ignore bad behavior by black students sez Obama

Dog, you have repeatedly made false or at least misleading statements in your responses to this thread.

You have repeatedly referred to the "...article that Bob posted with approval...". Approval by whom? The implication is that Bob approved of the article, but I see no evidence of that.

You continually refer to '...the premise of Bob's post, that the Executive Order promoting educational opportunities for African American students is simply "an attempt by President Obama to transfer massive wealth from white taxpayers to blacks". ' Neither Bob's post, nor the article referenced, make any such claim. Any reasonable reading of the article indicates that the transfer of wealth began prior to the Executive Order. Further, the purported quote is from one of your previous responses, not from the article, as you attempt to imply.

You state that "That article is vile for so many reasons, not the least of which is it makes the statement that whites are the only taxpayers, that somehow the executive order is a "massive wealth transfer" from whites to blacks, that blacks are bad for white society, that blacks as a whole are murderers and criminals, and on and on." But the article does not make any of these statements. You may have misread it as doing so, but it does not.

The only indication of possible racism in the situation that I see, excluding your comments, is that the Executive Order specifically requests that blacks be given favorable treatment in disciplinary situations. I concur with others here - I do not agree with this approach, rather I think concentration should be on how to get the behavior improved so that favorable treatment is not necessary.

I agree with jf1acai that once again Dog can't get facts straight regarding this article. Two of Dog's main examples of "racism" are Dog's claims that the article says Obama wants to transfer massive wealth from white taxpayers to blacks and that only whites are taxpayers. The article makes no such claims. So much for Dog's "proof" of racism.

And as I pointed out earlier, Dog was also wrong when Dog claimed the executive order does not call on schools to reduce the number of disciplinary actions taken against black students. It does call for it in that the order wants to eliminate "disparate" disciplinary actions.

And let me clarify something I said when I mentioned I didn't think many would disagree with eliminating "disparate disciplinary" actions. I was assuming that Obama was talking about cases where blacks are being disciplined due to the color of their skin rather than what may of actually happened. That's what I feel most people would agree is wrong.

But I realize that the terms in the executive order are pretty general and open to interpretation (which can lead to problems of implementation). "Disparate" could also mean that blacks are disciplined more simply because in some areas they may actually commit more violations (for whatever reason). And I'll agree the goal should not be to ignore legitimate violations simply to meet some goal. Instead you should work on removing the causes of any such disparities.

This is where you have to wonder just how government would try to achieve such a goal. Bureaucrats are notorious for collecting numbers, and some official may tell an underling that some numbers are too high and need to go down. And who knows just how the underling may try to accomplish that. We've already seen examples where there was a goal to reduce drug use in schools and kids ended up getting suspended for having aspirin. We've also seen goals to reduce guns, but kids get suspended for drawing a picture of a gun. So it wouldn't be surprising to see some crazy actions taken to reduce "disparate discipline" as well.

So far as the original article goes, I see it as more of a right wing over-reaction political piece than something racist. It makes many sweeping and general claims about African Americans, often without specific sources. Is that really racist? If so, I can see very similar sweeping and general claims in Obama's executive order without sources as well. In fact, some of the claims in the article are similar to claims in the executive order, but instead told from a right wing perspective vs. a left wing perspective.

For example, the article states...

There is a reason why blacks are more likely to be disciplined in school. Black students are more likely to misbehave. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that there is a huge crime rate disparity between blacks and other racial groups.

Obama's executive order simply states...

African Americans lack equal access to highly effective teachers and principals, safe schools, and challenging college-preparatory classes, and they disproportionately experience school discipline

or...

African American males also experience disparate rates of incarceration.

Here Obama offers no reason for the disparate rates of discipline/incarceration and no source.

Another example from the article...

Washington DC is the perfect example. It has the highest average per pupil funding of any public schools in the nation. It also has the blackest public schools in the nation. Yet, this over-funding of black students yields no results in terms of academic improvement. DC public schools are widely touted as the worst performing schools in the entire industrialized world.

If DC was a state, it would be the state with the highest average per pupil expenditure and the lowest average performance. More money does not equal better test scores.

And here is how Obama states it...

African American student achievement not only lags behind that of their domestic peers by an average of two grade levels, but also behind students in almost every other developed nation. Over a third of African American students do not graduate from high school on time with a regular high school diploma, and only four percent of African American high school graduates interested in college are college-ready across a range of subjects. An even greater number of African American males do not graduate with a regular high school diploma

Another sweeping generalization with no source. If that statement were in the original article, Dog would probably be livid and call it racist.

Here is something else interesting from the executive order...

Complementing the role of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in preparing generations of African American students for successful careers, and the work of my Administration's separate White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, this new Initiative's focus on improving all the sequential levels of education will produce a more effective educational continuum for all African American students.

I understand the historical importance of Black Colleges, and I still see a need today. But shouldn't more effort be made in improving the performance of blacks in more diverse colleges? How long will they feel a need for a separate college? Why continue to base a college on race and should the government be supporting such separate colleges?

As I mentioned, I find the original article politically biased and it's not my cup of tea. I think it is making a very worst case assumption of what might happen to discipline of black students in schools. But it wouldn't shock me either if something like that happened in some schools due to the over reaction of some government underlings. Also, the "disparate discipline" issue is a very minor part of the executive order as the word "discipline" is only mentioned in the order two times (at least the article did mention that).

The only thing in the article that jumped out at me was at the end where the author said...

The reality is that there is a massive transfer of wealth from white taxpayers to black public school students. Obama's blatantly false claims are an insult to all white people who pay taxes.

I don't think the word "white" was really necessary. Maybe "wealthy" or "well off" would of been better. The author seems to be responding to "Obama's blatantly false claims" but I can't find what those claims are. So the problem is I can't tell what the author was thinking.

And now I've typed all this stuff in a topic which really didn't interest me much to begin with. May main issue is with Dog and all the times Dog attacks people by calling them liars and racists (including me). And I think that was Dog's very first post in this new forum too! To me the word "racist" is very hateful and maybe just a bit below the hate of the "N" word. Calling people a racist with no hard evidence just shows me the type of person Dog really is. Again, I only disagreed with Dog about Joe Biden's motives at one event and that made me a racist according to the Dog. Anyway, that just gave me extra inspiration to go after Dog in threads like this where Dog can't really cite any clear facts, but just throw out the "R" word to make an argument.

Blazer Bob wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Blazer Bob wrote: You have given your opinion but you have not addressed a single point with but gross distortions.

You asked for my opinion, now you are complaining that I gave it? You wanted an opinion from a left winger, you got it. Now why don't you provide your opinion of the article? Do you agree with the author, that the executive order is an attempt by the President to "transfer massive wealth from white taxpayers to blacks"? Or do you find such statements to be racist and offensive? Not difficult questions, why not answer?
Why do you post such crap asking for opinions, then refuse to discuss it? Do you agree with the crap that you post or not?

The only place that is asserted is in your own mind. I knew what your opinion was going to be before you formulated it. I was wondering if there were any actual facts that the left had a counterpoint to.

I have my answer. You seem to have no regard for the generations of urban kids who have been raised in a culture of despair. I do not think you are a racist but you might as well be.

I worked with inner city kids a quarter of a century ago and it was tragic. It still is. I have posted many pieces about pilot programs that have successfully helped them. I have never seen any support for that from the radical left.

http://mymountaintown.com/forums/blazer ... ee#p270764

Bob, you have continued to refuse to answer your own question. You requested an opinion, I gave you mine. My opinion is that the article that you linked to is a vile piece of racist crap. You obviously approved of the article based on the title of the thread. Why will you not give us your opinion on the article? Do you agree with the author of that article? It is a simple question. Do you agree with the title of your own thread? Do you believe that the article fairly states the Executive Order (which was issued over a year ago, I do not know why you believe it is a current outrage)? Why do you refuse to answer the questions that you asked of others?

Further, why is it that Toad was the only conservative who answered the question, although he tried to weasel around his answer.

Somehow you feel that I should be forced to go point by point to disprove the article. I can certainly do so, but it is obvious from the entire article and the premise by it's author that is simply a racist piece of crap that should not even be discussed. Really, you read crap that claims that the President is attempting to transfer massive amounts of wealth from whites to blacks? Really?

pineinthegrass wrote: I agree with jf1acai that once again Dog can't get facts straight regarding this article. Two of Dog's main examples of "racism" are Dog's claims that the article says Obama wants to transfer massive wealth from white taxpayers to blacks and that only whites are taxpayers. The article makes no such claims. So much for Dog's "proof" of racism.

And as I pointed out earlier, Dog was also wrong when Dog claimed the executive order does not call on schools to reduce the number of disciplinary actions taken against black students. It does call for it in that the order wants to eliminate "disparate" disciplinary actions.

And let me clarify something I said when I mentioned I didn't think many would disagree with eliminating "disparate disciplinary" actions. I was assuming that Obama was talking about cases where blacks are being disciplined due to the color of their skin rather than what may of actually happened. That's what I feel most people would agree is wrong.

But I realize that the terms in the executive order are pretty general and open to interpretation (which can lead to problems of implementation). "Disparate" could also mean that blacks are disciplined more simply because in some areas they may actually commit more violations (for whatever reason). And I'll agree the goal should not be to ignore legitimate violations simply to meet some goal. Instead you should work on removing the causes of any such disparities.

This is where you have to wonder just how government would try to achieve such a goal. Bureaucrats are notorious for collecting numbers, and some official may tell an underling that some numbers are too high and need to go down. And who knows just how the underling may try to accomplish that. We've already seen examples where there was a goal to reduce drug use in schools and kids ended up getting suspended for having aspirin. We've also seen goals to reduce guns, but kids get suspended for drawing a picture of a gun. So it wouldn't be surprising to see some crazy actions taken to reduce "disparate discipline" as well.

So far as the original article goes, I see it as more of a right wing over-reaction political piece than something racist. It makes many sweeping and general claims about African Americans, often without specific sources. Is that really racist? If so, I can see very similar sweeping and general claims in Obama's executive order without sources as well. In fact, some of the claims in the article are similar to claims in the executive order, but instead told from a right wing perspective vs. a left wing perspective.

For example, the article states...

There is a reason why blacks are more likely to be disciplined in school. Black students are more likely to misbehave. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that there is a huge crime rate disparity between blacks and other racial groups.

Obama's executive order simply states...

African Americans lack equal access to highly effective teachers and principals, safe schools, and challenging college-preparatory classes, and they disproportionately experience school discipline

or...

African American males also experience disparate rates of incarceration.

Here Obama offers no reason for the disparate rates of discipline/incarceration and no source.

Another example from the article...

Washington DC is the perfect example. It has the highest average per pupil funding of any public schools in the nation. It also has the blackest public schools in the nation. Yet, this over-funding of black students yields no results in terms of academic improvement. DC public schools are widely touted as the worst performing schools in the entire industrialized world.

If DC was a state, it would be the state with the highest average per pupil expenditure and the lowest average performance. More money does not equal better test scores.

And here is how Obama states it...

African American student achievement not only lags behind that of their domestic peers by an average of two grade levels, but also behind students in almost every other developed nation. Over a third of African American students do not graduate from high school on time with a regular high school diploma, and only four percent of African American high school graduates interested in college are college-ready across a range of subjects. An even greater number of African American males do not graduate with a regular high school diploma

Another sweeping generalization with no source. If that statement were in the original article, Dog would probably be livid and call it racist.

Here is something else interesting from the executive order...

Complementing the role of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in preparing generations of African American students for successful careers, and the work of my Administration's separate White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, this new Initiative's focus on improving all the sequential levels of education will produce a more effective educational continuum for all African American students.

I understand the historical importance of Black Colleges, and I still see a need today. But shouldn't more effort be made in improving the performance of blacks in more diverse colleges? How long will they feel a need for a separate college? Why continue to base a college on race and should the government be supporting such separate colleges?

As I mentioned, I find the original article politically biased and it's not my cup of tea. I think it is making a very worst case assumption of what might happen to discipline of black students in schools. But it wouldn't shock me either if something like that happened in some schools due to the over reaction of some government underlings. Also, the "disparate discipline" issue is a very minor part of the executive order as the word "discipline" is only mentioned in the order two times (at least the article did mention that).

The only thing in the article that jumped out at me was at the end where the author said...

The reality is that there is a massive transfer of wealth from white taxpayers to black public school students. Obama's blatantly false claims are an insult to all white people who pay taxes.

I don't think the word "white" was really necessary. Maybe "wealthy" or "well off" would of been better. The author seems to be responding to "Obama's blatantly false claims" but I can't find what those claims are. So the problem is I can't tell what the author was thinking.

And now I've typed all this stuff in a topic which really didn't interest me much to begin with. May main issue is with Dog and all the times Dog attacks people by calling them liars and racists (including me). And I think that was Dog's very first post in this new forum too! To me the word "racist" is very hateful and maybe just a bit below the hate of the "N" word. Calling people a racist with no hard evidence just shows me the type of person Dog really is. Again, I only disagreed with Dog about Joe Biden's motives at one event and that made me a racist according to the Dog. Anyway, that just gave me extra inspiration to go after Dog in threads like this where Dog can't really cite any clear facts, but just throw out the "R" word to make an argument.

Really Pine, your whole justification for posting is to attack me, rather than respond to the questions posed? You accuse me of distortions while you continue to propagate distortions in your personal attacks on me. Please point out where I have called any individual in this thread a racist. Yet you continue to allege that I have done so. Who does that make a liar?

I consider the act of racism to be an incredible hateful act. I do not hesitate to call that out where it appears. That is why I chose to post, to call out that hateful act in that RACIST article. I have not called Bob or any one else here a racist in this thread. I don't believe that I have called any poster in this forum a racist ever, yet you claim that I constantly do so. Who is the liar?

I will not stand by and let racism occur. If you don't like it, tough.
I do appreciate that you take the time to actually read and analyze articles that others post for discussion. It is a very rare act in this forum. In regard to your discussion points that are aside from your personal attack and distortions on my posting, I will make my counter points.

The article alledged that the executive order was an attempt by the President to transfer "massive amounts of wealth from white taxpayers to black students". My take from that statement is that the author is making the underlying assumption that the only wealth transfer is from white taxpayers. The only read from that is that the author is claiming that the only taxpayers are white. Is that not correct? Otherwise the "transfer of massive wealth" would also include non-white taxpayers as well. It might be unfortunate that the author alleged only white taxpayers, but that was intentional on his part. So clearly the author was claiming that only whites are paying taxes. Is that not a racist attitude?

As to the student discipline. Bob's title clearly states "ignore bad behavior by black students sez Obama". This is obviously taken from the article itself which taken by itself might support such a title. But clearly, as you have acknowledged, the executive order does not state that, nor is there any support for such a statement. The Executive Order only stated an objective that disclipine that occurs only based on discriminatory purposes be stopped. That is a huge stretch and major distortion to claim that the President is trying to have bad behavior by black students ignored. Why would that remark be made, other than for racist reasons.

Yes, I find the article to be racist. No, I have not called any poster in this thread a racist. I do find it curious that only Toad is willing to stand up and agree with the author while the conservatives here duck and weave from answering, including the OP himself. Why not simply answer yes or no on whether you agree with the author? Why post the article in the first place, unless you are simply trolling?
Yes, I took Bob's bait, but in return, I am calling him out on it. If he intended a serious discussion, then let's discuss the article as he requested. Otherwise, let's call this what he intended, trolling.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Really Pine, your whole justification for posting is to attack me

In case you forgot dog, here's your first comment to Bob

Something the Dog Said wrote: Wow! Even for you Bob, this is really off the charts. You have managed to set the record for the new forum in terms of racism.

Pot / kettle? :pop

Rick wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Really Pine, your whole justification for posting is to attack me

In case you forgot dog, here's your first comment to Bob

Something the Dog Said wrote: Wow! Even for you Bob, this is really off the charts. You have managed to set the record for the new forum in terms of racism.

Pot / kettle? :pop

In the context of my remarks surrounding the portion that you clipped to take it out of context, it is clear that I was referring to the article. At no time did I call Bob or anyone else a racist. I was referring to the article, I describe why I considered the article to be racist. But of course when you clip remarks to take them out of context, you can certainly make them appear to be something else.
I do consider the article that Bob linked to and to which Bob brought forth to be racist. I do consider that by bringing the article forth was to bring racism into this forum. I still do not know whether Bob agrees with the article since he refuses to answer the very same questions that he posed. It appears that at best he was simply being a troll with no intention of a serious discussion of a topic that he raised. Too bad.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Really Pine, your whole justification for posting is to attack me, rather than respond to the questions posed? You accuse me of distortions while you continue to propagate distortions in your personal attacks on me. Please point out where I have called any individual in this thread a racist. Yet you continue to allege that I have done so. Who does that make a liar?

I consider the act of racism to be an incredible hateful act. I do not hesitate to call that out where it appears. That is why I chose to post, to call out that hateful act in that RACIST article. I have not called Bob or any one else here a racist in this thread. I don't believe that I have called any poster in this forum a racist ever, yet you claim that I constantly do so. Who is the liar?

Up to this point I've only posted in this thread twice. Where did I say that you "called any individual in this tread a racist"? I never did. If you are talking about Bob, I've never mentioned Bob's name (other than in a quote from you) in this thread until just now. The only specific individuals I've discussed were the author of the original article and myself. And now I see you are reverting back to the "liar" word too.

When you called me a racist it was regarding Joe Biden which I've already mentioned. So it obviously wasn't "this" thread (interesting you added "this").

Something the Dog Said wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote:

FredHayek wrote:

archer wrote: Joe was certainly a better choice for Obama than Ryan is for Romney.

lol Conservatives are eagerly waiting for the bloodbath that will be the VP debate.

Biden couldn't even put away political lightweight Palin in their debate.

And was Biden pandering to the African-Americans in the crowd (not that pandering is anything unusual in politics)? I get metaphors, but he said "they gonna put ya'll back in chains". He didn't need the word "back" in there. Without it, I could see a general metaphor. But when he says you'll be back in chains it comes across as being a much more specific reference.

Only a racist would think that. His reference was to Wall Street, that Romney would overturn the banking regulation brought about by President Obama which would enable Wall Street (a metaphor for the financial industry) to once again shackle the average american.

http://mymountaintown.com/forums/the-courthouse/22237?hilit=racist&start=50

In that one Biden thread alone, you called a few others racist as well.

And since you bring it up, let's talk about what you said regarding Bob in this thread. On a scale of 1 to 10 in how clearly you call someone a racist, I wouldn't call it a 10. A 10 would be saying "Bob, you are a racist". I'd rate your "Wow! Even for you Bob, this is really off the charts. You have managed to set the record for the new forum in terms of racism." more of an 8. I don't see how else to interpret it regardless of what you later said.

In my case when you said "Only a racist would think that" I'd call that at least a 9. How else can it be interpreted other than you called me a racist? Plus I called you on it several times in that thread and you never pulled it back.

But maybe that's just you being a weasel and not giving us a full 10. Maybe you seem to think it gives you some sort of "plausible deniability"?

pineinthegrass wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Really Pine, your whole justification for posting is to attack me, rather than respond to the questions posed? You accuse me of distortions while you continue to propagate distortions in your personal attacks on me. Please point out where I have called any individual in this thread a racist. Yet you continue to allege that I have done so. Who does that make a liar?

I consider the act of racism to be an incredible hateful act. I do not hesitate to call that out where it appears. That is why I chose to post, to call out that hateful act in that RACIST article. I have not called Bob or any one else here a racist in this thread. I don't believe that I have called any poster in this forum a racist ever, yet you claim that I constantly do so. Who is the liar?

Up to this point I've only posted in this thread twice. Where did I say that you "called any individual in this tread a racist"? I never did. If you are talking about Bob, I've never mentioned Bob's name (other than in a quote from you) in this thread until just now. The only specific individuals I've discussed were the author of the original article and myself. And now I see you are reverting back to the "liar" word too.

When you called me a racist it was regarding Joe Biden which I've already mentioned. So it obviously wasn't "this" thread (interesting you added "this").

Something the Dog Said wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote:

FredHayek wrote:

archer wrote: Joe was certainly a better choice for Obama than Ryan is for Romney.

lol Conservatives are eagerly waiting for the bloodbath that will be the VP debate.

Biden couldn't even put away political lightweight Palin in their debate.

And was Biden pandering to the African-Americans in the crowd (not that pandering is anything unusual in politics)? I get metaphors, but he said "they gonna put ya'll back in chains". He didn't need the word "back" in there. Without it, I could see a general metaphor. But when he says you'll be back in chains it comes across as being a much more specific reference.

Only a racist would think that. His reference was to Wall Street, that Romney would overturn the banking regulation brought about by President Obama which would enable Wall Street (a metaphor for the financial industry) to once again shackle the average american.

http://mymountaintown.com/forums/the-courthouse/22237?hilit=racist&start=50

In that one Biden thread alone, you called a few others racist as well.

And since you bring it up, let's talk about what you said regarding Bob in this thread. On a scale of 1 to 10 in how clearly you call someone a racist, I wouldn't call it a 10. A 10 would be saying "Bob, you are a racist". I'd rate your "Wow! Even for you Bob, this is really off the charts. You have managed to set the record for the new forum in terms of racism." more of an 8. I don't see how else to interpret it regardless of what you later said.

In my case when you said "Only a racist would think that" I'd call that at least a 9. How else can it be interpreted other than you called me a racist? Plus I called you on it several times in that thread and you never pulled it back.

But maybe that's just you being a weasel and not giving us a full 10. Maybe you seem to think it gives you some sort of "plausible deniability"?

Really?

And now I've typed all this stuff in a topic which really didn't interest me much to begin with. May main issue is with Dog and all the times Dog attacks people by calling them liars and racists (including me). And I think that was Dog's very first post in this new forum too! To me the word "racist" is very hateful and maybe just a bit below the hate of the "N" word. Calling people a racist with no hard evidence just shows me the type of person Dog really is. Again, I only disagreed with Dog about Joe Biden's motives at one event and that made me a racist according to the Dog. Anyway, that just gave me extra inspiration to go after Dog in threads like this where Dog can't really cite any clear facts, but just throw out the "R" word to make an argument.

Interesting circular logic that you used. You claim that you never said that I called anyone a racist in this thread, but then you go on about your interpretation of my remarks about the racist article equaled a 9 out 10 in calling Bob a racist. Which of course my remarks are very clear that I only considered the article to be racist, which it most definitely was. And of course I was voicing my opinion about the article as requested by Bob. So which is it, are you claiming that I called Bob a racist, or not?
Similarly when my remarks in the Biden thread are taken in full context, rather than clipped, my opinion was that the remarks attributed to Biden being racist could only have been from someone with a racist bent. I believe your remarks when Biden was speaking about Romney overturning financial regulations on Wall Street would put the lower income classes back in chains was that Biden was claiming that Romney would put blacks back into slavery. Which was an obvious ridiculous statement and was intended to incite a racism reference. Perhaps I could have been more artful in my retort in the heat of the discussion, but obviously the tortured distortion by you to create a racist remark was bothersome.

Interesting that despite your global search of the entire forum, that was the only example that you could find, yet you keep claiming that I frequently call other posters racists.

I have stated repeatedly in this thread that I don't know if Bob is a racist. I don't know him. I have asked him if he thought the article was racist, or even to discuss the article upon which he had requested discussion, but he has refused to do so. I will reiterate once again that in my opinion, the article was clearly racist, and have expressed my reasoning why I have found it to be so.

Toad is the only one who has expressed an opinion in support of the article and I am the only one who has denounced it.

I don't know how I can make it anymore less "weaselly" than that. Your attempts to distort my statements into anything else are pathetic but you have made it clear that you are cyberstalking me through this forum to wreak personal attacks upon me. So be it.
I have called no one a racist or a liar in this thread other than the author of that article. I do not believe that I have "repeatedly" called others racists, but if I have done so, I will be happy to revisit the context of that discussion and apologize if warranted. You can keep creating false attacks on me but I stand behind my remarks in this thread. If you want to go back and rehash old threads to attack me, then that is your privilege. I have better things to do in life.

Look, you claimed that I accused you of calling someone specific a racist in this thread. That wasn't true since I had never mentioned anyone by name in this thread when you made that claim.

Get off the circular stuff, this is straight line. I just decided since you were making a big deal of it that at that point I'd express my opinion about your Bob comment (and it was 8 out of 10, not 9). I had not expressed any opinion prior to that point as you had claimed.

You claimed you haven't called anyone a racist in other threads either. Since I'd already said you had called me a racist in the Biden thread (and I never said Biden's remarks were racist as you claim), I only needed to prove it which is what I did. I also mentioned you called at least two others racist too in that same Biden thread (do you really need a link for that too?). There was no need for me to look any further since I already showed you were wrong. Yeah I did a search for where you said "racist" but I only looked at the result that pertained to me and ignored all the other hits. It doesn't mean you never said it to anyone else.

And so far as "cyberstalking" goes, if you keep calling people racists with no hard evidence I have every right to reply. It's hardly "cyberstalking".

But anyway I'll agree on one thing. I've made my points and am moving on....

pineinthegrass wrote: Look, you claimed that I accused you of calling someone specific a racist in this thread. That wasn't true since I had never mentioned anyone by name in this thread when you made that claim.

Get off the circular stuff, this is straight line. I just decided since you were making a big deal of it that at that point I'd express my opinion about your Bob comment (and it was 8 out of 10, not 9). I had not expressed any opinion prior to that point as you had claimed.

You claimed you haven't called anyone a racist in other threads either. Since I'd already said you had called me a racist in the Biden thread (and I never said Biden's remarks were racist as you claim), I only needed to prove it which is what I did. I also mentioned you called at least two others racist too in that same Biden thread (do you really need a link for that too?). There was no need for me to look any further since I already showed you were wrong. Yeah I did a search for where you said "racist" but I only looked at the result that pertained to me and ignored all the other hits. It doesn't mean you never said it to anyone else.

And so far as "cyberstalking" goes, if you keep calling people racists with no hard evidence I have every right to reply. It's hardly "cyberstalking".

But anyway I'll agree on one thing. I've made my points and am moving on....

Methinks thou protesth too much.

Apparently your point was that I call people racist, even though the only reference that I made in the thread to racism was to the article, and I will once again denounce that article as racist. I am not sure what "point" that you think you made. I had hard evidence that the article was racist, I made my points, I expressed my opinion as I had been requested to do. The only point to be taken from this exchange is that the article was racist and you somehow thought my opinion that it was racist was worthy of a personal attack by you. Since you now claim that you did not accuse me of calling a specific poster in this thread a racist, what was your point in attacking me. That I dare use the term "racist" to describe an obviously racist article? That term was accurate and on point to describe that article. You attacked me for calling someone a "liar" when the only individual I had referred to was the author of the article who clearly had lied. Now it appears that you are on a personal vendatta based on a thread that was posted about a year ago. You should have brought that up at that time, rather than begin personal attacks months later. That is just sad and petty.

You did admit that you had no interest in this thread other than to personally attack me. That makes it cyberstalking.