award? When, pray tell, did I “acknowledge” this? In fact, I’m pretty sure I’ve been trying to drill into your skull that you have no evidence whatsoeever that they committed a single abortion anytime within the lifetime of Dr. King.
So was it possible then for him to support Planned Parenthood and abhor abortion? Please explain the difference. The only difference I can see is that there was infinitely greater evidence that CPUSA was supporting an evil regime than that Planned Parenthood was supporting abortion at the time.
But maybe you have some, uh, profound insights that can clear all this up. Meantime, I’ll look foreward to your next spazzy post.
Welcome back, baby.
And I guess you’re ignoring the times where I’ve shown less certainty, because it doesn’t fit your lie filled BS. I can’t read minds. You’ve argued pretty passionately that about the lack of “public statements” and “behind closed doors” can prevent MLK from knowing about the “truth”. I can’t read minds at all.
Try reading:
3/4 -Maybe MLK was as stupid as you infer, and he thought Sanger was pro-life, and PP was pro-life, despite her history, the feelings of the then PP president, and the wave of loosening abortion restrictions leading up to 1966. Maybe you really think MLK was really that naive and stupid, and didn’t know what WE know, though he was freaking there. And KNEW people who KNEW her.
Maybe, maybe, maybe- but I know this. He happily accepted the Sanger award.
3/10- Yet, for some magical reason, not based in any reality, King couldn’t know about it, because a dearth of “public statements?. Again, he’s not as stupid as you think. And comparing some slug like you to a guy like King, who um, was a lot more politically connected, is effing laughable. Good luck building that time machine, btw.
I just know he gladly accepted the Sanger award, and spoke well of PP and their legacy. You’re the one stating–very poorly–that King couldn’t know all about said legacy, due to lack of “public statements”; the same King who was by any estimation, a well-read, well -known and committed leftist by 1966.
Oh, so now you wanna backtrack again, and reneg on this. Wow, boy are you a nutjob:
Of course I don’t believe that that evil witch was telling us her true feelings on the matter, any more than her outfit was when they released that pamphlet.
When did the pamphlets come out, sport?
I get it. You have some type of multi-personality disorder.
You my dear sweet fool are confusing your points. One can support the CPUSA and communist ideology, without being supportive of the atrocities of a particular Communist government; contrary to the stupidity of your previous post.
As I’ve stated previously, of course MLK could support PP, and abhor abortions. I just don’t believe that to be the case, for the reasons I’ve stated repeatedly. You have the opposite view, for the reasons you vaguely attribute to …giggle…just “hindsight”.
Now before I put your face in the pillow again, be a man and answer this simple question. I know it’s difficult for you:
Specifically, tell me why you’re so sure that Sanger and her “outfit” were lying about the true beliefs concerning abortion.
Oh yeah, you’ve change your mind about that. lol.
You are pathetic.
Age?
Race?
Where do you live?
Get to it. And make me an egg sandwich.
I’m gonna pimp out for the rest of the year…way past Zombie Jesus Day.
Ah, I get it. You can’t decide what your position actually is, you’re all over the map, and that’s somehow my fault. You’re just getting spazzier and spazzier.
And the spazziness continues. Right, because I don’t believe her intentions, that means I’ve acknowledged that PP was actually performing abortions at the time. Only to someone who really, really has serious trouble with the English language.
I didn’t say I was “so sure” (another English language thing you seem to be having trouble with), but the reason I’m skeptical of their claims is that it doesn’t seem likely that PP’s abortion legacy (which began after King’s death, according to all available evidence) sprang up from a vacuum. More than likely it was part of their intention for quite some time, but they didn’t dare share it with those outside their leadership.
And please, no more asinine comparisons to Israel’s nukes. It’s a hell of a lot easier to conceal your private intentions regarding abortion than it is to conceal a freaking nuclear bomb-making facility (especially since Israel wasn’t even trying all that hard to keep it a secret).
Who knows, maybe you’ll actually make a coherent point by then.
Nah, I’m pretty calm. lol. And my points are clear…clear as day. You pick one sentence where I stated a strong belief in what I think King knew, and ignore all the times where I suggest it’s an opinion and I can’t read minds. You may find this hard to believe, closet case, but like your DADT lunacy, the point can’t be proven or disproven. I have my beliefs based on MLK’s radical leftist politics circa 1966, his “connections” Guttmacher and the Sanger/PP legacy, and YOU have your opinion based on a lack of, ahem, “public statements”. lol. Got it. Sorry, it can’t be proven either way unless you wanna go to his grave with some smelling salts and a heater. We will never know whether or not King accepted the Sanger award while in support of the right to abortions. And it has nothing to do with the internet or “public statements”.
On really? So tell me why you don’t believe her. Be specific. Oh, here it comes, you finally figured out some type of answer. lol
So they had the “intentions”, but none of the PP clinics, ANYWHERE, actually carried out those intentions with any abortions, until they “radically” reverse course a few years after MLK’s death. Okay, if that thought makes you feel better in your absurd position. Okay. And that last point about not “shared outside of their leadership” is baseless. You have no idea who it was shared with, or whether abortions were carried out in private. On the next PP or Sanger thread on this blog, I’ll take a poll of what the folks think about what PP and Sanger were doing in private; regardless of what their pamphlets said. Tell me about what ACORN states in public and then does in private. Moreover, now you say it was “shared in their leadership”. What leadership? Who? You opined that you reject the “proof” about Guttmacher. Where is the evidence of it being shared in the leadership. Find that on the internet. lol. Dance, monkey, dance. You stepped in it.
So you seem to suggest that Israel has nukes. How do you know? Prove it.
Look, my sweet closet case, as you’ll likely call this, *chuckle* “spazzy”–your little one taught you a new word–fix me a glass of wine, and then I’ll make you feel nice and good. But first,
Age?
Race?
Where do you live?
What do you tell your family about carrying on an infinite conversation with who you’ve referred to as a “Marxist troll”?
And you say you tutor teens? I’m hoping it’s in math, because if it’s anything that actually involves any reading, we’re in trouble.
You, on the other hand, don’t even have a sentence to go by from me indicating any kind of solid certainty, and plenty of statements making it clear that it’s “an opinion” (like yours), but you seem utterly fixated on this idea that I’ve made absolute conclusions.
So either you’re really not all that “calm”, or you’re just an idiot. Which is it?
Yeah, what I have is several weeks of passionate argument from you about how lack of “public statements” and lack of “internet proof” means MLK had nothing to go on, in knowing about whether PP was performing abortions. I read your words and I read you. You’re a patently dishonest joke. You stepped in it. Now tell me about who the leadership of PP was to support your statement “they didn’t dare share it with those outside their leadership.”
I’m loving this. I’ve got you all twisted up and contradictory on a long dead thread.
Of course I don’t believe that that evil witch was telling us her true feelings on the matter, any more than her outfit was when they released that pamphlet.
Sooo, that’s not an absolute conclusion and an opinion. Then you took two days to qualify it, and wind up making my weeks old point. But you’ve never conceded that MLK can have conversations and opinions that may not exist on your beloved internet. lol.
One of your “absolute conclusions” is that DADT “damn well” wouldn’t have passed if it was voted on closer to the beginning of the 2010 term. You freakin closeted dummy, you were never even nuanced on equivocal about it. You just state is as fact- something that can’t be proven. The whole DADT thing is why I’ve come to the, lol, “absolute conclusion” that you’re in the closet. Your position is so freaking bizarre and passionate, and conclusive, on a baseless assertion that can’t be proven.
That’s why I enjoy making you my bi***. You get flustered and twisted in knots, and fall into traps, by making up claims about the PP leadership, that rebut your previous position about the lack of “proof” on the internet. You quote PP stats when it fits your argument, and reject them, when it negates your argument.
Btw, NO, it’s not “realistic” for the organization to go from being vehemently opposed to abortion practices, and then tah-Dah!, start performing abortions a few short years later, with Guttmacher the president all the while. LOL. Get real. I can’t read minds, but at least my opinions are based on some level on intellectual honesty.
And sorry, not every conversation, decision and thought, can be found on the internet. I can’t read minds–like you on imaginary DADT votes–but I can come to a common sense opinion based on the totality of circumstances.
Idiot or calm? They aren’t mutually exclusive are they? Your “insults” have gotten soooo lame. If thinking I’m not calm or an idiot, explains your behavior on this thread, that’s ooooookay by me. You amaze.
Okay, lol, coming from the guy who speaks with conviction about imaginary DADT votes. From the guy who makes up %’s, and makes bogus claims about what’s played in waiting rooms, so that he can show himself as the pathetic victim that he’ll always be. Coming from the guy who thinks that one can’t support the CPUSA and communist ideology while being opposed to certain practices of a communist regime.(Yeah, that’s completely impossible. lol. smdh)
You my friend, are a joke. And I’ve kept you like a yoyo on an endless thread, and you’ve referred to me as a Marxist and a troll. What does it say about you that you take time out of your life to twist yourself into a pretzel, lie, surf the net, lose composure, and engage endlessly with a person you refer to as an idiot, Marxist, and a troll? What does it say about you, my sweet little bi***?
lol.
I love it. You my friend, are being mind-____, and I’m going to keep at it, because you’re a weak-minded joke. Not only are you dishonest on this blog, you’re dishonest with yourself. Embrace and admit your weakness. You enjoy being punked by me. Just admit it.
As you can tell, I’m utterly fascinated by you.
How old are you.
Where do you live?
What is your race/ethnicity?
Can I get your email address, so I can see a pic?
Most importantly:
What do you tell your family about carrying on an infinite conversation with who you’ve referred to as a “Marxist troll”?
I’m busy tomorrow night, when you post like clockwork at your usual time-frame but I’ll be back Sunday for our fascinating affair.
xoxo
You’re really having that much trouble with this? Really?
I don’t believe most of what Obama says either. That desn’t mean I’ve made an “absolute conclusion” that he’s lying every single time he speaks. It means that nothing he says can be trusted. (kinda like you that way)
I don’t think I’ve ever come across anyone else on line with your virtually incurable reading problem. You could almost make a clinical case out of it. I’m not exaggerating.
For the English-impaired: “Disbelive: to hold not worthy of belief: not believe”
Switching things up and back early? Interesting.
No trouble at all, baby.
My absolute conclusion is that you’re a lonely and dishonest closet case.
Your absolute conclusion–which doesn’t just come out of thin air–is that you don’t believe Sanger or her “outfit”. Can conclusions be changed with different information? Of course. In this case, I believe your conclusion to be completely sensible and accurate; though your reasoning is only partially correct. Why is that difficult for you to understand? Find me on Wyzant to help you understand what you write. I can’t help you with your chronic dishonesty. That’s just a character problem. As difficult for you as the DADT repeal and your stupidity about what friends of CPUSA are capable of believing in. You my whore, endlessly embarrass yourself.
My favorite sweet liar, we’re not discussing “every time”, we’re discussing what you don’t believe on one particular issue. Acting like I don’t understand you, when I understand you clearly, is an absolutely hilarious diversion, that you concoct to make yourself feel better about your absurd twisting statements. Keep on, I love it.
Now since you don’t believe her or her outfit,
Explain that, you intellectually dishonest dummy. How on earth can you make such an assertion? What “leadership”. You’ve already rejected any “proof” regarding the feelings of the president at the time.
Keep on dancing, monkey boy.
Yawwnnn. Get used to reading down below, because I’ll be pasting it on this thread for the rest of the year, until you explain yourself.
You my friend, are a joke. And I’ve kept you like a yoyo on an endless thread, and you’ve referred to me as a Marxist and a troll. What does it say about you that you take time out of your life to twist yourself into a pretzel, lie, surf the net, lose composure, and engage endlessly with a person you refer to as an idiot, Marxist, and a troll? What does it say about you, my sweet little bi***?
lol.
I love it. You my friend, are being mind-____, and I’m going to keep at it, because you’re a weak-minded joke. Not only are you dishonest on this blog, you’re dishonest with yourself. Embrace and admit your weakness. You enjoy being punked by me. Just admit it.
As you can tell, I’m utterly fascinated by you.
How old are you.
Where do you live?
What is your race/ethnicity?
Can I get your email address, so I can see a pic?
Most importantly:
What do you tell your family about carrying on an infinite conversation with who you’ve referred to as a “Marxist troll”?
I’m busy tomorrow night, when you post like clockwork at your usual time-frame but I’ll be back Sunday for our fascinating affair.
xoxo
Brilliant insight, there, Sherlock, brilliant. I’m stunned. Yes, I’ve drawn the “absolute conclusion” that I have a certain opinion about what Sanger said. I am indeed very certain that I have this opinion.
Again, look at the definition of disbelieve: “to hold not worthy of belief”. It doesn’t mean, “to declare false”.
If you just can’t process that at all, there’s really no hope for you.
By all means, go right ahead and post a link to this thread any time you want to “humiliate” me. Your total brain malfunction when it comes to the English language will be there for all to see. It’s truly a sight to behold.
Hey, but at least you have gutter humor to get you by, pervert.
I don’t know how “brilliant” I am. It doesn’t take an overwhelming IQ to outsmart you.
LoL. You don’t what it means to come to a conclusion.
I also have the, *snicker* “absolute conclusion” that you’re in love with me. We’ll get to that later this week, after we exchange personal information.
What leadership? Tell more about this PP leadership you speak of. lol. And how do you know what was and was not shared?
You my friend, are a joke. And I’ve kept you like a yoyo on an endless thread, and you’ve referred to me as a Marxist and a troll. What does it say about you that you take time out of your life to twist yourself into a pretzel, lie, surf the net, lose composure, and engage endlessly with a person you refer to as an idiot, Marxist, and a troll? What does it say about you, my sweet little bi***?
lol.
I love it. You my friend, are being mind-____, and I’m going to keep at it, because you’re a weak-minded joke. Not only are you dishonest on this blog, you’re dishonest with yourself. Embrace and admit your weakness. You enjoy being punked by me. Just admit it.
As you can tell, I’m utterly fascinated by you.
How old are you.
Where do you live?
What is your race/ethnicity?
Can I get your email address, so I can see a pic?
Most importantly:
What do you tell your family about carrying on an infinite conversation with who you’ve referred to as a “Marxist troll”?
xoxo
LOL. I DOUBT ANYBODY IS READING THIS THREAD.
SO, “ALL” WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SEE YOUR FLIPPITY FLOPPITY, LIE-FILLED NONSENSE. This thread is just for…….me. I love you. 
So, you’ve given up on trying to defend your absurd claim that I’ve “acknowledged” they were doing abortions at the time just because I said I didn’t believe their claim that they were opposed to the idea. Good move on your part. Unfortunately for you, you’re out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Contemplate the imports of the words “More than likely” at the beginning of the sentence you selectively quoted from.
Or will I have to spend the next 5 rounds spoonfeeding your mug more basic principles of the English language? It’s entirely up to you how much of an imbecile you want to keep making yourself into. I’m up for the entertainment.
Oh, I’ll admit that I enjoy the entertainment of watching you act all cocky and high on yourself while being completely oblivious to the way your pitiful arguments are being hung around your neck.
I KNEW you’d be back. You always come back. Send me a picture.
“Out of the frying pan into the fire”. That my boy, is simply hilarious. You do realize that this is just a blog, right? And a 3 week old thread where “all” have probably moved on. lol
Yawn, So they had the “intentions”, but none of the PP clinics, ANYWHERE, actually carried out those intentions with any abortions, until they “radically” reverse course a few years after MLK’s death. Okay, if that thought makes you feel better in your absurd position. Okay. And that last point about not “shared outside of their leadership” is baseless. You have no idea who it was shared with, or whether abortions were carried out in private. On the next PP or Sanger thread on this blog, I’ll take a poll of what the folks think about what PP and Sanger were doing in private; regardless of what their pamphlets said. Tell me about what ACORN states in public and then does in private. Moreover, now you say it was “shared in their leadership”. What leadership? Who? You opined that you reject the “proof” about Guttmacher. Where is the evidence of it being shared in the leadership. Find that on the internet. lol. Dance, monkey, dance. You stepped in it.
LOL Then qualify “more than likely”. Any way you wanna play it. I just want this to go on and on and on. You’re stuck. Let’s see you prove “more than likely”. Who was the leadership? Any way you wanna flip and flop it, I’ll be right along with you.
Wow, the feeling is mutual. We really are meant to be together. We are completely obsessed with each other.
You my friend, are a joke. And I’ve kept you like a yoyo on an endless thread, and you’ve referred to me as a Marxist and a troll. What does it say about you that you take time out of your life to twist yourself into a pretzel, lie, surf the net, lose composure, and engage endlessly with a person you refer to as an idiot, Marxist, and a troll? What does it say about you, my sweet little bi***?
lol.
I love it. You my friend, are being mind-____, and I’m going to keep at it, because you’re a weak-minded joke. Not only are you dishonest on this blog, you’re dishonest with yourself. Embrace and admit your weakness. You enjoy being punked by me. Just admit it.
As you can tell, I’m utterly fascinated by you.
How old are you.
Where do you live?
What is your race/ethnicity?
Can I get your email address, so I can see a pic?
Most importantly:
What do you tell your family about carrying on an infinite conversation with who you’ve referred to as a “Marxist troll”?
xoxo
The alternative is that they did indeed carry out their intentions at the time, but left no evidence of it to history that either you or I have been able to point to. OK, maybe that’s true. But if that’s the case, how likely is it that MLK would have known about it? Was he renowned for having a vast intelligence-gathering network of some kind?
Wow. You really don’t get the concept, do you? If I said it was absolutely true, then proof would be required. What I did was give what I thought was the most likely scenario given what we know. You obviously disagree, you think the most likely scenario is that they were secretly carrying out abortions and that MLK knew about it. I’m still waiting for you to give a logical reason for thinking that.
It hardly needs to be that complex.
-”Brother Martin, you know that Sanger woman is a racist and her “outfit” performs abortions on the sisters. She’s solicited other pastors to help. I’ve talked to sisters who have gone to her clinics for baby killing”
-I know Reverand, but that Guttmacher is a good man. And planned parenthood does good work in our community, helping women with contraception. I’m against unwanted babies, and though I’m not thrilled about the concept of abortion, I understand that it’s a reality that ain’t going anywhere. I’m gonna accept the award for reasons beyond Sanger’s legacy. I appreciate planned parenthood. Plus, I’ve been bangin sister’s around Coretta’s back for years, and payed for a couple abortions of my own.”
Could that or countless similar conversations have happen? I dunno. Maybe. I’m just not so idiotic to opine that every thought or conversation is found on the Internet.
I just know he accepted the Sanger award. Named after a woman and “outfit” whose legacy speak for itself.
Your “vast intelligence gathering network” is as absurd as your claims of the absence of FoxNews in waiting rooms, and your lie about how the DADT repeal didn’t have a “public debate”. But you damn well “know” it wouldn’t have passed after the 2010 election, because you damn well are a closeted homosexual and pained wannabe psychic.
You believe some PP statements, and disregard others…whatever fits your position.
Sorry, that’s been addressed in #244 and countless other posts. I know my position can’t be proven. It’s a reasoned opinion based on the totality of circumstances. Read that last sentence again, because your ignorant weak-minded a$$ keeps forgetting every other day.
Now man up, who was the “leadership” and tell me why they more than likely did or did not do something. Speak up and name the leadership. You my continuously projecting cyber lover are the one who believes in conspiracies. Your nameless leadership, sits around the conspiracy table, and decides to put forth an image of being vehemently opposed to abortions, and then while under the same president, the PP link you cited shows that PP started performing abortions a few short years later. But they didn’t perform them earlier, anywhere, because the link you cite, from the organization that you disbelieve and think puts for “self-serving” information, says so.
Ooookay. You have the intellectual integrity of a crack-whore.
But, I really do love you. You fascinate.
You my friend, are a joke. And I’ve kept you like a yoyo on an endless thread, and you’ve referred to me as a Marxist and a troll. What does it say about you that you take time out of your life to twist yourself into a pretzel, lie, surf the net, lose composure, and engage endlessly with a person you refer to as an idiot, Marxist, and a troll? What does it say about you, my sweet little bi***?
lol.
I love it. You my friend, are being mind-____, and I’m going to keep at it, because you’re a weak-minded joke. Not only are you dishonest on this blog, you’re dishonest with yourself. Embrace and admit your weakness. You enjoy being punked by me. Just admit it.
As you can tell, I’m utterly fascinated by you.
How old are you.
Where do you live?
What is your race/ethnicity?
Can I get your email address, so I can see a pic?
Most importantly:
What do you tell your family about carrying on an infinite conversation with who you’ve referred to as a “Marxist troll” and a pervert?
PS, I’m getting drunk and watching basketball tomorrow night, so I’ll probably check back on Friday afternoon. Maybe I’ll be in the *snicker* fire by then. Better yet, let me know about when I’m officially in the “fire” for “all” to see. lol. Loser.
xoxo
Just as my position can’t be proven, and is a reasoned position based on the totality of the circumstances. Your reasoning just isn’t that strong, that’s all.
Yes, maybe it could have. Anything’s possible. But again, how likely is it that he or whoever he was talking to would have known about it, but the authorities would not have, since every one of these abortions would have been an illegal abortion?
Thoughts and conversations, of course not. But you don’t find it odd that there’s no record of PP committing illegal abortions at the time if they actually were? Word wouldn’t have gotten out? No one would have alerted the authorities? And they got away with this for years?
Coming right up, just as soon as you provide the name of the person MLK was speaking to in that italicized conversation in your post.
Oh, that’s right, it “can’t be proven”. Well, neither can my scenario. That’s why it’s called a likelihood.
In any event, you can look up their leadership just as well as I can if it’s that important to you. Actual names are just as irrelevant in my scenario as they are in yours.
Wait, so if they had been performing abortions illegally and clandestinely, then they wouldn’t have been engaging in a conspiracy; yet they would have been conspiring if they hadn’t been performing abortions? You need to explain that one. As you like to say: Dance!
By the way, that wasn’t a PP link that I cited.
You my friend, are a joke. And I’ve kept you like a yoyo on an endless thread, and you’ve referred to me as a Marxist and a troll. What does it say about you that you take time out of your life to twist yourself into a pretzel, lie, surf the net, lose composure, and engage endlessly with a person you refer to as an idiot, Marxist, and a troll? What does it say about you, my sweet little bi***?
lol.
I love it. You my friend, are being mind-____, and I’m going to keep at it, because you’re a weak-minded joke. Not only are you dishonest on this blog, you’re dishonest with yourself. Embrace and admit your weakness. You enjoy being punked by me. Just admit it.
As you can tell, I’m utterly fascinated by you.
How old are you.
Where do you live?
What is your race/ethnicity?
Can I get your email address, so I can see a pic?
Most importantly:
What do you tell your family about carrying on an infinite conversation with who you’ve referred to as a “Marxist troll” and a pervert?
The numbers were gathered from PP reports and documents.
Your reason is rather weak, too. Lack of “public statements”; need for “vast information gathering networks”; the assumption that every thought and conversation must exist on the internet. You’re a beaut.
Um, you do realize that illegal abortions have been carried out since the beginning of time…since the beginning of this nation. One of the reasons for the push to legalize abortion, is because they were happening anyway, and always will. Once again, I’m teaching you stuff that you already know.
Depends on where they were carried out, and who cared enough to report, and what “authority” would care enough to do something about it. How prevalent was prosecution for abortions?
Guttmacher was the effing president. I would, lol, think he’d be part of the leadership. The same Guttmacher who’s pro-choice bonafides, you discredit. From the same organization whose veracity, you discredit. I gave a hypothetical. Your description of “likelihood” is baseless and intellecually inconsistent. That’s a pattern of yours. It’s very fascinating.
That my friend, is one of your typical strawmen. Or it’s another reading comprehension issue. Your conpiracy is that PP forth the image of being vehmently opposed to abortions, while have the “intention” and “feelings” to be in favor of abortion, and then actually start recording abortions a few years later under the same leadership. Your “leadership” conspired to project one image, while secretly having different feelings/intentions. Of course, it’s a conspiracy if they were also performing abortions the whole time. I never stated otherwise. But of course you know that.
When can I have a pic. Answer my standard questions. Have you ever been with a man of color?
Illegal activity has been carried out since the beginning of law. What’s your point?
You missed something:
I’m asking you how likely you think it is that a well known and (at the time) respected organization like Planned Parenthood, which officially was on record as being against abortion, could nonetheless carry them out to the point and King and whatever nameless individual you were hypothesizing would have considered it fairly common knowledge among their crowd, without someone finding out about it and alerting the authorities or at least raising a big stink over it.
How likely is it that there would be no historical footprint anywhere? No testimonials from women who received them, talking about how PP was “there for them when they needed them” (or, alternatively, how they got one from PP and then sorely regretted it)? Nothing at all? How likely?
And by the way, I never once intimated that every thought and conversation had to be found on the internet. That’s just one of your silly strawmen.
Earler:
Hmm, tell me more about this “continuous projection”. *snicker*
Who knows? How likely is it that a racist woman who believes in eugenics for the “unfit”, and a PP outfit, with a pro-choice doctor would carry out abortions in private at some of their clinics? Is it possible? Of course? Can King have knowledge of such actions? Of course? Is it provable own way or another? No. Did he accept the Sanger award from an organization who (publicly according too your cite), started performing abortion a few years after his death? Yes. Could he have been aware of what you call “feelings” and “intentions” while accepting the Sanger award? Absolutely, despite your belief that he would need a “vast information gathering network” he accepted the award. You doubt that their image matched their “feelings/intentions”, I doubt that PP did their 1st abortion in 1970. I just don’t think King was as stupid and blind as you seem, on any of his associations, because such thought is “unsettling”. And as YOU wrote about yourself, on the King Day thread, perhaps you’re a bit biased. Noooooo. lol
Coming from the guy who rejects any type of opinions of historical events, unless the proof is found on the internet. But, if you don’t like the fact or the source found on the internet, you reject it. But some of the same data you reject–about Guttmacher for example–doesn’t fit in your assertion that the “intentions/feelings” weren’t “shared outside of the leadership”? Guttmacher was the president, so I would think he’d be part of your leadership.
You are effing hilarious.
What, we both believe that PP conspired to some extent about their abortion “intentions”. It’s not like your absurd need for MLK needing some type of vast information gathering network- your absurd and 100% baseless conspiracy that you think is needed to support my opinion. Yeah, that “conspiracy” is a real farce. I love you.
When can I have a pic. Answer my standard questions. Have you ever been with a man of color?
You my friend, are a joke. And I’ve kept you like a yoyo on an endless thread, and you’ve referred to me as a Marxist and a troll. What does it say about you that you take time out of your life to twist yourself into a pretzel, lie, surf the net, lose composure, and engage endlessly with a person you refer to as an idiot, Marxist, and a troll? What does it say about you, my sweet little bi***?
lol.
I love it. You my friend, are being mind-____, and I’m going to keep at it, because you’re a weak-minded joke. Not only are you dishonest on this blog, you’re dishonest with yourself. Embrace and admit your weakness. You enjoy being punked by me. Just admit it.
As you can tell, I’m utterly fascinated by you.
How old are you.
Where do you live?
What is your race/ethnicity?
Can I get your email address, so I can see a pic?
Most importantly:
What do you tell your family about carrying on an infinite conversation with who you’ve referred to as a “Marxist troll” and a pervert?
That was a pretty long-winded way of avoiding the question. The question wasn’t about how likely it was that they were performing abortions at the time. It was how likely is it that they could have done so with no record at all that anyone can point to.
I think it we can both agree that if they did perform abortions, it almost certainly didn’t engender much controversy at the time, right? So it would follow that these would have been quite a well kept secret, correct so far?
You’re making no sense here, just to let you know. You say “we both agree” that they conspired, but it’s an “absurd and 100% baseless conspiracy”.
Look, stop spinning youself dizzy and just admit that you made a really clumsy and amateurish attempt to tar me with the “conspiracy nut” label, and it blew up in your face.
Actually on second thought, keep spinning. The thread could use some more comic relief.
Ah, more reading comprehension problems I see. I did answer your question. Try again, and start with the very FIRST two words of my response. Again, I can be found on Wyzant.
You ever think that perhaps there weren’t any Andrew Breitbart exposes at the time, and perhaps women in poor communities went into a PP clinic, got the fetus removed, and no “authorities” that gave a damn were ever notified, no fuss? Yes, sorry that is possible, Mr. King needed a “vast information gathering network”. Maybe these women told a few folks in their community, and women knew where to go, to get the deed done. Again, how prevalent was prosecution for illegal abortions back then? How prevalent was prosecution for the aborting of black fetuses, in those racist times? Go find that on your Internet.
Either you can’t read, or you’re a liar. You seem to show both attributes. Your “absurd and 100% baseless conspiracy” involves the need for King to have to conspire to have a “vast information gathering network”. You even blockquoted it, so I’m not sure why you’re being so sloppy with your lying. Or perhaps reading is just that serious of a problem for ya. That’s a whole different ballgame than a conspiracy that has a basis- Guttmacher and PP projecting a false image, and then performing abortions a few short years later. Your baseless need for a “vast information gathering network”, is just as absurd as your BIZARRE claim about the DADT repeal votes, and Foxnews in waiting rooms.
You my friend, continue to fascinate me. I’ve kept you on here for well over a month, where you lie, make absurd statements, backtrack, and fail miserably at reading comprehension. This thread will last for a full calendar year. Now answer my questions, whore.
When can I have a pic. Answer my standard questions. Have you ever been with a man of color?
You my friend, are a joke. And I’ve kept you like a yoyo on an endless thread, and you’ve referred to me as a Marxist and a troll. What does it say about you that you take time out of your life to twist yourself into a pretzel, lie, surf the net, lose composure, and engage endlessly with a person you refer to as an idiot, Marxist, and a troll? What does it say about you, my sweet little bi***?
lol.
I love it. You my friend, are being mind-____, and I’m going to keep at it, because you’re a weak-minded joke. Not only are you dishonest on this blog, you’re dishonest with yourself. Embrace and admit your weakness. You enjoy being punked by me. Just admit it.
As you can tell, I’m utterly fascinated by you.
How old are you.
Where do you live?
What is your race/ethnicity?
Can I get your email address, so I can see a pic?
Most importantly:
What do you tell your family about carrying on an infinite conversation with who you’ve referred to as a “Marxist troll” and a pervert?
PS, starting tomorrow, I’m gonna be a tad busy for the next couple of days, and may not have Internet access, so I may not be able to get back to you till the weekend. In the meanwhile, quit playing coy, come out of the closet, and let’s get ready to share some personal information. Your need for me can’t be denied. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
You ever think that perhaps there weren’t any Andrew Breitbart exposes at the time, and perhaps women in poor communities went into a PP clinic, got the fetus removed, and no “authorities” that gave a damn were ever notified, no fuss?
Why would there need to have been a Breitbart-style expose? If it was common knowledge among the black community, you don’t consider it at all likely that someone – a preacher, anybody – would have raised a big stink?
Keep in mind that then, as well as now, blacks tend to be on the socially conservative side (see: Prop 8, and not to mention all the lily-white faces at pro-abortion rallies).
Oh, that’s what you were referring to when you wrote this?:
“You my continuously projecting cyber lover are the one who believes in conspiracies. Your nameless leadership, sits around the conspiracy table, and decides to put forth an image of being vehemently opposed to abortions, and then while under the same president, the PP link you cited shows that PP started performing abortions a few short years later.”
Oh yes, it’s obvious that you were referring to something I said about King. How could I have been so blind?
Thanks for not disappointing. More dancing and spinning, please. Shake it up baby, now!
See the previous responses in reference to “raise a big stink”. Read it again. Keep reading until you understand. If you can’t understand. Oh well.
Who says it was common knowledge? Oh, I see, we’re playing “strawman”. Why do you believe that MLK was a heroin user? How dare you say such a thing. Why do you think it’s appropriate to molest your neighbor’s son? That’s horrible. I’m going to report you.
Fun, you know how to take a isolated paragraph out of the context of the whole post. Why, good for you. How talented.
Your baseless need for a “vast information gathering network”, is just as absurd as your BIZARRE claim about the DADT repeal votes, and Foxnews in waiting rooms.
You my friend, continue to fascinate me. I’ve kept you on here for well over a month, where you lie, make absurd statements, backtrack, and fail miserably at reading comprehension. This thread will last for a full calendar year. Now answer my questions, whore.
When can I have a pic. Answer my standard questions. Have you ever been with a man of color?
You my friend, are a joke. And I’ve kept you like a yoyo on an endless thread, and you’ve referred to me as a Marxist and a troll. What does it say about you that you take time out of your life to twist yourself into a pretzel, lie, surf the net, lose composure, and engage endlessly with a person you refer to as an idiot, Marxist, and a troll? What does it say about you, my sweet little bi***?
lol.
I love it. You my friend, are being mind-____, and I’m going to keep at it, because you’re a weak-minded joke. Not only are you dishonest on this blog, you’re dishonest with yourself. Embrace and admit your weakness. You enjoy being punked by me. Just admit it.
As you can tell, I’m utterly fascinated by you.
How old are you.
Where do you live?
What is your race/ethnicity?
Can I get your email address, so I can see a pic?
Most importantly:
What do you tell your family about carrying on an infinite conversation with who you’ve referred to as a “Marxist troll” and a pervert?
OK, so I guess we’re somewhere between “common knowledge” and “requiring a vast intelligence-gathering network to find out about”. Or something.
So how, in your hypothetical scenario, would King have found out? Last time you attempted to answer that, you hypothesized that he would be talking to… someone… and this person would be telling him that PP was committing abortions, and he responded “I know”. How, in that situation, how would he have already known? Since it apparently wasn’t common knowledge, where would he have heard it from? You mentioned women telling other women where to go when they needed one done. Would he have been spying on them or something?
That paragraph had nothing to do with other things you said in that post about King. So do you stand by that paragraph or don’t you? Because you made it beyond clear that your “conspiracy” crack was all about what PP was or was not up to, not about anything else.
OK, now your spin job is getting less entertaining. It’s just turning into a big turkey of a performance.
LOL. You have clearly lost your mind. Or you are clueless of how people gather information throughout their life, without the need for “public statements” or a “vast intelligence-gathering network”. I’ll just assure you that there are other ways to learn things, and leave it at that. Sorry if it’s such a headscratcher for you. And sorry if you feel the need to ask the same question, countless different ways, that has already be answered more than once. Good luck getting through life.
And I’m very entertained that this little point keeps sticking in your crack. Maybe you should read the whole post again, the whole post, and read how I’ve addressed the conspiracy issue for the past several posts. You’re just salty that I have not claimed that putting forth a false pro-life image and performing abortions, is NOT a conspiracy. That was your strawman. So, sorry I never argued that point. This thing that sticks in our crack, it’s just gonna have to stay there, because it’s been addressed. Watch how you sit.
What hasn’t been addressed by you:
Your baseless need for a “vast information gathering network”, is just as absurd as your BIZARRE claim about the DADT repeal votes, how PP president Guttmacher, isn’t included in your *snicker* leadership and Foxnews allegedly is not in waiting rooms around the country. And why do you molest your neighbor’s son?
You my friend, continue to fascinate me. I’ve kept you on here for well over a month, where you lie, make absurd statements, backtrack, and fail miserably at reading comprehension. This thread will last for a full calendar year. Now answer my questions, whore.
When can I have a pic. Answer my standard questions. Have you ever been with a man of color?
You my friend, are a joke. And I’ve kept you like a yoyo on an endless thread, and you’ve referred to me as a Marxist and a troll. What does it say about you that you take time out of your life to twist yourself into a pretzel, lie, surf the net, lose composure, and engage endlessly with a person you refer to as an idiot, Marxist, and a troll? What does it say about you, my sweet little bi***?
lol.
I love it. You my friend, are being mind-____, and I’m going to keep at it, because you’re a weak-minded joke. Not only are you dishonest on this blog, you’re dishonest with yourself. Embrace and admit your weakness. You enjoy being punked by me. Just admit it.
As you can tell, I’m utterly fascinated by you.
How old are you.
Where do you live?
What is your race/ethnicity?
Can I get your email address, so I can see a pic?
Most importantly:
What do you tell your family about carrying on an infinite conversation with who you’ve referred to as a “Marxist troll” and a pervert?
Translation: You have no frigging clue how he would have known. You’ve been caught completely empty-handed, and are now trying to fake your way out of it by pretending that it’s all somehow obvious.
Not even close. Just as there are plenty of ways of finding out things, there are also plenty of ways that certain things can be kept from others, even friends.
And that’s assuming that these abortions even took place in the first place. Which is quite a hefty assumption given the complete and total lack of any sort of evidence for them. But if they did happen, then if they were so successful at keeping them so entirely hidden from history, it’s not that much of a stretch to conclude that they likely were similarly sucessful in keeping them hidden from King.
Wow. Talk about serious delusions of grandeur. You refuse to see an obvious point about what your own post says in black and white, I keep throwing it back in your face to show you just how absurd you’re acting, and you think you’ve “shown me up” or something by just sitting there denying what’s right in front of your ugly mug. Like that’s an accomplishment of some kind. “Look, Mommy, I stalled him!”
Way to go, son. Way to go.
What hasn’t been addressed by you:
Your baseless need for a “vast information gathering network”, is just as absurd as your BIZARRE claim about the DADT repeal votes, how PP president Guttmacher, isn’t included in your *snicker* leadership and Foxnews allegedly is not in waiting rooms around the country. And why do you molest your neighbor’s son?
You my friend, continue to fascinate me. I’ve kept you on here for well over a month, where you lie, make absurd statements, backtrack, and fail miserably at reading comprehension. This thread will last for a full calendar year. Now answer my questions, whore.
When can I have a pic. Answer my standard questions. Have you ever been with a man of color?
You my friend, are a joke. And I’ve kept you like a yoyo on an endless thread, and you’ve referred to me as a Marxist and a troll. What does it say about you that you take time out of your life to twist yourself into a pretzel, lie, surf the net, lose composure, and engage endlessly with a person you refer to as an idiot, Marxist, and a troll? What does it say about you, my sweet little bi***?
lol.
I love it. You my friend, are being mind-____, and I’m going to keep at it, because you’re a weak-minded joke. Not only are you dishonest on this blog, you’re dishonest with yourself. Embrace and admit your weakness. You enjoy being punked by me. Just admit it.
As you can tell, I’m utterly fascinated by you.
How old are you?
Where do you live?
What is your race/ethnicity?
Can I get your email address, so I can see a pic?
Most importantly:
What do you tell your family about carrying on an infinite conversation with who you’ve referred to as a “Marxist troll” and a pervert?
There’s also a complete and total lack of evidence that there was a likelihood that PP had feelings and intentions of being pro-choice, and shared only within their “leadership”. So change your opinion on that, since you think every thought and conversation belongs on the internet. Try to stay consistent, dummy.
How dense are you??? That point has been made repeatedly. How many different people post under your handle? Tell them to keep up with the conversations. You’re a nut. What you fail to grasp is that MLK did’t need “public statements” or a “vast information gathering network”. Who the hell knows what he knew or didn’t know? I think PP probably performed abortions, and MLK coulda known, or could of a least known of the “feelings and intentions” of Guttmacher, the nameless person in your leadership. King was a committed radical leftist by 1966, by any objective measure. Sorry about your biases and what’s unsettling for you. Wow, just, wow. You, continue to fascinate.
From the guy who writes “out of the frying pan into the fire”, and talks about what ALL will see on this long abandoned thread. You’re a nut.
It can’t be proven or disproved. NOBODY knows for sure. Who the hell knows what King knew, you freaking
nut
The fact that you continue to cling to that lie shows just how desperate you’re getting. Thanks for that.
No, you never once posted a realistic scenario of how he would have found out. The closest you came was a hypothetical conversation in which he already somehow knew about it.
Then what did he need to find out these goings-on for which you have zero evidence ever occurred in the first place? That’s what you keep stalling on.
And if it was going on, and he was able to find out about it, then unless you have evidence that he had superior talents for sleuthing out these things, plenty of others in the black community would have found out about it as well, using the same methods.
And I can pretty much guarantee you that some of them would not have reacted well to the news, nor have been the least bit silent about their feelings on the matter.
Did you forget that you were the one threatening to use this thread against me in future encounters on this board? Doesn’t suprise me. You can’t even keep up with your own posts let alone mine. So being called a nut by someone with that Alzheimer’s-caliber mental capacity doesn’t exactly sting.
Desperate about what? Seriously, more delusions from you. In your nutty world can an anonymous and closeted blog member be capable of making someone “desperate”. Get a life, my sweet whore. Desperate? Tell me more about your “fire, frying pans” and what “all” will see on this thread. You nut. lol BTW, it’s not a “lie”, your posts support my assertion.
You really are a nut. lol. There are infinite scenarios of how PP could have performed abortions and MLK knowing about it. I could spend the rest of my life posting scenarios. Here’s the point your dumbass doesn’t get: MLK’s possible knowledge wasn’t just restricted to the need for “public statements” and “vast information gathering networks”. Similar to your DADT repeal lunacy, and frankly, your lunacy on just about every topic, I am seriously fascinated by what a loon you are.
(Just like you can pretty much guarantee me about how the DADT repeal wouldn’t have passed earlier in the term…I luv your guarantees…damn well)lol I can guarantee you that life doesn’t fit into your little biased and unsettled assumptions.
You are a friggin nut. And this point has been explained to you repeatedly, in previous posts. Stalling? Stalling for what…about what? I’m just gonna stay on this thread with you till you answer my questions. You’re stalling on that. You’re also stalling about giving me data on how many people got prosecuted for aborting black babies. In your world, although black women recieved illegal abortions, there’s simply no way any of them occurred in PP clinics; the same places that were established to limit the reproduction, and had the doctors and tools to carry them out. And the same clinics who “publicly” supported abortions a few years after they were allegedly vehemently opposed to them. Okay, believe what you want. I’m not one to answer your same question over and over, because you have reading problems, or my answers are unsatisfactory to you. Tell me more about serious delusions of grandeur lol
I’m not trying to “sting” you. How old are you? I’m just effing with you for my amusement. I’m a so-called “pervert, Marxist, and a troll”, and you can’t get enuff of my loving. And yes, I can’t wait to use your asinine positions on future threads. That just simply amuses me. You amuse me.
What hasn’t been addressed by you:
Your baseless need for a “vast information gathering network”, is just as absurd as your BIZARRE claim about the DADT repeal votes, how PP president Guttmacher, isn’t included in your *snicker* leadership and Foxnews allegedly is not in waiting rooms around the country. And why do you molest your neighbor’s son?
You my friend, continue to fascinate me. I’ve kept you on here for well over a month, where you lie, make absurd statements, backtrack, and fail miserably at reading comprehension. This thread will last for a full calendar year. Now answer my questions, whore.
When can I have a pic. Answer my standard questions. Have you ever been with a man of color?
You my friend, are a joke. And I’ve kept you like a yoyo on an endless thread, and you’ve referred to me as a Marxist and a troll. What does it say about you that you take time out of your life to twist yourself into a pretzel, lie, surf the net, lose composure, and engage endlessly with a person you refer to as an idiot, Marxist, and a troll? What does it say about you, my sweet little bi***?
lol.
I love it. You my friend, are being mind-____, and I’m going to keep at it, because you’re a weak-minded joke. Not only are you dishonest on this blog, you’re dishonest with yourself. Embrace and admit your weakness. You enjoy being punked by me. Just admit it.
As you can tell, I’m utterly fascinated by you.
How old are you?
Where do you live?
What is your race/ethnicity?
Can I get your email address, so I can see a pic?
Most importantly:
What do you tell your family about carrying on an infinite conversation with who you’ve referred to as a “Marxist troll” and a pervert?
Good, then it shouldn’t be that hard for you to post one. And then you can explain how only he would have found out about it, and that no one else would have found out who would have raised holy hell over it.
You waste so much bandwith on perverted nonsense, so it shouldn’t strain your poor fingers too much to throw in a sentence or two that actually backs up your position. Assuming there’s anything there.
It’s been addressed, repeatedly. And your whole why nobody would raise “holy hell/fuss/stink” has been addressed. Scroll on up the page. If you think I’m gonna repeat myself, and answer your same question over and over, you are clearly confused of who is the whore in our relationship. lol. You’re a nut.
Blackstone: But, but King would have needed “public statements” or a “vast information gathering network”, otherwise, how could he have known. Unreal.
What hasn’t been addressed by you:
Your baseless need for a “vast information gathering network”, is just as absurd as your BIZARRE claim about the DADT repeal votes, how PP president Guttmacher, isn’t included in your *snicker* leadership and Foxnews allegedly is not in waiting rooms around the country. And why do you molest your neighbor’s son?
You my friend, continue to fascinate me. I’ve kept you on here for well over a month, where you lie, make absurd statements, backtrack, and fail miserably at reading comprehension. This thread will last for a full calendar year. Now answer my questions, whore.
When can I have a pic. Answer my standard questions. Have you ever been with a man of color?
You my friend, are a joke. And I’ve kept you like a yoyo on an endless thread, and you’ve referred to me as a Marxist and a troll. What does it say about you that you take time out of your life to twist yourself into a pretzel, lie, surf the net, lose composure, and engage endlessly with a person you refer to as an idiot, Marxist, and a troll? What does it say about you, my sweet little bi***?
lol.
I love it. You my friend, are being mind-____, and I’m going to keep at it, because you’re a weak-minded joke. Not only are you dishonest on this blog, you’re dishonest with yourself. Embrace and admit your weakness. You enjoy being punked by me. Just admit it.
As you can tell, I’m utterly fascinated by you.
How old are you?
Where do you live?
What is your race/ethnicity?
Can I get your email address, so I can see a pic?
Most importantly:
What do you tell your family about carrying on an infinite conversation with who you’ve referred to as a “Marxist troll” and a pervert?
No, “Who knows? It’s certainly possible” is not addressing the question. If you can’t provide a realistic scenario of how it could happen, then your argument is completely dead in the water. And that indeed has been established repeatedly.
The only fascinating thing here is that you actually believe you’re fooling anyone with your incessant smoke-blowing. (well, maybe yourself, but that doesn’t seem too hard)
No, you are a yoyo. You prove that every time you dissonantly bounce back and forth between telling me how “no one will read this thread”, and then promising to show it to everyone.
But hey, look on the bright side. At least you’ve gone back to being somewhat entertaining again.
You’re such a fascinating pathological liar. I’ve given muliple possibilities. I could give one every day, and then you’d continue the circular conversation of “well how come nobody put up much of a fuss, or much of as stink?…yadayada, that has also been repeatedly addressed. As I’ve stated for damn near a year, the most fascinating thing about you, is your pathological need to lie on a blog. You have mental health issues.
More bizarre lies from you. The thread is long abandoned. What I’ve written is that I’ll use some of your specific posts and language from this thread, on future threads. Do you lie to you family and friends? I feel sorry for you. You are quite the nut.
Blackstone: But, but King would have needed “public statements” or a “vast information gathering network”, otherwise, he could not have known. Unreal.
What hasn’t been addressed by you:
Your baseless need for a “vast information gathering network”, is just as absurd as your BIZARRE claim about the DADT repeal votes, how PP president Guttmacher, isn’t included in your *snicker* leadership and Foxnews allegedly is not in waiting rooms around the country.
You my friend, continue to fascinate me. I’ve kept you on here for well over a month, where you lie, make absurd statements, backtrack, and fail miserably at reading comprehension. This thread will last for a full calendar year. Now answer my questions, whore.
When can I have a pic. Answer my standard questions. Have you ever been with a man of color?
You my friend, are a joke. And I’ve kept you like a yoyo on an endless thread, and you’ve referred to me as a Marxist and a troll. What does it say about you that you take time out of your life to twist yourself into a pretzel, lie, surf the net, lose composure, and engage endlessly with a person you refer to as an idiot, Marxist, and a troll? What does it say about you, my sweet little bi***?
lol.
I love it. You my friend, are being mind-____, and I’m going to keep at it, because you’re a weak-minded joke. Not only are you dishonest on this blog, you’re dishonest with yourself. Embrace and admit your weakness. You enjoy being punked by me. Just admit it.
As you can tell, I’m utterly fascinated by you.
How old are you?
Where do you live?
What is your race/ethnicity?
Can I get your email address, so I can see a pic?
Most importantly:
What do you tell your family about carrying on an infinite conversation with who you’ve referred to as a “Marxist troll” and a pervert?
Really? Quote one, liar. You obviously know how to use cut-and-paste, since you do it with every post, so this shouldn’t give you any cramps.
In your imagination only. Again, once you follow through on your “threat” to show this discussion to everyone, this will all be readily apparent to everyone.
Ah, I get it. In other words, you’ll quote me out of context. Well, be sure to include links when you do this, so everone will be able to see how skilled you are at prevaricating.
You’re not worth the time to scroll up the page, just to repeat myself to you. I’m not your whore. You are mine. You’ve commented on my scenarios. There are countless scenarios. It’s a waste of time to fall right back into your circular argument of of “well how come nobody put up much of a fuss, or much of as stink?…yadayada, that has also been repeatedly addressed. One could come up with countless scenarios with MLK and one or more of his mistresses, but you’d fall back into “well how come nobody put up much of a fuss, or much of as stink?…yadayada, that has also been repeatedly addressed.. Here’s the thing, dummy, you ONLY think MLK could know about abortions/intentions/feelings with “public records” or “vast information gathering networks”. Nothing else seems possible to you. So why repeat my scenarios, and give infinite new scenarios, when we go right back into your inane and dense thought process. You’re freaking insane. It’s like your incredibly bizarre certitude about the imaginary DADT repeal votes. You have insane ideas and possibilities that fit into a little “box”, and there’s no room for common sense alternatives. You, are a freaking lunatic.
I love how you obsess about what I’ll expose you about regarding some of your posts on this thread. You write about what “all” will see. I’m a grown-a$$ man, mind-******* you on an endless thread. I don’t write for “all” to see. To amuse myself, I’ll use some of your posts on future PP/Sanger threads, and of course *snicker* “doctors for Obamacare”. Several times now, you have written about having your posts exposed.You bring it up more than I do. Get therapy, if it worries you so much. You’re a weak-minded bit**. The 1st time I mentioned your feelings about the “pro-life Sanger”, is when you spazzed with
Of course I don’t believe that that evil witch was telling us her true feelings on the matter, any more than her outfit was when they released that pamphlet.
Although, like me you can’t cite any specific evidence to support that opinion. It’s just conjecture based on totality of circumstances and common sense. You’re not only a liar, you’re a hypocrite.
More obsessing:
You forgot to acknowledge how I just caught you in one of your countless lies. And yes, I will absolutely show your links.
My favorite part:
Blackstone: But, but King would have needed “public statements” or a “vast information gathering network”, otherwise, he could not have known. Unreal.
What hasn’t been addressed by you:
Your baseless need for a “vast information gathering network”, is just as absurd as your BIZARRE claim about the DADT repeal votes, how PP president Guttmacher, isn’t included in your *snicker* leadership and Foxnews allegedly is not in waiting rooms around the country.
You my friend, continue to fascinate me. I’ve kept you on here for well over a month, where you lie, make absurd statements, backtrack, and fail miserably at reading comprehension. This thread will last for a full calendar year. Now answer my questions, whore.
When can I have a pic. Answer my standard questions. Have you ever been with a man of color?
You my friend, are a joke. And I’ve kept you like a yoyo on an endless thread, and you’ve referred to me as a Marxist and a troll. What does it say about you that you take time out of your life to twist yourself into a pretzel, lie, surf the net, lose composure, and engage endlessly with a person you refer to as an idiot, Marxist, and a troll? What does it say about you, my sweet little bi***?
lol.
I love it. You my friend, are being mind-____, and I’m going to keep at it, because you’re a weak-minded joke. Not only are you dishonest on this blog, you’re dishonest with yourself. Embrace and admit your weakness. You enjoy being punked by me. Just admit it.
As you can tell, I’m utterly fascinated by you.
How old are you?
Where do you live?
What is your race/ethnicity?
Can I get your email address, so I can see a pic?
Most importantly:
What do you tell your family about carrying on an infinite conversation with who you’ve referred to as a “Marxist troll” and a pervert?
Well, that was fun while it lasted. But your posts have now moved from 95% perverted babbling to 100% perverted babbling. It is truly your one and only talent, and it’s clear that you thoroughly revel in it, like a pig rolling around in his own s***. So unless you shock me by making a substantive point, I think I’ll just let you diddle with yourself in peace.
It really does suit your personality very well, though. Enjoy!
We MADE it to the day. Hooray! I’ve addressed your points. You never addressed the majority of mine. It must be interesting going through life with biases and assumptions, with no room for alternate possibilities. You have damn well been a joy to play with and expose. Let’s keep this going. You have a lot of questions to answer:
What hasn’t been addressed by you:
Your baseless need for a “vast information gathering network”, is just as absurd as your BIZARRE claim about the DADT repeal votes, how PP president Guttmacher, isn’t included in your *snicker* leadership and Foxnews allegedly is not in waiting rooms around the country.
You my friend, continue to fascinate me. I’ve kept you on here for well over a month, where you lie, make absurd statements, backtrack, and fail miserably at reading comprehension. This thread will last for a full calendar year. Now answer my questions, whore.
When can I have a pic. Answer my standard questions. Have you ever been with a man of color?
You my friend, are a joke. And I’ve kept you like a yoyo on an endless thread, and you’ve referred to me as a Marxist and a troll. What does it say about you that you take time out of your life to twist yourself into a pretzel, lie, surf the net, lose composure, and engage endlessly with a person you refer to as an idiot, Marxist, and a troll? What does it say about you, my sweet little bi***?
lol.
I love it. You my friend, are being mind-____, and I’m going to keep at it, because you’re a weak-minded joke. Not only are you dishonest on this blog, you’re dishonest with yourself. Embrace and admit your weakness. You enjoy being punked by me. Just admit it.
As you can tell, I’m utterly fascinated by you.
How old are you?
Where do you live?
What is your race/ethnicity?
Can I get your email address, so I can see a pic?
Most importantly:
What do you tell your family about carrying on an infinite conversation with who you’ve referred to as a “Marxist troll” and a pervert?