Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, (original, huh?) airs on Tuesdays at 10:PM and Saturdays at 8:PM, Eastern time on RainbowRadio.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Sterling Silver




---------------------------

"It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you’re associating with black people. Do you have to?"

"You can sleep with [black people]. You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want.  The little I ask you is not to promote it on that ... and not to bring them to my games."

"I’m just saying, in your lousy fucking Instagrams, you don’t have to have yourself with, walking with black people." 

"Don't put [Magic Johnson] on an Instagram for the world to have to see so they have to call me.  And don't bring him to my games."

~soon to be former LA Clippers Owner, Donald Sterling


---------------------------

BTW, just so there is no confusion, I did not feel it necessary in my video to specifically condemn Sterling's remarks. That was not actually relevant to my overall point, and at this point is hardly necessary as so many people far greater than myself have already come down on him, hard, and rightfully so.

Obviously the remarks are despicable.  That should go without saying.

I had a kind of different take on the whole thing though, that was at once both cynical and optimistic. And THAT'S what I wanted to talk about here.

494 comments:

  1. The interesting thing about this situation is that the NBA knew of Silver's racism. He started his career as an 'ambulance chaser' and soon became a 'slum lord'. The NBA didn't seem to have a problem then. All they wanted was an owner for a team to get their product promoted. They didn't seem to care who did it as long as it was done. He continued his racist mentality throughout his ownership. The NBA continued to ignore it. Now they kick the guy out because of a couple statements that just showed more continued racism. This is a 'photo op' moment for Silver trying to increase support of the NBA. I'm surprised he didn't threaten to have Sterling kicked out of America. After all, we ARE still allowed to say what we want and believe what we want freely. There was no harm done, other than to the many liberals who expressed such phoney disgust over comments he made and just seem to forget that he's been that way since day 1. Silver got his power play move and all of America loves him. Where was that phoney disgust previously? How about all the other racists in America? Are they suddenly exposed to being fired for being racist? Or, only the white ones?

    Funny side point to this: the two main names in this are Silver and Sterling .... Sterling Silver LOL

    ReplyDelete
  2. Let's compare your words above to your previous comments, shall we?
    "People can choose who they want to have work for them. And, if a sexually deviant lifestyle is harmful to a business's image then they will get fired. Simple as that. Who cares if there are no laws against firing gays for being gay. People get fired every day for all kinds of reasons. A sexually deviant lifestyle should be no different."

    So, people who have sexual relations that you disapprove of should be vulnerable to being fired for the sake of the image of the business, but you're worried about the employment security of people who hate others based on skin color.

    Wait, there's more:
    "Why would I care about choices others make? Everyone else has to live with the choices we make. What makes them different? If I get fired for lying, then that was a choice I made. If I get fired because I screwed the boss's wife, that is a choice I made."

    "What about the employers "right" to have a positive public image?"

    Maybe racism is supposed to be innate, in your opinion? As if people are born racist, so they shouldn't be fired for how they are? You would have to, because if you don't care about people's choices, you wouldn't bemoan the plight of the poor racist here.

    Regarding more specific parts of your rant:
    "I'm surprised he didn't threaten to have Sterling kicked out of America. After all, we ARE still allowed to say what we want and believe what we want freely."

    Freedom of speech doesn't apply to employment. It's really that simple.

    "There was no harm done, other than to the many liberals who expressed such phoney disgust over comments he made and just seem to forget that he's been that way since day 1."

    First off, why would knowing about his racism make the disgust "phoney"? Rush Limbaugh's made any number of racist comments, and it's still disgusting. Next, we have this:
    "The interesting thing about this situation is that the NBA knew of Silver's racism."
    Somehow, that shifts from "the NBA" to "liberals" who "seem to forget that he's been that way". When was this public knowledge, previously? Or are people not supposed to be outraged because some small group knew about this already?

    You're essentially taking the position that no comment is grounds for termination. What would the "harm" be? If you're offended because some media figure made hateful comments about Christians, so what? People can say what they want, right?

    "How about all the other racists in America? Are they suddenly exposed to being fired for being racist? Or, only the white ones?"

    Did you have some examples of minority racists that don't face any consequences, or did you simply have a swell of empathy for victimized white people?

    Keep fighting for those racists, William. Someday, you will overcome!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's compare your words above to your previous comments, shall we?

      No.
      If you want to go on your own tangent, then it is on your own. If you have a problem with MHO, then take it up with people who care. I'm not that one. You lie too often and misquote too often to bother with.
      If you have something to say about THIS subject then say it. Otherwise take your whines to the articles that they are related to. Because it sure seems that all you do is whine.


      For instance: Maybe racism is supposed to be innate, in your opinion?

      Where do you get the idea that I support racism? You must be a complete moron to interpret what I said as meaning I support racism.
      Wait, never mind.


      Regarding more specific parts of your rant:

      No rant. Just my opinion. Do you really have that much of a problem with me posting here? If you want to talk about rants, let's digest what you just posted. What a whiner you are. Are you so pissed off that I totally blow all of your positions out of the water that you've got to do this? Well, you go right ahead and whine. It IS what trolls do.


      First off, why would knowing about his racism make the disgust "phoney"?

      Because you wait until 30-40 years later to make an issue out of it. You fuckin liberal, are you so stupid you can't even understand that? Wait, you want to have a reason why you supported this guy earlier? Because he donated to YOUR cause in his early career. Now that he supports republicans you suddenly have a problem with his racism. Gee, go figure.


      If you're offended because some media figure made hateful comments about Christians, so what? People can say what they want, right?

      Yes, so what. People do just that, all the time. It doesn't harm me. It doesn't harm you. What the hell is your complaint?


      Keep fighting for those racists, William. Someday, you will overcome!

      I wipe my ass with 4 squares of tissue when I take a shit. How bout you? Because what you bring is just shit. Bring it or leave it ... but shitting is your specialty. You can't even support your own position, you only whine about opinions expressed by others.
      A whining little troll who lies and misinterprets ... yeah you'll go far in life with that attitude.

      Delete
    2. "If you want to go on your own tangent, then it is on your own."

      Your past comments are entirely relevant. If you have something to show otherwise, I'd love to see that.

      "You lie too often and misquote too often to bother with."

      So you didn't make those comments? Is that your defense? Also, of course, you've never demonstrated any lies or misquotes on my part.

      "If you have something to say about THIS subject then say it."

      I have. Since you think that it's fine that people get fired for all kinds of reasons, you shouldn't worry about racists getting fired.

      "Where do you get the idea that I support racism? You must be a complete moron to interpret what I said as meaning I support racism."

      So why are you concerned if racists lose their jobs? Also, "innate" doesn't imply support, so your quote selection is odd. It looks as if you're using "innate" to interpret "support", which makes your "must be a complete moron to interpret what I said as meaning" line quite amusing.

      Regarding the actual meaning of "innate", though, do you think that people are born racist?

      "No rant. Just my opinion."

      Those aren't mutually exclusive terms.

      "Do you really have that much of a problem with me posting here?"

      No, I have a problem with your lack of consistency, reason and self-control.

      "Are you so pissed off that I totally blow all of your positions out of the water that you've got to do this?"

      Are you under the impression that you revealed some tremendous flaw in my post? Above, you sidestep your blatant self-contradiction by crying "tangent". Not only does that demonstrate how you don't counter what I say, and therefore don't damage my arguments in the slightest, but that there's nothing wrong with my response here. If you can't show a good reason why I shouldn't have posted what I did, then you can't question why I've "got to do this".

      Delete
    3. "Because you wait until 30-40 years later to make an issue out of it."

      This was a hypothetical, so you need to say "would wait". Again, "disgust" would still be legitimate, whether it was previously known or not. Racism is always grounds for criticism, regardless of the person's history of it.

      "Wait, you want to have a reason why you supported this guy earlier? Because he donated to YOUR cause in his early career."

      Again, when was this public knowledge? All you said was that the NBA knew about it, so it's not clear why you think that "liberals" are supposed to be silent now that it's out in the open. On that note, are liberals the only people that have exhibited disgust over the comments? Conservatives and independents thought what he said was acceptable, or what?

      "Yes, so what. People do just that, all the time. It doesn't harm me. It doesn't harm you. What the hell is your complaint?"

      So you wouldn't comment on a broadcaster who said that Christians were "delusional", for instance? You'd be just fine with that? You can't even handle someone on the internet saying that church charity is inefficient without declaring it "anti-religion", and I'm supposed to believe that you wouldn't be calling for that person's proverbial head on a platter? Please.

      On top of that, such bigotry would be clearly harmful to the image of the network. So, according to you, that person should be fired. But you also say that there's no harm and people can say what they want. You should ask yourself why you're inconsistent on that.

      In fact, I'll help you get started on that.

      Binary thinking is idiotic. You can have as many political, religious, or whatever other differences with people, and it's still stupid to react based to the person instead of a specific comment or action. Simply since I mentioned him before, we'll take Limbaugh as an example. I'm going to disagree with almost everything he says. But if there's some scandal involving a Democrat, and he's complaining because the party covered it up, then he would be right. That would be a valid criticism. I'm not going to twist myself in knots to come up with a way that the people involved with that situation are somehow blameless, or how the issue is brought up solely for political reasons, or whatever else. That would be ridiculous behavior.

      The good scenario for you is that you're engaging in binary thinking. You saw liberals complaining about flagrantly racist remarks, and your reaction was that they were liberals, therefore they must somehow be wrong. If that's the case, then you made a mistake. When liberals lambaste people for genuine racism, liberals are right. You can say that, the same way I can say that when conservatives lambaste people for genuine racism, conservatives are right.

      Of course, if you really think that there's cause for concern when people face consequences for such outrageous bigotry, then you're a goddamned racist. Are you going to pretend that's not a valid reason to respond to you?

      Delete
    4. Since you think that it's fine that people get fired for all kinds of reasons, you shouldn't worry about racists getting fired.

      I don't worry about it. I expressed that my concern was that the NBA knew he was a racist from the beginning, and so has everyone else. All of this is public knowledge.


      So why are you concerned if racists lose their jobs?

      I'm not. What part of my comment did I show that I was "concerned" he lost his job?


      No, I have a problem with your lack of consistency, reason and self-control.

      Well, that's your problem, then. It affects me in no way.


      Not only does that demonstrate how you don't counter what I say, and therefore don't damage my arguments in the slightest, but that there's nothing wrong with my response here.

      You're not making an argument about this issue, you're going off on another tangent about my humble opinion being different than your own.


      Again, "disgust" would still be legitimate, whether it was previously known or not. Racism is always grounds for criticism, regardless of the person's history of it.

      I agree it is always grounds for criticism. But, I am expressing my concern on the hypocrisy of the timing of that criticism.


      All you said was that the NBA knew about it, so it's not clear why you think that "liberals" are supposed to be silent now that it's out in the open.

      That isn't "all" I said about that. And, I also said all of America is glad he got what he got. And, it isn't "now" that he was known to be a racist. That has been known for years and years and years. So, on your "note" you are wrong. Reading comp 101.


      So you wouldn't comment on a broadcaster who said that Christians were "delusional", for instance?

      Context, pal, context. Where have I not commented on something, like that? Again, what is your complaint?


      On top of that, such bigotry would be clearly harmful to the image of the network.

      What "network" are you talking about? Are you discussing an issue that no one else is discussing?


      That would be a valid criticism

      What did the NBA do to Sterling during the previous claims of his racism? I don't remember him losing sponsors, and I don't remember the commissioner saying he was banned for life. I also don't remember him being fined. Would you consider that a cover-up or just ignoring the issue? Either way, they knew.


      You saw liberals complaining about flagrantly racist remarks, and your reaction was that they were liberals, therefore they must somehow be wrong

      In NO way did I say they were "wrong". My implication is they are hypocrites.


      Are you going to pretend that's not a valid reason to respond to you?

      When you can't figure out that my concern is on the hypocrisy of those crying, then I would say you do not have a valid reason. And, since that hypocrisy has completely escaped your mind, then what reason ARE you responding to me for?


      Delete
    5. "I don't worry about it."

      You: "How about all the other racists in America? Are they suddenly exposed to being fired for being racist? Or, only the white ones?"

      "I expressed that my concern was that the NBA knew he was a racist from the beginning, and so has everyone else."

      When did "everyone else" know that, and how?

      "What part of my comment did I show that I was "concerned" he lost his job?"

      I didn't specify Sterling there.

      "Well, that's your problem, then. It affects me in no way."

      So, you can't explain why those things are supposedly not grounds for criticism?

      "You're not making an argument about this issue, you're going off on another tangent about my humble opinion being different than your own."

      I'm demonstrating your inconsistency, which brings the basis of your opinion on this issue into question.

      "I agree it is always grounds for criticism."

      Then the disgust isn't "phoney", until you can show how his racism has been public knowledge for decades. Where are the condemnations of his past actions from conservatives?

      "That isn't "all" I said about that."

      Yes, it is. All you said to show public knowledge was that the NBA knew about it.

      "And, I also said all of America is glad he got what he got."

      How would that be relevant to what you were responding to?

      "And, it isn't "now" that he was known to be a racist. That has been known for years and years and years."

      By who?

      "Context, pal, context. Where have I not commented on something, like that?"

      What context are you referring to? And if you'd comment on something like that, why?

      "What "network" are you talking about?"

      It's part of the hypothetical scenario that you already accepted.

      "What did the NBA do to Sterling during the previous claims of his racism?"

      Probably not enough. If you were criticizing the NBA alone, that would be a valid point.

      "Would you consider that a cover-up or just ignoring the issue?"

      If it was a cover-up, then you can't claim that the millions upon millions of liberals who were outraged were expressing "phoney disgust".

      "In NO way did I say they were "wrong". My implication is they are hypocrites."

      Hypocrisy isn't wrong?

      "When you can't figure out that my concern is on the hypocrisy of those crying, then I would say you do not have a valid reason."

      Oh, so hypocrisy is wrong. I'm glad you came around on that. Now, I can easily point out that I disputed your claim of hypocrisy from the start ("Somehow, that shifts from "the NBA" to "liberals" who "seem to forget that he's been that way". When was this public knowledge, previously?"), so obviously I know what one of your concerns was.

      You also expressed a concern for the welfare of those "suddenly exposed to being fired for being racist", as well as the ability for all Americans to say what we want to. Because, apparently, you want to make it clear that people have the right to be racists.

      So, don't pretend that your remarks were restricted to your claims of hypocrisy. You went well past those limits.

      Delete
    6. I didn't specify Sterling there.

      Perhaps you should try to stay focused on what IS being discussed and not what you THINK is being discussed.


      I'm demonstrating your inconsistency, which brings the basis of your opinion on this issue into question.

      You seem to be trying to demonstrate that, but your demonstration isn't related to what I actually said. You should think about trying again. Perhaps this time you could use what I did say and not what you think I said.


      Yes, it is. All you said to show public knowledge was that the NBA knew about it.

      In August 2006, the U.S. Department of Justice sued Sterling for housing discrimination in using race as a factor in filling some of his apartment buildings. The suit charged that Sterling refused to rent to non-Koreans in the Koreatown neighborhood and to African Americans in Beverly Hills.

      In February 2009, Sterling was sued by former longtime Clippers executive Elgin Baylor for employment discrimination on the basis of age and race.

      Those are at the wiki site for him. I'm sure you can look for more yourself. Unless you want others to do the work for you, as most liberals expect.
      Wait, maybe the NBA was completely clueless at that time and just didn't think he was a racist. Maybe the NBA miraculously figured that out a week ago and just did not see the trend beforehand. If that's what you think, then ... yeah ... you got me on that one. Of course, if that's what you think, then you're an idiot and completely ignorant of current affairs relating to race relations.


      By who?

      Anyone who has half a functioning brain. Does that leave you out?


      It's part of the hypothetical scenario that you already accepted.

      I've accepted no scenario of yours, hypothetical or not.


      If it was a cover-up, then you can't claim that the millions upon millions of liberals who were outraged were expressing "phoney disgust".

      But, since there is no cover-up, I can. I take it, from the response you just gave, that you consider that the NBA just ignored his racism. And the "millions upon millions" (your words, not mine) of liberals are expressing phoney disgust.


      Hypocrisy isn't wrong?

      The way you keep practicing it, I tend to think you don't believe that is true.


      Oh, so hypocrisy is wrong.

      Make up your mind ... is or isn't? Because I don't see the word "wrong" in any definition of hypocrisy. Are you using that "special" dictionary that only you have access too, again?


      Because, apparently, you want to make it clear that people have the right to be racists.

      Did you watch Eddie's video? Because he said the same thing. No, I guess you didn't watch the video or you'd be saying the same thing about him. Try to do a LITTLE research before you spew your shit, ok? Do you need more TP for your shit or tissues for your crying? Actually, you can use either for both, it's just that one is more expensive than the other. You may not know that if you never buy your own stuff and continually rely on others to provide basic necessities for you.

      Delete
    7. "Perhaps you should try to stay focused on what IS being discussed and not what you THINK is being discussed."

      You: "How about all the other racists in America? Are they suddenly exposed to being fired for being racist? Or, only the white ones?"
      Feel free to explain how you're focused on Sterling in that quote.

      "You seem to be trying to demonstrate that, but your demonstration isn't related to what I actually said."

      Your stand on the business's right to fire people isn't related to your concern for people being fired?

      "Perhaps this time you could use what I did say and not what you think I said."

      I'm quite sure that the copy and paste functions are working properly, so those quotes are what you did say.

      "Those are at the wiki site for him. I'm sure you can look for more yourself. Unless you want others to do the work for you, as most liberals expect."

      Oh, so you were referring to people who had done research on Sterling. I'm not sure how you can claim that those particular people displayed "phoney disgust" over the recent incident.

      "If that's what you think, then ... yeah ... you got me on that one."

      You're lost, and we're not even up to ten posts. Here:
      Me: "Again, when was this public knowledge? All you said was that the NBA knew about it, so it's not clear why you think that "liberals" are supposed to be silent now that it's out in the open."
      You: "That isn't "all" I said about that."
      Me: "Yes, it is. All you said to show public knowledge was that the NBA knew about it."
      Then, you try to prove that the NBA knew about it. The phrase "public knowledge" is what you need to address.

      "Anyone who has half a functioning brain."

      And who has independently researched Sterling. I'm waiting for your demonstrations of public outcry from conservatives, to show what liberals were supposed to do before this event.

      "I've accepted no scenario of yours, hypothetical or not."

      Me: "If you're offended because some media figure made hateful comments about Christians, so what? People can say what they want, right?"
      You: "Yes, so what. [sic] People do just that, all the time. It doesn't harm me. It doesn't harm you. What the hell is your complaint?"

      "But, since there is no cover-up, I can. I take it, from the response you just gave, that you consider that the NBA just ignored his racism."

      If there wasn't a cover-up, why did you include that possibility?

      "And the "millions upon millions" (your words, not mine) of liberals are expressing phoney disgust."

      Assuming that they all looked up Sterling's legal history, of course.

      "The way you keep practicing it, I tend to think you don't believe that is true."

      You'd have to show any such practice, first. More importantly, try to focus. Since you think hypocrisy is wrong, then you would apply that to the phrase "they must somehow be wrong".

      "Make up your mind ... is or isn't?"

      I'm asking you, since you distinguished between "hypocrites" and "wrong".

      "Because I don't see the word "wrong" in any definition of hypocrisy."

      This would be one of those "word deflections" you were whining about. Is your point supposed to be that hypocrisy isn't wrong, because of that?

      "No, I guess you didn't watch the video or you'd be saying the same thing about him."

      I don't have a strong signal where I'm at, so I'm not playing many videos. Since you didn't point out anything about the video, it wasn't necessary in order to address your post.

      It's quite unlikely that he said what you did, though. And even if he did, then I'd criticize him as well. Why would you think that your comment, even if it's true, could possibly change anything I've said?

      Delete
    8. Then, you try to prove that the NBA knew about it. The phrase "public knowledge" is what you need to address.

      Both of the wiki quotes indicate situations that the NBA could not possibly have NOT known about. He was sued by the federal government for racist tactics. Obviously, the public knows about this. Perhaps you can check to see what mmfa had to say about him during that time-frame.
      Then consider that they ban him for life because of hearsay. Yet, did nothing during his federal accusations of racism. Are you just acting stupid or is it not an act?


      This would be one of those "word deflections" you were whining about.

      That's right. Frustrating isn't it?


      Since you didn't point out anything about the video, it wasn't necessary in order to address your post.

      Actually, if you ever decide to watch the video, a lot of what I said came from it. I didn't think you were commenting on the issue at hand, but rather are just whining at me because of your hatred of me. Do you want me to buy those tissues for you? I've got some extra cash that I can give you, if you are so destitute that you can't afford to purchase your own tissues. That's how us right-wingers work: we give to others. And, that's how left-wingers work: they get from others.



      It's quite unlikely that he said what you did, though. And even if he did, then I'd criticize him as well.

      I think you're lying. And, you'll use a multitude of excuses to keep from watching the video. Or, if you do watch it you'll deny that you've seen it. Either way, I don't expect to see you criticize Eddie. So, I don't know why you would say anything like that. You know it won't happen. I still think you're lying.

      Delete
    9. "Obviously, the public knows about this."

      Then you have evidence of conservatives criticizing him at the time. Newspaper columns, websites, quotes from news articles about these lawsuits, et cetera. If this was publicized, surely there's plenty of documentation.

      "That's right. Frustrating isn't it?"

      Not in the slightest, but thanks for proving your hypocrisy.

      "I didn't think you were commenting on the issue at hand, but rather are just whining at me because of your hatred of me."

      Oh, you poor victim. If only more people could be like you, full of sunshine and rainbows when you post things like "You fuckin [sic] liberal, are you so stupid you can't even understand that?".

      If we can move past your unintentional comedy act here, I addressed your comment. If that wasn't about the issue at hand, then why were you off-topic?

      "That's how us right-wingers work: we give to others."

      That's classic, considering that your parents charged you rent while you were in high school. Maybe you meant that you give to others, except family members, who either pay up or hit the road.

      "I think you're lying."

      That's because you're a bigot. You generalize in order to make assumptions about people you know very little about.

      "Either way, I don't expect to see you criticize Eddie."

      You obviously don't remember when I frequented MMfA. Unfair and inflammatory posts from liberals received the same treatment that yours do.

      "You know it won't happen."

      I'm guessing that he didn't say anything close to what you did, and you're hoping to give yourself a hearty pat on the back for your self-serving prediction. And it's a deflection as well, since you're trying to shift the focus from yourself. It doesn't matter if you used his comments as a basis or not, because you're still responsible for what you post.

      Delete
    10. Then you have evidence of conservatives criticizing him at the time.

      I'm commenting on the liberal hypocrisy. If you have a concern over conservative hypocrisy, by all means bring that evidence.


      That's classic, considering that your parents charged you rent while you were in high school.

      Are you assuming they were conservatives? It appears that way, huh? Is that how you usually work in a discussion ... you just assume things and treat them as fact?


      You generalize in order to make assumptions about people you know very little about.

      Which is what you just did while discussing my parents. Making you a bigot, too. Oops, you didn't think that one through did you?


      It doesn't matter if you used his comments as a basis or not, because you're still responsible for what you post.

      Dang, you got me there. I (conservative) am responsible for my posted comments. Eddie (liberal) is not responsible for his posted comments. Thanks for that bit of knowledge about how you divulge information.

      Delete
    11. "I'm commenting on the liberal hypocrisy. If you have a concern over conservative hypocrisy, by all means bring that evidence."

      I'm not claiming any conservative hypocrisy. I'm talking about the evidence that you need to bring. If conservatives didn't criticize Sterling during all this time when his racism was supposedly in the spotlight, then what contrast are you establishing? Why would liberals have to condemn him at that time in order to prove that their disgust is not "phoney", if nobody did so?

      "Are you assuming they were conservatives?"

      According to you, they must have been. If they weren't, then you're admitting that ideology has nothing to do with honesty. Do you want to say that your parents were conservative, or sacrifice the basis for your cherished generalizations about liberals? On top of that, you're always eager to find something negative to say about liberals, so when you were pressed about your parents' insane boarding charges, it's very difficult to believe that you wouldn't attribute their behavior to liberalism if they were anything other than hardcore conservatives.

      If you want to explain how your parents weren't right-wingers, go ahead. Whether you do or not, you can hardly criticize my deductive reasoning.

      "Which is what you just did while discussing my parents."

      Just the opposite; I'm working from your generalizations. And I didn't apply it to anyone else, I used it to point out that your "we give to others" claim doesn't match up with your other comments.

      "Eddie (liberal) is not responsible for his posted comments."

      Of course he is, but that has nothing to do with what you said. You tried to shift the focus to him, as if you wouldn't still be held accountable for your comments even if he said what you claimed.

      Speaking of which, after finally being able to get the entire video, I would love for you to explain what part of your original post "came from it". Eddie flatly contradicted your claim of free speech by (and I got a good laugh at you over this) pointing out that anyone who costs a business money is going to get fired. That's what you were saying to justify firing gay people, in comments that you claimed had nothing to do with this subject after I posted them. Instead of worrying about the job security of racists, Eddie made it clear that it was good that pressure causes such terminations. He didn't call Sterling's punishment a "photo op" or "power play move", or anything of the sort. There's nothing about Sterling's history, and absolutely no suggestion that there was "no harm done" by his comments. So, please, provide some details about how you gathered "a lot" of what you said from Eddie.

      "Thanks for that bit of knowledge about how you divulge information."

      What the hell would the phrase "divulge information" have to do with anything?

      Delete
    12. If conservatives didn't criticize Sterling during all this time when his racism was supposedly in the spotlight, then what contrast are you establishing?

      Ok, you want contrast? Here, let me try this one.
      Say millions of people think sodomy is immoral and vial. Suppose that a couple of men are in the privacy of their own house video taping themselves with an old-fashioned camera that uses film. Now, suppose that when they take the film in to be developed the developer notifies a local news outlet and it is broadcast for millions to see. Now, suppose those men lose their privately owned business's because of the actions that they performed within the boundaries of their own home. Would you be outraged that they lost their business's or for performing the vial act within the confines of their own home?
      I know you'll say that "vial" is a matter of opinion because different people think different things are worse than others to different people. Keep that in mind as you complain about a racist being persecuted by millions of people for the vial statements he made while in the privacy of his own home which were released by a third party who wasn't involved in the discussion as he made them.
      Is that "contrast" enough for you?


      Whether you do or not, you can hardly criticize my deductive reasoning.

      Yes I can. Because you are basing that criticism on uninformed assumptions.


      You tried to shift the focus to him, as if you wouldn't still be held accountable for your comments even if he said what you claimed.

      No. I think I'm expressing your hypocrisy if you don't treat people equally who do equal things. I'm not trying to shift blame to anyone, just informing you of the facts.


      Eddie flatly contradicted your claim of free speech by (and I got a good laugh at you over this) pointing out that anyone who costs a business money is going to get fired.

      Eddie is talking about employees. How can an owner fire himself? By being an owner who has a poor business plan that costs himself money? Since the NBA knew of the racist attitude this owner has (and had), they are partially at fault for letting him get away with it for years and years. Did the federal racism case cost the owner money? I'll bet it did. Did the NBA fine him then? I think not.


      There's nothing about Sterling's history, and absolutely no suggestion that there was "no harm done" by his comments.

      I know that. Why do you think I'm saying liberals have a bit of explainin to do for their sudden hypocrisy, when Sterling has been shown, and publicly documented, as being a racist for years?


      Why would liberals have to condemn him at that time in order to prove that their disgust is not "phoney", if nobody did so?

      Because if they felt so strongly about racist owners then they would have said something before waiting for year and years to do so. Were they just waiting for the last straw that would break the camels back? And, besides, since when do liberals do what they do based on the opinion of others? Sorry, their previous silence shows hypocrisy.

      Delete
    13. "Ok, you want contrast?"

      Yes, I want you to show what conservatives, or anyone did to show what you think liberals were supposed to do when you claim Sterling's previous racism was public knowledge.

      "I know you'll say that "vial" [sic] is a matter of opinion because different people think different things are worse than others to different people. Keep that in mind as you complain about a racist being persecuted by millions of people for the vial [sic] statements he made while in the privacy of his own home which were released by a third party who wasn't involved in the discussion as he made them."

      If he didn't know that he was being recorded, then there's a legal issue, as there would be for releasing pictures that are the property of others. Outside of that, so what? I can easily defend the rationale against racism, while opponents of sodomy are bigots. Am I supposed to sympathize with Sterling because of some bizarre comparison to a completely different situation, or what? Not only is your response completely irrelevant to my question, it's not remotely clear what you imagine you're trying to gain from it.

      Incidentally, "persecuted" implies victimhood, in case you didn't know that. What's really odd about your reaction is that "contrast" means highlighting differences, and even though your two situations are different, your point seems to be that I should evaluate one based on the other as if they're similar.

      "Because you are basing that criticism on uninformed assumptions."

      What criticism? And I'm basing the conclusion on your statements. How many examples would you like of your binary thinking, and of your generalizations about liberals? By your account, your parents weren't liberal, or else they couldn't have taught you not to make things up. If they're in some middle ground, then how does that fit in with your views? As soon as you attribute a positive quality to someone unlike you, your entire structure collapses.

      There's definitely nothing "uninformed" about being familiar with hundreds of your posts. Again, explain how they weren't right-wingers, if you can.

      "I think I'm expressing your hypocrisy if you don't treat people equally who do equal things."

      So I'm supposed to treat people based on your assertions, then? I had no evidence of "equal things", so what "hypocrisy" could have been demonstrated by not criticizing Eddie?

      "I'm not trying to shift blame to anyone, just informing you of the facts."

      Except you concluded that I hadn't watched the video. So what would not criticizing someone, when you thought that I had nothing to base any criticism on, have to do with your comments? You directed my attention to the video. It's not as if I had approved of it already, and then you wanted to know why I wasn't criticizing Eddie as well as you.

      Also, your assertion that Eddie said the same thing as you isn't a "fact".

      "Eddie is talking about employees. How can an owner fire himself?"

      Eddie was talking about Sterling. You said yourself he was getting kicked out, so your question doesn't make any sense.

      Delete
    14. "Did the federal racism case cost the owner money? I'll bet it did. Did the NBA fine him then? I think not."

      How is that relevant to anything I've said, or help you in any way?

      "I know that."

      Then you didn't get that chunk of your post from Eddie.

      "Because if they felt so strongly about racist owners then they would have said something before waiting for year and years to do so."

      If they had independently researched him, you mean. You keep leaving that part out, for some reason.

      "And, besides, since when do liberals do what they do based on the opinion of others?"

      I didn't imply anything like that. The point would be that if there was no outcry, from anyone, then obviously it's not something you can hold liberals accountable for.

      Let's try it this way:
      Scenario A:
      Congressional Democrat makes offensive comment.
      Comment is publicized.
      Public opinion sharply condemns Democrat.
      Liberals say nothing.
      Later, Democrat switches parties, makes similar offensive comment.
      Liberals lambaste now-Republican for his comment.

      Scenario B:
      Sports team owner is accused of racism in legal matter.
      There is no news presented to the public about the legal matter.
      There is no public reaction to the alleged racism.
      Years later, owner makes blatantly racist comments.
      Virtually everyone lambastes owner for comments.

      Notice that the first scenario is similar to what you were criticizing liberals for:
      "Wait, you want to have a reason why you supported this guy earlier? Because he donated to YOUR cause in his early career. Now that he supports republicans you suddenly have a problem with his racism. Gee, go figure."
      The second scenario is what actually happened here.

      Do you see any differences between the two? Let me know if you need a hint.

      Delete
    15. If he didn't know that he was being recorded, then there's a legal issue, as there would be for releasing pictures that are the property of others. Outside of that, so what?

      Knowing he was recorded isn't the issue. Since he knew and in my analogy they also knew. The issue is that an unrelated 3rd party disclosed the information of actions that were taking place in the privacy of their own homes. Doesn't a person have a right to do what they want (within obvious limits) inside their own home? Since neither racism or sodomy aren't against the law (by themselves) then my analogy actually fits quite well. As your reaction tells me. Since you would raise holy hell if a couple of men were forced out of their business's (in the scenario I gave) while you defend their 'right' to do what they want within their own home even though millions of people would consider those actions to be vial. However you consider the forced termination of a man who was speaking in his own home during a private conversation because he said vial things to be OK. Both instances the information was released by a third party who was not present or part of the recording process.

      So, the "contrast" you demanded works just fine in showing the hypocrisy of you liberals concerning this racism situation. You'll defend the "right" the sodomist has to do his thing in the privacy of his own home, but you claim the racist has "no right" to do his thing in the privacy of his own home.


      Scenario A:

      Interesting. This scenario fits Sterling. He used to donate lots of money to the democratic party. I'm pretty sure it was during his federal racism charges. Silence among liberals/democrats and the NBA for his racism.

      Scenario B:

      The federal case was public knowledge. Sterling ended up paying almost $8 million in fines/fees for being a racist. ESPN even ran a story on it. Nothing from the NBA. Do you honestly think the head of the NBA does NOT watch ESPN?
      Then Sterling was sued by a prospective coach for illegal treatment based on race. Do you honestly think the NBA did NOT know about that?

      So, in both of your scenarios you show NBA and liberals to be hypocrites for their silence while Sterling publicly expressed racism and having a racist attitude. Yet, the NBA didn't think being a racist, back then, was vial enough to have him fired.

      Any thing else you want to say about the hypocrisy liberals and the NBA are showing during the CURRENT racism issue while they showed none during Sterlings earlier racism issues.
      Don't get me wrong, the guy is still a racist and it should be publicized so that people know who they are dealing with and be able to make informed decisions. But, obviously, my issue is the lack of response from the NBA during his previous public acknowledgement of racism. This time they react as if it was the first they heard of his racism and try to react as if they are the judges of all morality. IMHO, they lose on both counts.

      Delete
    16. "Doesn't a person have a right to do what they want (within obvious limits) inside their own home? Since neither racism or sodomy aren't [sic] against the law (by themselves) then my analogy actually fits quite well."

      Consequences in your job don't rely on a standard of "against the law".

      "Since you would raise holy hell if a couple of men were forced out of their business's [sic] (in the scenario I gave) while you defend their 'right' to do what they want within their own home even though millions of people would consider those actions to be vial [sic]."

      Because that's bigotry. Opposing racism would be the opposite of that.

      "So, the "contrast" you demanded works just fine in showing the hypocrisy of you liberals concerning this racism situation."

      Your analogy has nothing to do with the "contrast" I was talking about. It's also not hypocrisy when two situations aren't similar. Since you admitted already that people see things differently, then obviously you can't assert that anyone would see those situations as comparable.

      "You'll defend the "right" the sodomist has to do his thing in the privacy of his own home, but you claim the racist has "no right" to do his thing in the privacy of his own home."

      Unless the government is taking action, there's no "right" that's being removed. You have the right to say what you want, but that doesn't mean there aren't consequences. Incidentally, I didn't claim anyone had "no right", so you can't put that in quotes.

      It's also rather odd to compare sex to bigotry. Pretty much everyone engages in some form of sexual behavior. You don't have to pick a form of bigotry to embrace, on the other hand. So, the same sort of judgment you place on gay people could be just as easily applied to mixed-race couples, sex before marriage, anything outside of the missionary position, etc. Why should the opinions of self-anointed moral crusaders make a difference to anyone? Contrast that with a sports team owner who profits mostly from the people that he clearly loathes so deeply. That's someone who clearly can't be relied to maintain a civil and healthy work environment for anyone in his organization. That is an actual problem.

      Out of morbid curiosity, what would you imagine that the solution to your claimed "hypocrisy" would be? Are liberals supposed to say that homosexuality is valid grounds for termination of employment, or to ignore blatant racism just because it happened in the racist's own house? Obviously, the problem here is your premise, not anyone else's opinion.

      "This scenario fits Sterling."

      Where and when were his legal matters publicized? What was the nature of public opinion, at the time?

      "Silence among liberals/democrats and the NBA for his racism."

      As opposed to who? Conservatives never said a word, either.

      Delete
    17. "The federal case was public knowledge."

      Not in the context of this conversation, obviously. There are countless things you can research, that doesn't mean that everyone is expected to know all of it and express reactions on the record whenever they find out.

      "ESPN even ran a story on it."

      Did you really say "even"? It's a sports network, they'll run stories on anything in that realm. As if they won't be able to fit that into their 24/7 schedule, or what? And apparently you have to modify your criticism to "liberals who watch ESPN and saw this story".

      "Do you honestly think the head of the NBA does NOT watch ESPN?"

      Why are you still acting as if the NBA's actions are part of this conversation?

      "So, in both of your scenarios you show NBA and liberals to be hypocrites for their silence while Sterling publicly expressed racism and having a racist attitude."

      No, because there's nothing to compare the reaction over his recent comments to. Nothing was ever publicized, so you can't expect anyone to have known about it. On top of that, allegations aren't evidence. If someone sues you for sexual harassment, should people immediately criticize you for doing that? That wouldn't seem fair to you, would it?

      "Don't get me wrong, the guy is still a racist and it should be publicized so that people know who they are dealing with and be able to make informed decisions."

      Wait, what about all the other racists out there? According to what you just said, their jobs should be in jeopardy as well. Who's going to protect them, now that you've abandoned their cause?

      "This time they react as if it was the first they heard of his racism and try to react as if they are the judges of all morality."

      If only that had been your entire argument, instead of twisting yourself into a pretzel in your attempts to bring ideology into the matter. It's also quite amusing to hear you talk about other people judging morality. You're probably in a snit because you think they're stepping on your territory.

      Delete
    18. Consequences in your job don't rely on a standard of "against the law".

      I know, that's why I used morality and vial in my initial comparison. I anticipated your whine about legality ... which you immediately went to.


      Because that's bigotry. Opposing racism would be the opposite of that.

      Explain how so.


      Since you admitted already that people see things differently, then obviously you can't assert that anyone would see those situations as comparable.

      That's what makes my analogy work. Some people don't have a problem with racism and some people don't have a problem with sodomy. Liberals support one, but not the other. Therefor, my analogy works concerning the hypocrisy of the NBA and liberals in general.


      It's also rather odd to compare sex to bigotry.

      I'm not. I'm comparing racism to sex. Your assertions don't make anything fact or change the meaning of anything.


      Why should the opinions of self-anointed moral crusaders make a difference to anyone?

      That's right. Why? Thus ... the exposure of the hypocrisy of liberals and the NBA.


      Contrast that with a sports team owner who profits mostly from the people that he clearly loathes so deeply.

      That, my friend, is a racist statement. Making you a bigot.


      Are liberals supposed to say that homosexuality is valid grounds for termination of employment, or to ignore blatant racism just because it happened in the racist's own house?

      It seems obvious that liberals expect others to ignore what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own home. How would it be different? Did Sterling project his racism to the business he owned? Well, yes ... but the NBA had nothing to say at that time. What does that tell you about the current issue?


      Where and when were his legal matters publicized?

      On ESPN (as I said) in 2009.


      What was the nature of public opinion, at the time?

      In 2006? Wow, that is quite the question. You tell me what public opinion was on racism and homosexuality.


      As opposed to who? Conservatives never said a word, either.

      My concern is the NBA and liberals. You want to show hypocrisy by conservatives for the same issue, then you need to do it. I'm not going to prove your claims for you.


      It's a sports network, they'll run stories on anything in that realm.

      Exactly. It's a sports network that ran a story on racism by an NBA owner. The NBA did nothing. My point. Thanks for that clarification.


      Why are you still acting as if the NBA's actions are part of this conversation?

      Well, considering that was my initial concern, why would they NOT be part of the conversation? Are you changing it to something else, already?


      On top of that, allegations aren't evidence.

      If that is how you feel about it, then why is there an uproar over the allegations against Sterling? He has not gone to court over this. The entire thing has only played out through the media. I would assume you would call them allegations against him since nothing was ever proven in a proper and legal way. He lost his sponsors as a result of allegations. He faced public scrutiny over allegations. The NBA punished and fined him over allegations. You didn't think that one through, at all, did you?


      According to what you just said, their jobs should be in jeopardy as well. Who's going to protect them, now that you've abandoned their cause?

      I've never supported their cause. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy within this situation compared to previous situations.

      Delete
    19. "I anticipated your whine about legality ... which you immediately went to."

      I mentioned the law because you did. If you thought it wasn't relevant, then it didn't belong in your comment.

      "Explain how so."

      Because homophobia and racism are both forms of bigotry. What could you possibly not be grasping about that?

      "Liberals support one, but not the other. Therefor [sic], my analogy works concerning the hypocrisy of the NBA and liberals in general."

      No, because they're completely different concepts. It's not hypocritical to have opposing views on different concepts.

      "I'm not. I'm comparing racism to sex."

      Racism is a form of bigotry.

      "Thus ... the exposure of the hypocrisy of liberals and the NBA."

      So someone has to be a moral crusader to oppose racism? You might want to take a step back from that.

      "That, my friend, is a racist statement."

      No, it's not, and you won't find anything to support your claim.

      "On ESPN (as I said) in 2009."

      I didn't see that singular story. Apparently, you can take me out of your generalization. I wonder how many other liberals also happened to miss that segment that aired on one sports network.

      "It seems obvious that liberals expect others to ignore what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own home. How would it be different?"

      Because it has an effect outside of his home.

      "Well, yes ... but the NBA had nothing to say at that time."

      That's irrelevant to your assertions about liberals.

      "You tell me what public opinion was on racism and homosexuality."

      No, you tell me what public opinion was regarding Sterling's legal issues.

      "You want to show hypocrisy by conservatives for the same issue, then you need to do it."

      I'm not claiming hypocrisy by conservatives, because I'm not so lacking in confidence in my political views that I feel the need to establish some impossible standard for them to meet. I don't expect them to have said anything at the time, because the story wasn't publicized.

      "It's a sports network that ran a story on racism by an NBA owner. The NBA did nothing. My point."

      Actually, your point is that liberals are responsible for having seen that specific segment on that particular network.

      "Well, considering that was my initial concern, why would they NOT be part of the conversation?"

      Because it's not in contention, obviously. There's no purpose in bringing up something that I'm not disputing. Frankly, it makes you look rather idiotic.

      "If that is how you feel about it, then why is there an uproar over the allegations against Sterling?"

      It's on tape. Unless there's some logical way to believe that it was faked, then it's fair to conclude that it's real. That's not even remotely similar to the mere existence of legal action.

      "I would assume you would call them allegations against him since nothing was ever proven in a proper and legal way."

      How could you possibly claim that? For all you know, Sterling could have admitted it during the investigation. Besides that, his "I wish I had just paid her off" comment does just that. ESPN.com isn't using "alleged" when talking about his behavior.

      "I'm pointing out the hypocrisy within this situation compared to previous situations."

      And that affects "all the other racists in America"? How so?

      Delete
    20. I mentioned the law because you did.

      Factually, I don't think I mentioned legal issues. I'm pretty sure that was all on you: "If he didn't know that he was being recorded, then there's a legal issue, as there would be for releasing pictures that are the property of others.". If I mentioned any legal issue before, let me know.


      Because homophobia and racism are both forms of bigotry.

      Didn't you just get done telling me that racism is the "opposite" of bigotry? ("Opposing racism would be the opposite of that."). If opposing homosexuality is bigotry and opposing racism is the opposite, then why did you just, now, tell me that both are forms of bigotry? Is this another example of your irrational statements?


      Racism is a form of bigotry.

      Umm, you're saying that opposing homosexuality is bigotry, but opposing racism is the opposite of bigotry? I really do not understand your concept of that. You need to fully explain that position.


      I didn't see that singular story.

      Seek and ye shall find. However, whether YOU saw it or not is not the issue. The issue is that it was (is) out there for the public to see, if they looked. You didn't look, therefor you didn't see.


      Because it has an effect outside of his home.

      Explain how his statements, in the privacy of his home, affected anyone outside his home.


      That's irrelevant to your assertions about liberals.

      I think they parallel each other. So, the relevance is present.


      I don't expect them to have said anything at the time, because the story wasn't publicized.

      But, the story WAS publicized. Just because you didn't see it is irrelevant to the FACT it was publicized. I see no comment from you on the Elgin Baylor suit. Why is that? Do you think the NBA didn't know about that one too?


      Actually, your point is that liberals are responsible for having seen that specific segment on that particular network.

      If that's the limit of your ability to understand what is being discussed, then you really have nothing more to say. Since you can't follow along with this conversation, why are you bothering?


      There's no purpose in bringing up something that I'm not disputing. Frankly, it makes you look rather idiotic.

      Considering you're the one who is crying, I'm not the one looking "rather idiotic".


      How could you possibly claim that? For all you know, Sterling could have admitted it during the investigation.

      What investigation? By the media? I'm pretty sure that doesn't count.

      Delete
    21. "Factually, I don't think I mentioned legal issues."

      I said you mentioned "the law". Again: "Doesn't a person have a right to do what they want (within obvious limits) inside their own home? Since neither racism or sodomy aren't [sic] against the law (by themselves) then my analogy actually fits quite well." Your quote is regarding a different issue.

      "Didn't you just get done telling me that racism is the "opposite" of bigotry? ("Opposing racism would be the opposite of that.")."

      No, opposing racism would be the opposite of bigotry. Notice the first word in your quote in parentheses.

      "If opposing homosexuality is bigotry and opposing racism is the opposite, then why did you just, now, tell me that both are forms of bigotry?"

      Your quote doesn't support you: "Because homophobia and racism are both forms of bigotry." If you insert "opposing' before "racism", then the meaning would change. I didn't say "opposing racism" was bigotry, as noted above. Assuming you're not being dishonest, you're incredibly confused here.

      "Umm, you're saying that opposing homosexuality is bigotry, but opposing racism is the opposite of bigotry?"

      Yes. Are you having trouble distinguishing between "homosexuality" with "homophobia", by any chance?

      "However, whether YOU saw it or not is not the issue. The issue is that it was (is) out there for the public to see, if they looked."

      And if people didn't look, then you can't hold them accountable for a lack of public reaction. So, your claims of hypocrisy go up in smoke.

      "Explain how his statements, in the privacy of his home, affected anyone outside his home."

      You obviously already know: "Don't get me wrong, the guy is still a racist and it should be publicized so that people know who they are dealing with and be able to make informed decisions." If his racism is meaningless, as if it's just words that he said that have no impact on anything at all, then there could be no "informed decisions" to be made from it.

      "I think they parallel each other."

      You'd have to show how.

      "But, the story WAS publicized."

      Obviously not, because there was no public reaction to it.

      "I see no comment from you on the Elgin Baylor suit. Why is that? Do you think the NBA didn't know about that one too?"

      Because I don't care. Rant about the NBA while looking in your bathroom mirror all you like, but I'm not talking about them.

      "If that's the limit of your ability to understand what is being discussed, then you really have nothing more to say."

      You just said that the story was publicized, which is your rationale of how liberals were supposed to launch a mass complaint against Sterling in order to not be subject to your "hypocrisy" charges for their reaction the recent incident. Would you like me to post some quotes from you, so you can see what your argument was? I'm glad to help you see where you're going wrong here.

      "Considering you're the one who is crying, I'm not the one looking "rather idiotic"."

      You're accountable for your behavior, so pointing out your pretense that you're establishing some argument against me is acceptable. Feel free to explain how you can say otherwise.

      "What investigation? By the media?"

      By the NBA. And why would Sterling admitting that he was on the tape not "count", regardless of who was doing the investigation?

      Nothing to show how my comment was "racist"? I knew you wouldn't find anything. I accept your apology in advance. And you have no explanation for your concern for all the other racists in America, either. How odd.

      Delete
    22. Because I don't care. Rant about the NBA while looking in your bathroom mirror all you like, but I'm not talking about them.

      That's what I thought. You would rather ignore the issue I bring to this article and discuss homophobia. Classic, simply classic. You are the funny one when you get your arguments shot down and handed to you on a platter. You don't have ONE good point to make on ANY of my concerns about this article. All you're doing is exhibiting your hatred of anyone (someone) who has a differing opinion than you.


      Would you like me to post some quotes from you, so you can see what your argument was?

      Oh, I know what my argument is. The problem is that you don't. So, please humor everyone and bring us your version of what you think is happening. This should be ultimately funny.


      Feel free to explain how you can say otherwise.

      Like when you bring up "legal" issues, and I point out it isn't against the "law" and you cry that you didn't mention "law" first? Oh boo hoo, you are such a crybaby.
      Or when you're defending the NBA for not knowing Sterling was a racist and you REFUSE to discuss a RACIAL suit brought by an NBA prospective coach?
      What a crybaby you are. You better stay in your basement, if you go outside (or even up stairs) you may hurt yourself and run crying to mommy ... as if you aren't already doing that.


      By the NBA.

      What investigation?


      Nothing to show how my comment was "racist"?

      I did have something to say on that. The problem is you can't read. So, no apology needed.


      And you have no explanation for your concern for all the other racists in America, either.

      Yes, I explained that too. You just didn't like the answer. Boo hoo, why don't you go back to mmfa and cry there. At least you'll be amongst your own peers. Here, you need some intelligence to carry a conversation. Obviously, you're not at that level yet. So go back to mmfa where they do discuss at your level. Besides, you can get more tissues for free from them. They have a large supply ready for all the other liberals who cry as they get beat down by conservatives in discussions.

      Delete
    23. "You don't have ONE good point to make on ANY of my concerns about this article."

      I've proven that your criticism of liberals doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and that your concern for the employment security of racists is inconsistent with your previous comments. You can go back to my first post to see how that addressed what you originally wrote, if you've forgotten.

      "So, please humor everyone and bring us your version of what you think is happening."

      I did, and you didn't address it.

      "Like when you bring up "legal" issues, and I point out it isn't against the "law" and you cry that you didn't mention "law" first?"

      That didn't happen. The legal issue is in regards to the taping, not Sterling's comments. You didn't say that the recording wasn't against the law.

      "Or when you're defending the NBA for not knowing Sterling was a racist and you REFUSE to discuss a RACIAL suit brought by an NBA prospective coach?"

      Where did I supposedly defend the NBA? I also haven't refused to discuss any lawsuit. I pointed out that it's not evidence, and there was no public reaction anyway. It has no relevance outside of that.

      "What investigation?"

      The NBA investigated the incident. And why would it matter, again?

      "I did have something to say on that."

      You should have posted it. Or are you planning to pretend that you did, without showing where?

      "Yes, I explained that too."

      No, you didn't. And, remember, you're accountable for what you say. That means you can't throw a tantrum about being called out on your comments. I know that limits you, but it's good for you to learn.

      Delete
    24. I've proven that your criticism of liberals doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and that your concern for the employment security of racists is inconsistent with your previous comments.

      No. You've shown that you don't like my criticism of liberals. You have shown nothing that shows any inconsistency in my views.


      That didn't happen.

      It JUST happened and you (in your typical form) deny it.


      Where did I supposedly defend the NBA?

      By claiming they had no knowledge of previous racial issues that Sterling had.


      It has no relevance outside of that.

      You are claiming that the NBA had no previous knowledge of Sterling's racism, but say that the Baylor case is not relevant to racism known by the NBA. That, my friend, is very illogical on your part. Please explain your illogical support of the lack of knowledge of racism known by the NBA.


      The NBA investigated the incident. And why would it matter, again?

      Do you have anything to support your claim? And, it matters because you said "allegations" don't count. You brought that issue into the discussion, the least you could do is support you claim.


      And, remember, you're accountable for what you say.

      So are you. And, in typical liberal fashion, you are denying what you say. Learn your own limits, so stay out of discussions you aren't familiar with and can't discuss with honesty.

      You've seriously been beaten down on this one. Stop while you're way behind. You have nothing to gain except further embarrassment.

      Delete
    25. "You have shown nothing that shows any inconsistency in my views."

      Of course I have. You say people get fired every day for all kinds of reasons, and homosexuality should be part of that. Now, you're worried about the sudden jeopardy that racists face in their employment.

      "It JUST happened and you (in your typical form) deny it."

      No, the legal matter I mentioned was regarding the recording. It wasn't about Sterling's speech. If pointing that out if my "typical form", then it's clear why you're in a panic now.

      "By claiming they had no knowledge of previous racial issues that Sterling had."

      Where did I do that?

      "You are claiming that the NBA had no previous knowledge of Sterling's racism, but say that the Baylor case is not relevant to racism known by the NBA."

      I never claimed that. What I am saying is that the NBA is irrelevant in its entirety here. I'm not asserting anything to support them, and they have nothing to do with the points I've brought up.

      "Do you have anything to support your claim?"

      It's on ESPN, so it's public knowledge. Right?

      "And, it matters because you said "allegations" don't count."

      Allegations aren't evidence on their own. Since the incident was investigated before there was punishment, and it's difficult to imagine that the tape was fake anyway, that's not a concern here.

      "Learn your own limits, so stay out of discussions you aren't familiar with and can't discuss with honesty."

      You're not even aware of the investigation. And you can't show the public reaction over the lawsuit which you're using to show that liberals are supposedly hypocrites for reacting to blatantly racist comments released in the national media. You must be proving that conservatives are supposedly hypocrites as well, because they didn't say a word then, and have chastised Sterling recently. So, why are you singling out liberals, when everything you've said condemns conservatives as well? That's a little hypocritical in itself, obviously. Even if you were being honest, you're still losing.

      "You've seriously been beaten down on this one."

      You've said that before, and you still end up tucking tail and running away. I don't see this time working out any better for you.

      Delete
    26. It's on ESPN, so it's public knowledge. Right?

      I don't know. Is it? I brought evidence that they did a story on an earlier issue of racism. The NBA levied no fines after that story. You have brought nothing to support your claim.


      You're not even aware of the investigation.

      That's right. Do you have knowledge of that investigation? Did they base their decision on the fact that the statements were made in the privacy of his own home? Or did other factors come into play? Because if a person can just randomly say something in private and have to worry about being punished for it, then my analogy fits and you are being hypocritical in your defense of one and denouncement of the other. And the NBA is being hypocritical when they did nothing the last time Sterling expressed vial racism publicly, but 'throw the book' at him for something said in the privacy of his own home.

      Delete
    27. "I don't know. Is it?"

      Of course it is. So, you must be aware of it.

      "I brought evidence that they did a story on an earlier issue of racism."

      What evidence was that? You said they ran a story on the lawsuit.

      "Did they base their decision on the fact that the statements were made in the privacy of his own home?"

      I doubt that was a factor in any way.

      "Because if a person can just randomly say something in private and have to worry about being punished for it, then my analogy fits and you are being hypocritical in your defense of one and denouncement of the other."

      They're still two completely different concepts. You could advocate for genocide in the privacy of your own house, that isn't a factor in judgment. Also, you:
      "Don't get me wrong, the guy is still a racist and it should be publicized so that people know who they are dealing with and be able to make informed decisions."
      So, you can't very well say that I shouldn't denounce Sterling, when you say that his words should be publicized.

      "And the NBA is being hypocritical when they did nothing the last time Sterling expressed vial [sic] racism publicly, but 'throw the book' at him for something said in the privacy of his own home."

      What did Sterling do publicly earlier?

      Delete
    28. Of course it is.

      Oh? Where? I can't find it. I can find the Elgin Baylor story with a simple search. But nothing comes up regarding the NBA investigation. Even NBA.com doesn't have any information on the investigation. Perhaps you can provide more proof of your claim.
      Or, do what you normally do and NOT prove your claims. You claimed they investigated the matter. Prove it.


      You could advocate for genocide in the privacy of your own house, that isn't a factor in judgment.

      So you are advocating that people can be fired for what they say or do in the privacy of their own home? Interesting switch of opinions considering how you feel about homosexuals doing their thing in the privacy of their own home. Who should be in charge of that? The government or private companies? Well, obviously, the Obama administration is already monitoring it's citizens, should they go ahead and install listening devices in each home, now too?


      So, you can't very well say that I shouldn't denounce Sterling, when you say that his words should be publicized.

      His public behavior. He has a history of public racist behavior. THIS instance occurred in the privacy of his home. Obviously, you aren't capable of knowing that, since you can't read.


      What did Sterling do publicly earlier?

      Are you defending the racist Sterling, now? It sure didn't take long for you to swap sides in this argument, huh? All I had to do was show I did not support a racist and you start doing it just to keep in opposition of my stance. Very good, troll.
      http://www.nba.com/2009/news/02/12/Clippers.Baylor.ap/index.html

      Wow, according to the lawsuit, the NBA was HELPING Sterling discriminate. No wonder they said nothing about is earlier racist behavior. I guess my condemnation of the NBA is correct. And, your hypocritical stance is .. well ... hypocritical.

      Delete
    29. "Oh? Where? I can't find it."

      Then you are inept.

      "Even NBA.com doesn't have any information on the investigation."

      You don't need "information on" anything, you just need to be aware of its existence. Such as: http://www.nba.com/2014/news/04/28/nba-statement-sterling-invesitgation/index.html

      "So you are advocating that people can be fired for what they say or do in the privacy of their own home? Interesting switch of opinions considering how you feel about homosexuals doing their thing in the privacy of their own home."

      There's no "switch". Different matters are evaluated differently.

      "Who should be in charge of that? The government or private companies?"

      We're talking about employment. Try to focus.

      "THIS instance occurred in the privacy of his home."

      You clearly said that this instance should be publicized. Are you changing your story?

      "Are you defending the racist Sterling, now?"

      I'm asking you about your claim. Your question doesn't even make sense, since I'm criticizing Sterling for his "PRIVATE" comments. Obviously, that's not a factor for me, so it couldn't possibly be a defense. Again, try to focus.

      "http://www.nba.com/2009/news/02/12/Clippers.Baylor.ap/index.html"

      What did Sterling do "publicly" that's shown in that article?

      "I guess my condemnation of the NBA is correct. And, your hypocritical stance is .. well ... hypocritical."

      Since I haven't taken a stance on the NBA, there can't be any hypocrisy demonstrated about it. On the other hand, if nobody said a word about the lawsuit, and everyone condemns Sterling now, why are you singling out liberals? Conservatives would be hypocrites as well, by your argument. Note the non-literal usage of italicized terms, so you're not confused any further.

      Delete
  3. Let's have some fun and recap your complaints about my original post.

    1:) So, people who have sexual relations that you disapprove of should be vulnerable to being fired for the sake of the image of the business, but you're worried about the employment security of people who hate others based on skin color.

    Obviously, when you refer to me being "worried" you must be talking about the last 2 questions I asked. That is an unbelievably obvious reference to liberal support of PRIVATE abnormal sexual behaviors being protected behaviors from workplace reprisals, while liberals consider PRIVATE abnormal racial behaviors unacceptable and fully agree with and support workplace reprisals. However, since my whine was about the hypocrisy of the NBA and liberals in general, you seemed to ignore that and go off on a "you said" tangent. Good for you.


    Now, let's fill in a couple blanks you left out. There are no laws against BEING a racist, yet you feel Sterling should be fired from OWNING a business because he is racist. Are you supporting what I said (in the quotes you provided) or are you against what I said? Because it seems that you complained about my apparent support of firing EMPLOYEES for differing sexual preferences. And, yet, you seem to be supporting firing OWNERS for differing racial preferences. Isn't that a bit hypocritical on its own?


    2:) Maybe racism is supposed to be innate, in your opinion? As if people are born racist, so they shouldn't be fired for how they are? You would have to, because if you don't care about people's choices, you wouldn't bemoan the plight of the poor racist here.

    You bring quotes for this one that are completely unrelated to anything I said in my comment. So, I really don't know how to comment on that one other than to say what one does within the PRIVACY of their own home is their own business (legally restricted, of course). As many liberals will point out concerning sexual behaviors.

    Now, for the part you left out. What would happen if the same scientists that are trying to find evidence that homosexuality is innate discover that racism is innate? Would your disdain of racism and racists suddenly stop because it is proven their 'behavior' is innate?


    3;) Freedom of speech doesn't apply to employment. It's really that simple.

    Firstly, this is one part where Eddie and I made similar comments. We do have the freedom of speech in America.
    Now, you're correct, freedom of speech isn't always applicable at the workplace. However, it IS applicable in your private home. Which is where this incident occurred. Since you have no clue what this case is about and, apparently, had done no research, your irrelevant remark is completely expected because it is a habit of yours to bring irrelevant remarks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Continued:


    4:) First off, why would knowing about his racism make the disgust "phoney(sic)"?

    That would be obvious. For instance, if I am at a crowded sports bar with many other guys watching the current sports event(s) on TV and someone farts. What happens? I think many laugh. Now, if I'm at a crowded shopping center at the ladies 'intimate wear' section and there are lots of women nearby and someone farts, do I laugh or show disdain for such an action? I would think I may show disdain. THAT would be "phony".
    Since the NBA and liberals (in general) did not have disgust for Sterlings earlier exhibition of racism (which was PUBLIC) with no fines or punishments against Sterling, then their disgust over PRIVATE exhibitions of racism are based on phony reactions.


    5;) When was this public knowledge, previously? Or are people not supposed to be outraged because some small group knew about this already?

    This statement you are only showing your inexcusable lack of knowledge on the issue at hand. And, it bolsters my later statement that you are ONLY posting because of your hatred of my opinions. You couldn't even take a couple minutes to investigate what this issue is about (and admitted to not even watching Eddie's video until I told you to). I'm pretty sure that is another qualifier for the label you've earned as a troll.


    6:) Keep fighting for those racists, William. Someday, you will overcome!

    Let's end with this one. I have showed no support of racists or racism. I do have plenty of opportunities to show the hypocrisy of liberals when race is involved while comparing it to their love of sexual behaviors. If pointing out that liberals feel sexual behaviors (that millions consider immoral) are acceptable and should have laws created to protect and defend a person's "right" to be immoral (as considered by millions) and then point out that those same liberals will denounce racial behaviors (that millions consider to be immoral) basing most of that on the fact that millions consider it immoral behavior as being hypocritical is what you consider "support" then you have a lot to learn by taking some remedial Reading Comp 101. Because I don't need to support either abnormal behavior in order to show the hypocrisy of liberals concerning behaviors done in the PRIVACY of their own homes.
    I thought liberals supported those who wish to do as they please within their own homes? I guess that support only goes so far? What is the dividing line that stops that from being a hypocritical stance by the liberal concerning PRIVACY and the freedom of speech?
    Is the liberal supporting intrusion into private homes, by government watchdawgs, to insure that no racist comments are ever uttered while IN PRIVATE HOMES? Or are they advocating that private business's be created to be that watchdawg of immoralities within PRIVATE HOMES?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Obviously, when you refer to me being "worried" you must be talking about the last 2 questions I asked. That is an unbelievably obvious reference to liberal support of PRIVATE abnormal sexual behaviors being protected behaviors from workplace reprisals, while liberals consider PRIVATE abnormal racial behaviors unacceptable and fully agree with and support workplace reprisals."

      The last three questions, obviously. There's nothing in your words to suggest anything about liberal views on sexual orientation. Besides that, I can prove you're lying right off the bat. You:
      "If you have something to say about THIS subject then say it."
      If you were really referencing homosexuality, then the quotes I provided were indisputably relevant to your point. You denied that in no uncertain terms at the time, so you're lying now.

      "However, since my whine was about the hypocrisy of the NBA and liberals in general, you seemed to ignore that and go off on a "you said" tangent."

      Like I said above, you call a citation of your views on sexual orientation a "tangent", while now you're saying that was part of your point. Did you even realize that you quoted me summarizing your inconsistency, then argued that sexual behavior was inherent to your comment?

      "Because it seems that you complained about my apparent support of firing EMPLOYEES for differing sexual preferences. And, yet, you seem to be supporting firing OWNERS for differing racial preferences. Isn't that a bit hypocritical on its own?"

      No, because things aren't acceptable just because they aren't illegal. And what the hell are "differing racial preferences"? Is that a polite way of referring to his bigotry? Also, people have sexual orientations, not preferences.

      "You bring quotes for this one that are completely unrelated to anything I said in my comment."

      How is your view on firing people for their choices unrelated to what you're saying here? You don't care when people make choices that get them fired, unless that choice involves racist speech.

      "What would happen if the same scientists that are trying to find evidence that homosexuality is innate discover that racism is innate? Would your disdain of racism and racists suddenly stop because it is proven their 'behavior' is innate?"

      It wouldn't make the concept acceptable, but I'm not sure you could punish people for it if that was the case. It's not clear how I "left out" commenting on that, since I don't believe that it is innate, and has nothing to do with the question that you were asked.

      "Firstly, this is one part where Eddie and I made similar comments."

      If "similar" means that he made my point, sure.

      "However, it IS applicable in your private home. Which is where this incident occurred."

      So, according to you, someone can call up their boss and say any vile thing they want, and not get fired for it. Why would it make a difference whether the phone call is made from the house or a public place? I eagerly await your legal analysis.

      "Since you have no clue what this case is about and, apparently, had done no research, your irrelevant remark is completely expected because it is a habit of yours to bring irrelevant remarks."

      Apparently, Eddie saying that freedom of speech doesn't apply to the workplace is what you based your comment on, but my comment that freedom of speech doesn't apply to the workplace is "irrelevant". How interesting.

      Delete
    2. ""First off, why would knowing about his racism make the disgust "phoney(sic)"?"

      You spelled it "phoney". If your claim is that the spelling is wrong, then that would be your mistake, not mine.

      "Since the NBA and liberals (in general) did not have disgust for Sterlings [sic] earlier exhibition of racism (which was PUBLIC) with no fines or punishments against Sterling, then their disgust over PRIVATE exhibitions of racism are based on phony reactions."

      No, you're not answering the question properly. For one thing, your example involves decorum based on differing environments. Unless you're at a KKK gathering, expressions of genuine racism aren't laughed off. More to the point, the question provided an example that you didn't address. If Limbaugh makes yet another racist comment, do I have to have said something every time in order to express disgust? Sterling's remarks were disgusting, period. Your point, if anything, would be that the lack of disgust for the previous "public" incident was "phoney".

      Also, why are you not including conservatives in your comment? The same thing is clearly true of them. Unless they have expressed no concern over his blatant racism, of course.

      "This statement you are only [sic] showing your inexcusable lack of knowledge on the issue at hand."

      You didn't even know that the NBA was investigating the incident. Besides, you've already denied yourself this criticism. You:
      "However, whether YOU saw it or not is not the issue. The issue is that it was (is) out there for the public to see, if they looked."
      Since it wasn't an issue that I had never seen the story on ESPN, you can't claim that failure to have witnessed that particular segment constitutes "inexcusable lack of knowledge".

      "I have showed [sic] no support of racists or racism."

      Then you shouldn't be concerned about whether racists are fired or not.

      "If pointing out that liberals feel sexual behaviors (that millions consider immoral) are acceptable and should have laws created to protect and defend a person's "right" to be immoral (as considered by millions) and then point out that those same liberals will denounce racial behaviors (that millions consider to be immoral) basing most of that on the fact that millions consider it immoral behavior as being hypocritical is what you consider "support" then you have a lot to learn by taking some remedial Reading Comp 101."

      Again, not only did you not either say or suggest anything about sexual orientation, you denied that it was relevant in your very next post. Sorry.

      Even if that had been your point, it hardly makes sense for you to express concern for racists in that manner. Most obviously, why would you assume that every racist would be exposed through something like a taped conversation, as opposed to comments in the workplace? Your original comment didn't even mention "PRIVATE", so that couldn't be taken as part of your argument in any way.

      "What is the dividing line that stops that from being a hypocritical stance by the liberal concerning PRIVACY and the freedom of speech?"

      Why did you think that Sterling's remarks should be publicized so people can make informed decisions?

      "Is the liberal supporting intrusion into private homes, by government watchdawgs [sic], to insure that no racist comments are ever uttered while IN PRIVATE HOMES?"

      No "intrusion" is necessary. Nobody's talking about actively looking for any such thing. The point would be that "PRIVATE" is not an excuse to ignore racism once it comes out, which would be consistent with your "informed decisions" comment.

      Delete
    3. Is that a polite way of referring to his bigotry?

      That's the liberalized politically correct way. Sure is funny when that politically correct stuff gets shoved back in your own face.


      Also, people have sexual orientations, not preferences.

      Are you people changing the terminology, yet again?


      It wouldn't make the concept acceptable, but I'm not sure you could punish people for it if that was the case. It's not clear how I "left out" commenting on that, since I don't believe that it is innate, and has nothing to do with the question that you were asked.

      So, if racism was determined to be innate, you would still find it unacceptable? Albeit without possible legal reprisals.
      I'm not sure, but if that was the case then you would be a bigot. Well, according to your own standards, anyway. And since you are now admitting to being a bigot, then perhaps you can understand that I "don't believe" in homosexuality, and yet you call me a bigot. I don't believe homosexuality is innate, either (just like racism), and yet you call me a bigot for my beliefs. You have now admitted to being a bigot.


      Why would it make a difference whether the phone call is made from the house or a public place? I eagerly await your legal analysis.

      Wow, you really don't know what this case is about, do you? Tell you what. When you finally educate yourself on the actual issues involved in this case get back with me. Until then you are just floundering around without any concept of what is being discussed.


      Apparently, Eddie saying that freedom of speech doesn't apply to the workplace is what you based your comment on, but my comment that freedom of speech doesn't apply to the workplace is "irrelevant". How interesting.

      Umm, no. There is no "workplace" involved in this case. Read about the story before you show your stupidity an further.


      You spelled it "phoney".

      So did you.


      No, you're not answering the question properly.

      Are you crying again? What tissues do you use, I think I'll buy stock in that company. LOL What a maroon.

      Delete
    4. Then you shouldn't be concerned about whether racists are fired or not.

      I'm not. I'm enjoying pointing out the hypocrisy involved in this situation by liberals and the NBA. Especially, the liberal part.


      Your original comment didn't even mention "PRIVATE", so that couldn't be taken as part of your argument in any way.

      That's right. And, that helps bolster my stance the liberals are very hypocritical. The situation had only been reported on by media outlets. There was no investigation where facts of the case were divulged. Media outlets continued to reveal further evidence of factual points of this case as time went on.
      And since it happened in the privacy of his own home, then you are now saying that people have the freedom of speech within their own homes, but they can be fired for it whenever someone else wants them fired for it. That's a very good stance to take, considering you are supposed to support a person's constitutional rights. Oh, wait, you DO support those rights as long as that person is gay. If they are racist then you do not support those rights. Nothing hypocritical about that, huh?


      Why did you think that Sterling's remarks should be publicized so people can make informed decisions?

      I don't think his remarks should be publicized. Why do you think that? I never said that.


      The point would be that "PRIVATE" is not an excuse to ignore racism once it comes out, which would be consistent with your "informed decisions" comment.

      EXACTLY. And, it wouldn't have come out if an un-involved 3rd party hadn't released tapes of private conversations. That un-involved 3rd party would be the same as the government watchdawg that you say is not necessary.
      So, either you support intrusion into our lives to expose racists or you don't. Which is it? Because if you don't support it, then you are hypocritically condemning Sterling. If you do support it, then you are hypocritically protecting homosexuals.
      Either way, you are a hypocrite.



      This wasn't a good article for you to start your idiotic rants in. You know so little about what transpired and even less about what is being discussed. It's like someone put a bunch of dog shit in a paper bad and put it on your porch. Then lit it on fire and rang your door bell. You can guess what happens next ... but you sure did it. LOL

      Delete
    5. "That's the liberalized politically correct way."

      I've never seen any racist referred to that way. Normally, they're just called "racists".

      "Are you people changing the terminology, yet again?"

      No, that's the actual term.

      "So, if racism was determined to be innate, you would still find it unacceptable?"

      The concept, yes. Much like how a Tourette's syndrome victim would say something unacceptable, but you would factor the condition in to the judgment of the behavior.

      "I'm not sure, but if that was the case then you would be a bigot."

      If you're not sure, then you can't say that with certainty.

      "Well, according to your own standards, anyway. And since you are now admitting to being a bigot, then perhaps you can understand that I "don't believe" in homosexuality, and yet you call me a bigot."

      Are you claiming that racism is actually innate? Does anyone say that it is? If not, then how would it be comparable to homosexuality?

      "I don't believe homosexuality is innate, either (just like racism), and yet you call me a bigot for my beliefs."

      Because your beliefs don't conform to reality. They're a rationalization for your bigotry, not the basis for your opinion on homosexuality. And if you don't believe that either is innate, what's your point? Racism would be chosen behavior, so obviously it would be grounds for termination, according to you.

      "Wow, you really don't know what this case is about, do you?"

      I do, actually. Is there some reason that you feel you shouldn't answer the questions?

      "There is no "workplace" involved in this case."

      Of course there is, since it's an employment issue. Are you being obtuse in your literalism?

      "So did you."

      When quoting you. So, don't pretend that I made an error.

      "Are you crying again?"

      No, I'm pointing out your failure to address questions. Considering that you just chastised me for your misunderstanding over a hypothetical, you can't claim "crying" over that.

      Delete
    6. "I'm not."

      According to what you said, you certainly are.

      "That's right. And, that helps bolster my stance the liberals are very hypocritical."

      If your original comment didn't involve the distinction of "PRIVATE", then you weren't applying that to all the racists that you were concerned for. That means that you were concerned about them, even if they displayed racism in the workplace.

      "And since it happened in the privacy of his own home, then you are now saying that people have the freedom of speech within their own homes, but they can be fired for it whenever someone else wants them fired for it."

      People have freedom of speech everywhere. That still has nothing to do with employment. Didn't you watch Eddie's video?

      "That's a very good stance to take, considering you are supposed to support a person's constitutional rights."

      So, you think that if someone calls up their boss and tells them off, they can't be fired due to "constitutional rights"? As if the person could say "I called you from my house and I have freedom of speech"?

      "I don't think his remarks should be publicized."

      Then you shouldn't have said that they should be.

      "EXACTLY."

      So, why are you acting as if condemnation of what's revealed means that there should be watchdogs to find racists?

      "And, it wouldn't have come out if an un-involved [sic] 3rd party hadn't released tapes of private conversations. That un-involved [sic] 3rd party would be the same as the government watchdawg [sic] that you say is not necessary."

      Who cares how it was released? It doesn't change how the racism is evaluated. That's the point you just said "EXACTLY" about. And how would someone releasing a tape be anything like a government watchdog?

      "Because if you don't support it, then you are hypocritically condemning Sterling. If you do support it, then you are hypocritically protecting homosexuals."

      Neither of those would be true, because racism and homosexuality aren't equivalent. You keep forgetting that, for some reason.

      Delete
    7. I've never seen any racist referred to that way. Normally, they're just called "racists".

      I'd never heard of "sexual preference" until political correctness called it that. What's your point?


      The concept, yes.

      Then you should have no problem with me believing that the concept of homosexuality is a problem. If you call me a bigot for my beliefs, then I can rightfully call you a bigot for yours.


      If you're not sure, then you can't say that with certainty.

      You just gave me the clarification I needed. So, you are a bigot (by your standards).


      If not, then how would it be comparable to homosexuality?

      Because only the uninformed and those who think it is innate call it that. There is no scientific proof of it being so.


      Because your beliefs don't conform to reality.

      And yours do in what way? There's no scientific proof of homosexuality being innate, just your belief.


      Racism would be chosen behavior, so obviously it would be grounds for termination, according to you.

      Not "would" be. Could be. Slight difference, but the way you misinterpret my statements I understand how you get to that illogical conclusion.


      When quoting you.

      How could I know you weren't just "highlighting" a random word? You have said using quotation marks is a way of highlighting words.


      If your original comment didn't involve the distinction of "PRIVATE", then you weren't applying that to all the racists that you were concerned for.

      That part of the story hadn't been released by the media, at that point. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the NBA and liberals not whining about his previous PUBLIC racist behavior until now. The constitutionally protected free speech wasn't an issue then. Once the media brought out more information about the case it became even more apparent.


      People have freedom of speech everywhere. That still has nothing to do with employment. Didn't you watch Eddie's video?

      Yes, I watched his video before I posted. When did you watch it? After I told you to?


      So, you think that if someone calls up their boss and tells them off, they can't be fired due to "constitutional rights"? As if the person could say "I called you from my house and I have freedom of speech"?

      No, I don't. That's not the situation here, so you can't use that as a defense of your position.


      Then you shouldn't have said that they should be.

      I NEVER said they should be. Bring me the quote where I said his "remarks" should be publicized.


      Who cares how it was released?

      Well, apparently, people in Texas have a problem with sodomy within the privacy of their own home. How did that situation work in relation to your support of homosexuality and privacy rights?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas


      Neither of those would be true, because racism and homosexuality aren't equivalent.

      They are in the privacy of your own home. You keep IGNORING that for some reason.


      Delete
    8. "I'd never heard of "sexual preference" until political correctness called it that."

      When was that? It's sexual orientation. "Preference" is what people like you say to make it sound as if it's a choice.

      "Then you should have no problem with me believing that the concept of homosexuality is a problem."

      Why is that?

      "You just gave me the clarification I needed."

      If you needed clarification, then you couldn't have said what you did with certainty. Also, my clarification didn't support your claims of bigotry, even in the realm of your hypothetical.

      "Because only the uninformed and those who think it is innate call it that."

      So, who says that racism is innate?

      "And yours do in what way? There's no scientific proof of homosexuality being innate, just your belief."

      No, it's not one or the other. Reasonable conclusions can be drawn without meeting your standard of absolute "proof".

      "Not "would" be. Could be."

      No, it would be. Stealing would always be grounds for termination, whether someone was actually fired or not. I'm talking about justification for consequences, not asserting that there will always be consequences.

      "How could I know you weren't just "highlighting" a random word?"

      If you were familiar with your own posts, you could know that I was quoting you. Also, "highlighting" would still be quoting you, so it's not clear what your distinction is supposed to be.

      "You have said using quotation marks is a way of highlighting words."

      No, I've said that it's a way of denoting ironic usage.

      "That part of the story hadn't been released by the media, at that point."

      Then you weren't applying it to all racists.

      "I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the NBA and liberals not whining about his previous PUBLIC racist behavior until now."

      If "PRIVATE" wasn't known at the time, then how could you have been pointing out the previous "PUBLIC" behavior? You had no way of making the distinction.

      Delete
    9. "The constitutionally protected free speech wasn't an issue then."

      It's not an issue now, since the government hasn't tried to punish him.

      "Yes, I watched his video before I posted."

      Then you know that people can get fired for what they say.

      "When did you watch it? After I told you to?"

      After you falsely claimed that you based much of your original post on it.

      "That's not the situation here, so you can't use that as a defense of your position."

      What makes any difference? Either speech is protected, or it isn't.

      "Bring me the quote where I said his "remarks" should be publicized."

      Why are you putting quotation marks there? I didn't specify that as being your term. You:
      "Any thing else you want to say about the hypocrisy liberals and the NBA are showing during the CURRENT racism issue while they showed none during Sterlings [sic] earlier racism issues.
      Don't get me wrong, the guy is still a racist and it should be publicized so that people know who they are dealing with and be able to make informed decisions. But, obviously, my issue is the lack of response from the NBA during his previous public acknowledgement of racism."
      You're talking about the current incident. That's proven due to the fact that you contrast your comment with "but" and claiming that your issue is the lack of response during the previous lawsuit. Also, your use of the present tense shows that you're talking about now. For instance "should be", instead of "should have been".

      "Well, apparently, people in Texas have a problem with sodomy within the privacy of their own home."

      What does this have to do with the question you were asked?

      "How did that situation work in relation to your support of homosexuality and privacy rights?"

      Laws against sodomy are absurd. Am I supposed to be accountable for those laws, now? If not, what "relation" am I supposed to comment on?

      "They are in the privacy of your own home."

      The hell they are. Racism is unacceptable, period. Since you can't tell me why I should believe otherwise, or show that I do, then you can't assert that your view makes my disgust at Sterling's racism hypocritical.

      Delete
    10. "Preference" is what people like you say to make it sound as if it's a choice.

      That's what "orientation" means, too. You're point is what, again?


      Reasonable conclusions can be drawn without meeting your standard of absolute "proof".

      Not in the instance of either being born that way or not. There isn't any middle ground.


      If "PRIVATE" wasn't known at the time, then how could you have been pointing out the previous "PUBLIC" behavior? You had no way of making the distinction.

      No distinction needed to be made. It was known he was a racist by his previous behavior and court case, yet no punishments were handed down by the NBA previously for him being a racist.


      Then you know that people can get fired for what they say.

      Are you saying that if the government install a listening device in your home and records something you say that is racist you can be fired for that?


      What makes any difference? Either speech is protected, or it isn't.

      That's right, either it is or it isn't. On what grounds does something said within the confines of a private home, in private, allows the removal of constitutional rights?


      The hell they are. Racism is unacceptable, period.

      So, you DO support government intrusion into private homes in order to rid the nation of all racists? That's very comforting to know you feel that way. It still seems kind of hypocritical of you to believe that. But, that IS my point, after all.

      BTW, where do you want to send the racists, once your government intrusion exposes them? It isn't against any law to BE racist, is it?

      Delete
    11. "That's what "orientation" means, too."

      No, it doesn't.

      "Not in the instance of either being born that way or not. There isn't any middle ground."

      Can you explain why this one particular instance requires absolute proof, while other determinations can be the result of reasonable conclusions?

      "Are you saying that if the government install [sic] a listening device in your home and records something you say that is racist you can be fired for that?"

      If it's released for some reason, yes. What would prevent those consequences, exactly?

      "On what grounds does something said within the confines of a private home, in private, allows [sic] the removal of constitutional rights?"

      There was no removal of constitutional rights here. Now, try to focus for a moment. You said that a person isn't protected if they call up their boss and tell them off. Why not? If you're going to claim that Sterling's rights were violated, why do you think that people can get fired under any circumstances for what they say?

      "So, you DO support government intrusion into private homes in order to rid the nation of all racists?"

      No, saying that something is not acceptable doesn't imply any such thing.

      "BTW, where do you want to send the racists, once your government intrusion exposes them? It isn't against any law to BE racist, is it?"

      Something doesn't have to be against the law to be unacceptable. By your logic, you must want gay people to be sent off somewhere.

      Try to address what I say, not your bizarre interpretations of what I say. Your insane straw man arguments don't help your case at all.

      Delete
    12. Something doesn't have to be against the law to be unacceptable.

      That's right. It doesn't have to be against the law to be unacceptable. Is religion against the law? Yet, you find it (also) unacceptable. How DARE you try to force your beliefs onto others. There are hundreds of people, living in the deep south, who feel racism IS acceptable. How DARE you force YOUR beliefs onto them. What a hypocrite you are turning out to be concerning what IS or what IS NOT acceptable and expect the government to follow YOUR beliefs.


      If it's released for some reason, yes. What would prevent those consequences, exactly?

      Interesting. So the government can spy on you, while in the privacy of your home, and release the information to the media and you feel it is acceptable. The supreme court seems to disagree with you according to the case I linked to.


      No, saying that something is not acceptable doesn't imply any such thing.

      You just said it is acceptable for the government to spy on you and release the information and get you fired. Clarify your position: Yes or No can the government do that?

      Delete
    13. "It doesn't have to be against the law to be unacceptable."

      Then you know that your act about sending people away was idiotic.

      "Is religion against the law? Yet, you find it (also) unacceptable."

      No, I don't. I'm curious what you're trying to base that on.

      "There are hundreds of people, living in the deep south, who feel racism IS acceptable. How DARE you force YOUR beliefs onto them."

      Only "hundreds"? That's hilarious. More importantly, it's not forcing "beliefs" to discourage bigotry. Even better, thanks for showing your true nature and standing up for racists again.

      "What a hypocrite you are turning out to be concerning what IS or what IS NOT acceptable and expect the government to follow YOUR beliefs."

      It's not even clear how I'm supposed to be a "hypocrite" in this new fantasy of yours. You really have to strain yourself to come up with something wrong in the idea that racism is unacceptable. Do you find racism acceptable? And, of course, there's no explanation of how I supposedly said any such thing about the government.

      "So the government can spy on you, while in the privacy of your home, and release the information to the media and you feel it is acceptable."

      No, you asked about whether someone can get fired over it. You didn't ask about whether the spying was acceptable or not.

      "You just said it is acceptable for the government to spy on you and release the information and get you fired."

      I said no such thing. You can read the question you asked me again, and correct yourself, or I can post it if you're too lazy.

      "Clarify your position: Yes or No can the government do that?"

      I didn't even suggest that they could, so no clarification is needed. From your obsessive blathering about "intrusion", and your inability to explain how the Constitution is relevant to the Sterling recording, it's pretty obvious that you're not able to maintain your argument. I'm not surprised in the slightest.

      Delete
    14. And, of course, there's no explanation of how I supposedly said any such thing about the government.

      Except for this part where you said: "If it's released for some reason, yes. What would prevent those consequences, exactly?".

      There, you are saying the government can spy on you and release the information and it is ok to fire someone after they do it. What part of what YOU said did you not understand? After all, I specifically asked about government intrusion and you said "yes", it's ok. Are you going to change what you said, now? Or try to say I took it out of context, (which is your usual MO)?

      Delete
    15. "There, you are saying the government can spy on you and release the information and it is ok to fire someone after they do it."

      You mentioned government spying in your scenario while specifically asking if someone could get fired for that. My reply doesn't suggest a thing about justification for the spying.

      "After all, I specifically asked about government intrusion and you said "yes", it's ok [sic]."

      You're wrong. You specifically asked about the termination. See for yourself:
      Me: "Then you know that people can get fired for what they say."
      You: "Are you saying that if the government install [sic] a listening device in your home and records something you say that is racist you can be fired for that?"
      There's nothing asking for an opinion on the actual intrusion. Both my comment and your response focused on the possibility of termination. This is even more obvious when we revisit your previous comment:
      "Now, you're correct, freedom of speech isn't always applicable at the workplace. However, it IS applicable in your private home."
      Your argument doesn't rely on specifics of "intrusion". Those were mere details, not the crux of your point.

      Also notice that the response to that question, which you posted, doesn't match your claim. The phrase "if it's released for some reason" obviously can't be directed at the propriety of the surveillance. As if it's acceptable to spy on people if the results are publicized, but it's not if nobody is made aware of the private speech? That doesn't make sense, and, at the very least, you should have asked for clarification if you really forgot the nature of your own question.

      Further, the phrase "those consequences" clearly refers to someone getting fired, and doesn't match up with "intrusion" at all. Spying wouldn't be "consequences", and even "prevent" doesn't fit with the question of whether something is acceptable or not. It applies to whether something is possible or not. Neither your question, nor my comment, even spoke to whether the termination was "OK" or not. It would be legal, even if it's not justified in any other way. Again, people can get fired for what they say. It doesn't matter how the information was obtained.

      "Or try to say I took it out of context, (which is your usual MO)?"

      No, I proved that you took it out of context. That's what I do, every single time you're guilty of that particular intellectual sin.

      Is that all you have, now? That weak, dying gasp of disingenuous pettiness? You'll have to resurrect one of your previous arguments, because that one was even easier to debunk than your usual tripe.

      Delete
    16. There's nothing asking for an opinion on the actual intrusion.

      You mean other than "... if the government install a listening device in your home and records something you say ...". If you mean other than that, then you are correct. Because no one would consider the government installing a listening device in your home as intrusion, right?


      Is that all you have, now?

      That's all I need. I've cornered you and you can't seem to walk your way out of the wet paint.

      Delete
    17. "If you mean other than that, then you are correct. Because no one would consider the government installing a listening device in your home as intrusion, right?"

      Your question wasn't about the acceptability of the intrusion. That was merely your example, consistent with your previous "private home" comment. This was already pointed out to you, and you're just repeating yourself instead of addressing the argument.

      Try again. When you can explain how the context supports your claims, then you can start saving yourself. In the meantime, you're miles away from putting any sort of pressure on me.

      Delete
    18. That's the best you can do?

      I don't need to save myself. You're the one claiming the government can spy on people and you find it acceptable that the government releases that information to get someone (anyone) fired. You said it, you must believe it. It isn't my ass that needs saving, Mr Hypocrite.

      Delete
    19. "That's the best you can do?"

      Considering you can't handle my argument, it's obviously good enough.

      "You're the one claiming the government can spy on people and you find it acceptable that the government releases that information to get someone (anyone) fired."

      Sorry, your claim has already been debunked. If you think you can change that, then you have to address the specifics of my post. Repeating yourself doesn't cut it.

      "You said it, you must believe it."

      Except that I've proven, in exceptional detail, that I said no such thing. Meanwhile, you expressed concern about the employment security of racists, so you must believe that's something to be genuinely worried about. What can you say about that, outside of providing an empty denial?

      Do you have anything else to say? Or should I expect another brainless repetition of your dishonest misrepresentation?

      Delete
    20. Your question wasn't about the acceptability of the intrusion.

      Yes, it was. If the limit of your intelligence leads you to believe otherwise, then you're more stupid than a dung beetle. And, since the best you can do is to whine about meanings of words and lie about what is said.
      You tried to claim I wasn't interested in intrusion, yet you posted a quote where I specifically imply intrusion. You tried to claim I was only talking about the workplace, yet you brought a quote where I specifically mentioned the privacy rights in the home.
      I truly think you are one of those couple hundred from the deep south who still believe that racism is A-OK, because all you've done, since you started posting, is defend the NBA and all those who hypocritically lynched someone without as much as a trial. I should start calling you Bubba-troll. Or better yet, Barbie-troll, because you act more like a whiney little girl than a man who is accountable for what he says.
      Brabantio lies and deceives in Shakespeare, and you carry on the legacy with ultimate efficiency.

      Delete
    21. "Yes, it was."

      No, it wasn't. I provided the context to prove that you're lying.

      "And, since the best you can do is to whine about meanings of words and lie about what is said."

      Show what meanings of words are trivial, and what you claim to have actually said.

      "You tried to claim I wasn't interested in intrusion, yet you posted a quote where I specifically imply intrusion."

      I didn't say you weren't interested in intrusion. It wasn't the focus of your question. It was an example. You could have changed the example and still maintained the thrust of what you were asking.

      "You tried to claim I was only talking about the workplace, yet you brought a quote where I specifically mentioned the privacy rights in the home."

      You: "That is an unbelievably obvious reference to liberal support of PRIVATE abnormal sexual behaviors being protected behaviors from workplace reprisals, while liberals consider PRIVATE abnormal racial behaviors unacceptable and fully agree with and support workplace reprisals."
      Those were the first mentions of "workplace" on this article. Obviously, you connected "PRIVATE" and "workplace" on your own.

      "I truly think you are one of those couple hundred from the deep south who still believe that racism is A-OK, because all you've done, since you started posting, is defend the NBA and all those who hypocritically lynched someone without as much as a trial."

      I haven't defended the NBA at all. I've already caught you in that lie at least once already.

      However, if we want to talk about racist quotes, here's some from you:
      "How about all the other racists in America? Are they suddenly exposed to being fired for being racist? Or, only the white ones?"
      "There are hundreds of people, living in the deep south, who feel racism IS acceptable. How DARE you force YOUR beliefs onto them."

      "Brabantio lies and deceives in Shakespeare, and you carry on the legacy with ultimate efficiency."

      No, he doesn't. You may be thinking of Iago. More likely, you don't have a clue what you're talking about at all.


      Delete
    22. No, it wasn't. I provided the context to prove that you're lying.

      You mention my focus. Umm, my "focus" has been the hypocrisy of you liberals and the NBA concerning punishment for a known racist caused by conversations made in private exposed by a 3rd party. So, I have not lied. If that's the extent of your capabilities of understanding what is being said then I expect that you don't even understand your own namesake from Shakespeare.

      Delete
    23. "Umm, my "focus" has been the hypocrisy of you liberals and the NBA concerning punishment for a known racist caused by conversations made in private exposed by a 3rd party."

      I said the focus of your question. Learn to read.

      Do you have anything else, or do you want to keep pretending that saying "Shakespeare" makes you look intelligent?

      Delete
    24. If you try to "focus" on what is being said and not trying silly diversions that show your idiocy, I wouldn't have to use Shakespeare.

      I take it that since you can't (or won't) address the issues, you are done, here?

      Delete
    25. "If you try to "focus" on what is being said and not trying silly diversions that show your idiocy, I wouldn't have to use Shakespeare."

      That's pretty funny, coming from someone who can't keep track of their own comments. If you think you can dispute anything that I've said, go ahead. If you think you can show any "diversion" on my part, I'd love to see that. And you didn't "use" Shakespeare for anything except to demonstrate your ignorance of yet another subject.

      "I take it that since you can't (or won't) address the issues, you are done, here?"

      What are the "issues", precisely? Freedom of speech? You ran off from that one. That liberals are "hypocrites" for not speaking up over a case that wasn't publicized? No, because by that standard, everyone who criticized Sterling is a hypocrite, so your singling out of liberals only shows your bigotry. So, I'm obviously willing to address any of your claims that you want to dig out of the trash and dust off.

      Delete
    26. It's really amazing you're acting this way. I specifically asked if it was OK (in you opinion) if the government could spy on private citizens to determine racist statements and you said yes. That was after I brought an example of the government prosecuting a couple of men for actions occurring within the privacy of their home, which the SC said was illegal. Now, you claim you made no such statement. Is this REALLY the way you perform "honest discussion"? If so, then what would be the point of going any further if you're going to lie about what you say?

      Delete
    27. "I specifically asked if it was OK (in you [sic] opinion) if the government could spy on private citizens to determine racist statements and you said yes."

      No, you did not. Again:
      Me: "Then you know that people can get fired for what they say."
      You: "Are you saying that if the government install [sic] a listening device in your home and records something you say that is racist you can be fired for that?"
      You asked if someone could be fired from the results of surveillance. You did not ask if spying was "OK" or anything even remotely similar.

      "That was after I brought an example of the government prosecuting a couple of men for actions occurring within the privacy of their home, which the SC said was illegal."

      Is that supposed to change the clear meaning of "you can be fired for that"? As if that means I had to ignore your actual question and concentrate on whether your hypothetical example involved actions that are appropriate or not?

      "Now, you claim you made no such statement."

      Yes, probably because I made no such statement. I said that you can get fired for that, because those circumstances have no bearing on business decisions. That was your question, so that was the answer you received. Funny how that works, isn't it?

      "If so, then what would be the point of going any further if you're going to lie about what you say?"

      Try to show where I supposedly lied. I provided quotes to demonstrate what actually happened. All you're doing is repeating your assertions of my words, with no evidence to support your claims.

      You: "That is your specialty ... telling me what I said. Albeit, usually incorrectly and/or out of context and/or off-topic."
      Would you like to keep telling me what I said, or would you like to work with the actual quotes in order to explain how I could have possibly made a comment on the propriety of government intrusion?

      I think I already know the answer, but I'll give you yet another chance to redeem yourself.

      Delete
    28. You asked if someone could be fired from the results of surveillance.

      I asked if the government can illegally spy on you and determine racist statements have been made then release them ... then you can get fired. You said "yes". The obvious implication is that you support allowing the government to illegally spy on people. The SC disagrees with you because the government is NOT allowed to spy on private citizens. If you had said that, then you would be in the clear. But, you didn't, you went on the assumption that government spying is legal. Which it isn't (on private citizens).

      Me: "Are you saying that if the government install [sic] a listening device in your home and records something you say that is racist you can be fired for that?"

      You: "If it's released for some reason, yes. What would prevent those consequences, exactly?"

      I guess you forgot to bring the answer to my question, huh? You kind of cropped what your answer was to try to avoid looking like the hypocrite you are. Sorry, everyone can go back and read everything you've said. And, your statements aren't looking very good while you try to defend your bigoted hypocrisy. Too bad for you.


      Is that supposed to change the clear meaning of "you can be fired for that"?

      Considering my (obvious) point was the illegal aspect of government spying, then you've totally ignored (purposely) your accountability for what you've said. Which is that you agree the government can spy on racists and release audio in order to get them fired. I'm really sorry you're trying to backtrack, now, but what you've said is there for everyone to see.


      Delete
    29. "I asked if the government can illegally spy on you and determine racist statements have been made then release them ... then you can get fired."

      Again, no. Not only did you not ask whether the government could do that or not, your question was in direct response to my statement that people can get fired for what they say. You said if the government installed devices, meaning it was your hypothetical scenario. You didn't ask for any feedback about the terms of the hypothetical that you had established on your own.

      "The obvious implication is that you support allowing the government to illegally spy on people."

      That would be true if you had asked about spying. But, you didn't.

      "But, you didn't, you went on the assumption that government spying is legal."

      On the contrary, I asked what would prevent the consequences of getting fired. Legality of government action has nothing to do with whether you can get fired from your job or not. Since that is completely irrelevant, you can't assume that I came to any such conclusion of legality.

      "I guess you forgot to bring the answer to my question, huh?"

      No, I was responding to what you said: "I specifically asked if it was OK (in you [sic] opinion) if the government could spy on private citizens to determine racist statements and you said yes."
      That doesn't require my answer. You misrepresented your own question, and I corrected you.

      Besides that, I said this, yesterday: "Also notice that the response to that question, which you posted, doesn't match your claim." That was followed by two paragraphs of explanation. Obviously, I'm not afraid of the quote. You didn't address the points that followed, of course.

      "You kind of cropped what your answer was to try to avoid looking like the hypocrite you are."

      I didn't "crop" anything, obviously, since I was addressing your false claim of what your question was. Also notice, as I said yesterday, that the answer doesn't help you. I'm clearly talking about getting fired ("What would prevent those consequences"), not surveillance.

      Your griping about not posting a quote is especially amusing, considering how you believe you can assert my words without providing quotes. But when I've addressed the quote in question in detail, and you don't say a word in response, and my answer wasn't relevant to your claim, then I'm supposedly dishonest for not providing the same quote a day later. Good luck trying to defend that one.

      "Sorry, everyone can go back and read everything you've said."

      I invite that, since it proves that you're a shameless liar.

      "Considering my (obvious) point was the illegal aspect of government spying, then you've totally ignored (purposely) your accountability for what you've said."

      Your point would actually be that someone could not get fired if the cause was discovered illegally. That is obvious, since you were responding to "Then you know that people can get fired for what they say", a comment which doesn't involve government intrusion of any kind. Also, you didn't answer the question that you quoted. What the hell would your comment on that court case have to do with anything here?

      Your best defense is that you were trying to change the subject, and stupidly forgot to ask a question which would actually lead me onto that subject. Is that your claim?

      Delete
    30. That would be true if you had asked about spying. But, you didn't.

      That's right. I said "intrusion". Nothing similar to spying with the word intrusion, huh? You haven't been able to follow this story since the first post you made. Hell, you didn't even watch the video until I told you to. How are you expected to follow along with simple conversations? Don't worry, I don't expect you to.


      You misrepresented your own question, and I corrected you.

      Umm, no I didn't. And your corrections are an admission that you have lost another argument and have nothing better to do. Because I STILL don't see you correcting Eddie's spelling errors. But, trolls do what trolls do.


      I'm clearly talking about getting fired.

      What was the "yes" answer to, then? I have to assume you approve of government spying and releasing the information in order to get you fired. Because otherwise you would have said you do not approve of government spying. I know what a stickler you are for exact wording. And, since you didn't bring those words you must approve of government spying into the private lives of American citizens. Way to show your hypocrisy, troll.


      I invite that, since it proves that you're a shameless liar.

      I don't think you do invite that. You simply know that nobody reads this stuff except you and me. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to say that.


      Your best defense is that you were trying to change the subject, and stupidly forgot to ask a question which would actually lead me onto that subject. Is that your claim?

      Actually, my best defense is your ignorance of what this article is about and your inability to follow simple conversations. Right now, that is my claim.
      You got anything else, troll? Or have I wiped your ass too far across the floor to keep showing up? Personally, I think this is fun watching you flounder, like you do. It's especially funny watching you try to show superior intellect while you misquote and crop to fit your whines. However, trolls never have superior intellect than autopsychics.

      Keep spewing your shit, though. I get plenty of laughs. I'm sure anyone (someone) else does too. BTW, do you like how I keep using anyone (someone) all the time. Ever notice how they both fit EACH and EVERY time? Nah, I guess you wouldn't notice that. Trolls aren't that smart.

      Delete
    31. "That's right. I said "intrusion". Nothing similar to spying with the word intrusion, huh?"

      The quote I was replying to used the term "spy", so I said "spying". It's not clear what you're whining about there. Whichever word you use, that was not what your question was about.

      "Hell, you didn't even watch the video until I told you to."

      You didn't comment on the video, so there was no need. Your defense of racism deserved a response, no matter what Eddie said. Also, I watched the video when you were clearly making a false claim. It's not as I take your desperate need for control seriously.

      "Umm, no I didn't."

      Yes, you did, as I've demonstrated.

      "And your corrections are an admission that you have lost another argument and have nothing better to do."

      That's hilarious. No, you're trying to put words in my mouth, so correcting you is perfectly within my rights. But, by your argument, your "correction" about Easter on the other article was an admission that you had lost on your points and had nothing better to do. Good job.

      "Because I STILL don't see you correcting Eddie's spelling errors."

      I've shown you where I've done that, but we're not talking about spelling errors here. You tried to change your question after the fact, in order to change the meaning of my response. That's clearly not acceptable behavior.

      "What was the "yes" answer to, then?"

      The possibility of getting fired, which is what your question was about. Again, you: "Are you saying that if the government install [sic] a listening device in your home and records something you say that is racist you can be fired for that?"
      So, the answer would be "yes, you can be fired for that".

      "Because otherwise you would have said you do not approve of government spying."

      Why would I have to do that, since it wasn't relevant to your question?

      "I know what a stickler you are for exact wording."

      Making comments regarding a question you didn't ask would have nothing to do with "exact wording". That would be extraneous.

      "You simply know that nobody reads this stuff except you and me."

      In response to your comment that my words are there for all to see, I invited "all" to read them. I don't really care how many people are actually reading.

      "Actually, my best defense is your ignorance of what this article is about and your inability to follow simple conversations."

      Then you've lost, because you haven't addressed the actual context. Based on the preceding comments, I was referring to whether someone could be fired for what they say, not the means by which the speech was heard.

      "It's especially funny watching you try to show superior intellect while you misquote and crop to fit your whines."

      You haven't shown any misquotes or cropping. I guess you forgot to do that, as people with inferior minds are wont to do.

      "BTW, do you like how I keep using anyone (someone) all the time. Ever notice how they both fit EACH and EVERY time?"

      They don't fit. For instance, you would never say "I'm sure anyone else does too". You would say "I'm sure anyone else would, too", because it's contingent on the hypothetical of "anyone" reading it. For instance, you're not sure that the Queen of England is reading this page. She would be part of "anyone", obviously. So you wouldn't say that she does any such thing, you would say that she would.

      But, surely you have better things to do than to pursue that grossly ignorant claim of yours. If you really think you have the upper hand here, then there's no need for such an irrelevant tangent. Right?

      Delete
    32. So, the answer would be "yes, you can be fired for that".

      That factual answer is NO, you cannot be fired for that. You wish you could, because that's the way bigot work. But, in America, the government is not allowed to spy on it's citizens. If it were, then every member of the KKK would be jobless. So, you have sided on the side of the wrong.


      Why would I have to do that, since it wasn't relevant to your question?

      I guess you wouldn't have had to do that, since you obviously approve of the government spying on it's citizens in order to rid the nation of people who believe differently than you do. Nothing hypocritical about your stance, there. (just in case: note the sarcasm)


      Based on the preceding comments, I was referring to whether someone could be fired for what they say, not the means by which the speech was heard.

      That's right, you approve of the US government spying on racists and having them fired, but you don't approve of the US government spying on homosexuals and having them fired. Hypocrite. Who are YOU to decide what is right and what is wrong? Our nation has laws for ALL to follow, not just the ones who you approve of. Hypocrite.





      Delete
    33. "That factual answer is NO, you cannot be fired for that."

      Why not? What prevents those consequences? If that question looks familiar, it's because you've passed up opportunities to answer it already.

      "But, in America, the government is not allowed to spy on it's [sic] citizens."

      That doesn't have anything to do with employment security. It's not as if you're protected in your job because of how information was brought to light.

      "I guess you wouldn't have had to do that, since you obviously approve of the government spying on it's [sic] citizens in order to rid the nation of people who believe differently than you do."

      If I "wouldn't have had to", then I had no reason to comment on the legality of your example. So, you can't take that as evidence of an opinion.

      Speaking of that, did you notice your inconsistency? Here, I'll help:
      "I asked if the government can illegally spy on you and determine racist statements have been made then release them ... then you can get fired."
      And:"I have to assume you approve of government spying and releasing the information in order to get you fired."
      If you had actually asked about that, then you wouldn't "have to assume" an opinion on it. Essentially, you've admitted that you did misrepresent your own question, and now are stuck trying to justify your assumption that I would comment on something that you didn't ask about.

      "That's right, you approve of the US government spying on racists and having them fired, but you don't approve of the US government spying on homosexuals and having them fired."

      The comment you responded to said: "I was referring to whether someone could be fired for what they say, not the means by which the speech was heard". That doesn't lend itself to your "that's right" conclusion, which is direct contradiction to what I said.

      Anything else, or would you like to keep bearing false witness out of pride? All you're doing is showing your desperation and utter lack of morals, just so you're aware.

      Delete
    34. Why not? What prevents those consequences?

      The LAW, which I've answered several times. Selective memory is a wonderful thing, huh?


      It's not as if you're protected in your job because of how information was brought to light.

      According the to court case I referenced (earlier) and the SC court decision (included in that reference) the method it is "brought to light" does IN FACT affect the legality of how someone (anyone) is punished.


      So, you can't take that as evidence of an opinion.

      Sorry, but factually, my example is FACT not opinion. You support that fact (from that court case) so don't try to play(?) dumb to me. You're the one who supports one chosen behavior while denouncing the other while finding no fault in forcing your beliefs onto others about an immoral chosen behavior and even feel the government should back you up using illegal tactics. At the same time you feel it is wrong for religious people to force their beliefs onto you. Nothing hypocritical about that.


      Essentially, you've admitted that you did misrepresent your own question, and now are stuck trying to justify your assumption that I would comment on something that you didn't ask about.

      No, I've caught you in a hypocritical belief and you can't find any other way out of it other than to disparage truth that is written.


      Anything else, or would you like to keep bearing false witness out of pride?

      That hasn't happened yet, so I don't know how I could "keep" doing it. You, on the other hand, have been doing just that while you support government intrusion into private lives for one chose behavior, but not another.

      Delete
    35. "The LAW, which I've answered several times."

      How so? What law prevents people getting fired for something that comes out through surveillance?

      "According the to court case I referenced (earlier) and the SC court decision (included in that reference) the method it is "brought to light" does IN FACT affect the legality of how someone (anyone) is punished."

      That court case wasn't about employment. That was about criminal charges, which are different for reasons that shouldn't have to be explained to you.

      "Sorry, but factually, my example is FACT not opinion."

      I said that you can't take my lack of an extraneous comment as evidence of an opinion. Learn to read. Also, your example is a hypothetical, not a "FACT".

      "You're the one who supports one chosen behavior while denouncing the other while finding no fault in forcing your beliefs onto others about an immoral chosen behavior and even feel the government should back you up using illegal tactics."

      I don't believe that homosexuality is "chosen behavior", so I'm not accountable for your opinion on "chosen behavior". And, again, I never even suggested that the government should do anything at all about finding or punishing racists.

      "At the same time you feel it is wrong for religious people to force their beliefs onto you."

      Don't you? And I find it very telling that you consider an objection to racism at the same level as a religious belief, as if it's something taken as a matter of faith.

      "No, I've caught you in a hypocritical belief and you can't find any other way out of it other than to disparage truth that is written."

      No, you admitted that you misrepresented your own question. If you had actually asked about spying, then you wouldn't have to assume anything based on the lack of an extraneous response. Notice how you didn't address the specifics of my comment.

      "That hasn't happened yet, so I don't know how I could "keep" doing it."

      If you weren't lying, then you could make your claim fit the context that I cited. Naturally, you haven't done that.

      Delete
    36. What law prevents people getting fired for something that comes out through surveillance?

      You mean illegal surveillance?


      That court case wasn't about employment.

      No, but it was about information about chosen lifestyles that were illegally gathered that led to the punishment.


      I don't believe that homosexuality is "chosen behavior", so I'm not accountable for your opinion on "chosen behavior".

      I do, so I'm not accountable for your opinion on chosen behaviors.


      Don't you?

      Nobody can force an opinion onto me that I don't believe. They can offer it all they want. Is there something about that you can't grasp?


      Delete
    37. "You mean illegal surveillance?"

      I mean surveillance. It doesn't matter whether it's legal or not. What law prevents employer action?

      "No, but it was about information about chosen lifestyles that were illegally gathered that led to the punishment."

      Criminal prosecution has nothing to do with employment. Your example doesn't apply.

      "I do, so I'm not accountable for your opinion on chosen behaviors."

      That didn't make sense. If you believe that it's chosen behavior, then any comment on chosen behavior would apply to that. Meanwhile, my point stands unchallenged.

      "Nobody can force an opinion onto me that I don't believe."

      Me neither, but that doesn't make the attempts acceptable.

      "They can offer it all they want."

      How did you shift from "force" to "offer"? Since you did, though, what would be wrong with offering racists an alternate view of tolerance? Especially considering your indignant "how DARE you" reaction, that's a very strange term to use.

      Delete
    38. I mean surveillance. It doesn't matter whether it's legal or not.

      Are you saying the government can illegally spy on individuals and it be legal to fire someone (anyone)?


      Criminal prosecution has nothing to do with employment. Your example doesn't apply.

      It does when their reputations were tarnished by that illegal gathering of information.


      That didn't make sense.

      Of course you would say that in defense of your illogical opinions verses mine.


      Me neither, but that doesn't make the attempts acceptable.

      Why not?


      How did you shift from "force" to "offer"?

      When I said nobody can force their opinion onto me. Try to follow along, please.


      Since you did, though, what would be wrong with offering racists an alternate view of tolerance?

      Nothing, but you're not "offering" you're saying their view is unacceptable. That makes you a bigot, since you call me a bigot for my view that homosexuality is unacceptable. What about that "tolerance" you mentioned? Are you less tolerant of some views than others? Well, that also makes you a bigot.

      Delete
    39. "Are you saying the government can illegally spy on individuals and it be legal to fire someone (anyone)?"

      Yes, except for the idiotic "(anyone)" addendum. Apparently, I have to make a special note here that "yes" means that it's legal to fire someone for that, and that doesn't magically transfer over to approval of illegal spying. Otherwise, you'll get all discombobulated and go off on another bender.

      "It does when their reputations were tarnished by that illegal gathering of information."

      No, it doesn't. That doesn't prevent termination of employment in any way. And am I supposed to feel sorry for racists, here? If a racist's reputation wasn't already tarnished, then they were hiding their true nature. Who the hell cares?

      "Of course you would say that in defense of your illogical opinions verses mine."

      I said it because your comment was nonsensical. As for "illogical", I always get a good laugh out of you trying to prove that. Please, go for it.

      "Why not?"

      Because propriety of action has nothing to do with its effectiveness. If someone tried to rape one of your daughters, you wouldn't shrug it off just because they didn't succeed. Is that really a new concept for you?

      "When I said nobody can force their opinion onto me."

      If someone was trying to force something on you, it was never offered.

      "Nothing, but you're not "offering" [sic] you're saying their view is unacceptable. That makes you a bigot, since you call me a bigot for my view that homosexuality is unacceptable."

      Your view isn't reasoned. Mine is. Someone could just as easily make the same declaration as you by comparing disapproval of genocide to advocating genocide.

      "What about that "tolerance" you mentioned? Are you less tolerant of some views than others? Well, that also makes you a bigot."

      By that definition, everyone is a "bigot". Since that doesn't conform to reality, your comment is void. Also, you're not the first person to pretend that "tolerance" means never objecting to anyone's behavior. It doesn't mean accepting intolerance, sadly for you.

      Delete
    40. Yes, except for the idiotic "(anyone)" addendum.

      Well, it's nice to know you support illegal spying by the government. At least you voted in the right guy as president, since he is doing it to his subjects.


      And am I supposed to feel sorry for racists, here?

      I don't think the SC took your feelings into account when they said it is illegal to do what YOU support.
      Because the same can be said of gays ... who the hell cares about their reputation getting tarnished from a lifestyle choice they make that tarnishes their reputation. Is that the crux of your beliefs? Oh, wait, you'll say you support the reputations of gays because they are born that way, even though you have no proof of that.
      Nothing hypocritical about that, huh?


      Please, go for it.

      Well, for one, you believe it is OK for the government to illegally spy on individual citizens ... as long as they have morals you don't agree with. But, it is not OK for the government to illegally spy on individuals who have morals you do agree with.
      Wow, that was easy.


      Your view isn't reasoned. Mine is.

      You view is bigoted. So, you're a bigot with reason? Hmm. At least I can justify my beliefs, you can't even do that. You just say it is 'that way' and everyone is supposed to believe you. I don't think I'd believe a bigot like you.


      By that definition, everyone is a "bigot".

      Is there another definition to be used?


      Also, you're not the first person to pretend that "tolerance" means never objecting to anyone's behavior. It doesn't mean accepting intolerance, sadly for you.

      If that is true then I am not a bigot because I simply object to someone's behavior. Thanks for that clarification.

      Delete
    41. "Well, it's nice to know you support illegal spying by the government."

      Again: "Apparently, I have to make a special note here that "yes" means that it's legal to fire someone for that, and that doesn't magically transfer over to approval of illegal spying."
      You should learn how to read.

      "Because the same can be said of gays ... who the hell cares about their reputation getting tarnished from a lifestyle choice they make that tarnishes their reputation.[sic]"

      There's no objective reason to oppose homosexuality. Bigotry is another matter entirely.

      "Oh, wait, you'll say you support the reputations of gays because they are born that way, even though you have no proof of that."

      No, because it's not a choice. You can't even explain how someone could possibly choose to be gay, which is much of what makes your view unreasonable.

      "Nothing hypocritical about that, huh?"

      No, because racism and homosexuality are two completely different concepts. I'm sure I mentioned that to you already, but maybe you forgot.

      "Well, for one, you believe it is OK for the government to illegally spy on individual citizens ... as long as they have morals you don't agree with."

      No, that lie has been debunked. Try again.

      "You [sic] view is bigoted."

      No, it isn't.

      "At least I can justify my beliefs, you can't even do that."

      Where haven't I done that?

      "You just say it is 'that way' and everyone is supposed to believe you."

      I'm quite sure that never happened. On the other hand, it's not clear how pointing at the Bible isn't doing exactly what you just described.

      "Is there another definition to be used?"

      There has to be, because you're not distinguishing anything that way. I'm inclined to believe that you're inventing your own definition, anyway, since your usage seems to be wrong.

      "If that is true then I am not a bigot because I simply object to someone's behavior."

      That would be a brilliant point, if only I had claimed otherwise. You're a bigot because you have no justification for your objections, not because you "simply" object to anything.

      It took you a hell of a long time to figure that much out. If you need help with any other basic concepts, let me know, so I can get you up to speed.

      Delete
    42. On the other hand, it's not clear how pointing at the Bible isn't doing exactly what you just described.

      I don't use the Bible to justify my position that homosexuality is a choice. I use it to justify my position that it's a sin, just like bigotry and racism.
      Therefor, since there is no evidence that homosexuality is natural or any evidence that it isn't choice then my position about homosexuality is just as acceptable as yours. Without ANY evidence that it isn't choice, how could I possibly believe anything other than it IS choice? Refuting your claim of bigotry from me.

      Hey, have you heard the latest in the Sterling situation? No, I guess you haven't, since you know nothing about it, as it stands. But, it turns out that he is only 1/2 owner. I wonder if the NBA is going to force the other 1/2 owner out too.

      Delete
    43. "I don't use the Bible to justify my position that homosexuality is a choice. I use it to justify my position that it's a sin, just like bigotry and racism."

      I know what you use it for. But, you can't very well believe in a deity that would create people who have to choose between the sin of being true to themselves (homosexuality) and the sin of pretending to be straight (lying). That would have to be a very confused and/or severely twisted god. That's why the "choice" lie is so important to your cause, because otherwise your religious rationale falls apart.

      "Therefor [sic], since there is no evidence that homosexuality is natural or any evidence that it isn't choice then my position about homosexuality is just as acceptable as yours."

      There's clearly evidence that it's natural, because it occurs in nature. You've also presented a strong case that it's not a choice on your own, because you have no explanation as to how it's a choice. Without details, your story has no credibility, and, in fact, suggests that you're lying about it in order to maintain your irrational stance.

      Besides that, you're pushing a false equivalence. The lack of absolute proof one way or another doesn't make both ideas equally acceptable. We may never know all the details behind the Kennedy assassination, but it's still more reasonable to say that Oswald was involved, instead of arguing that it was the work of space aliens.

      "Without ANY evidence that it isn't choice, how could I possibly believe anything other than it IS choice?"

      Funny, because you have zero evidence that it is choice. By your logic, I couldn't possibly believe anything other than it not being a choice. What makes "choice" the default view here, according to you?

      "Refuting your claim of bigotry from me."

      No, you still have no justifications for your objections. The Bible doesn't help you, obviously, and claiming that there's no evidence doesn't excuse you from engaging in critical thinking.

      "I wonder if the NBA is going to force the other 1/2 owner out too."

      Why would that happen? For your information, suggesting an equivalence between someone getting kicked out for racism and someone getting kicked out for nothing makes it seem as if you think racism isn't something to be concerned about. You probably should have thought about that before you posted.

      Delete
    44. But, you can't very well believe in a deity that would create people who have to choose between the sin of being true to themselves (homosexuality) and the sin of pretending to be straight (lying).

      That's just plain dumb. That would mean you are saying that God created murderers who must decide between being "true to themselves" or not. Are you saying that murderers are born that way, too? Personally, I think that is just plain dumb.
      I believe God gave us free will to choose what we want ... to sin or not to sin. To believe or not to believe. Choices ... all choices.


      There's clearly evidence that it's natural, because it occurs in nature.

      Do animals depend on or make decisions based on free will? I don't think so. Do you have any evidence of that? If not, then that is what makes humans different than animals. If humans acted like animals there would be no order. Of course some humans do act like animals, and that's why most of them are in prison.


      The lack of absolute proof one way or another doesn't make both ideas equally acceptable.

      Why not? Is it because that would further my claim that you cannot call me a bigot without admitting you are one too? I think that's why you say that.


      By your logic, I couldn't possibly believe anything other than it not being a choice.

      Actually, by my logic, you can choose whether to believe that or not. See how that works? Do you believe it or not, there is no middle ground. It's either yes or no. Simple, huh?


      The Bible doesn't help you, obviously, and claiming that there's no evidence doesn't excuse you from engaging in critical thinking.

      Actually, you aren't giving me the option of critical thinking. You seem to be telling me that it is one way and there are no other ways. How is that critical thinking if you rule out all possibilities? So, if I'm not engaging in critical thinking, then that is true for you too.


      For your information, suggesting an equivalence between someone getting kicked out for racism and someone getting kicked out for nothing makes it seem as if you think racism isn't something to be concerned about.

      I didn't have to think about that. It is just another example of you twisting what is said to fit your own beliefs. Nothing unexpected there.
      Obviously, you don't know anything about the situation. Perhaps you should listen and/or read more media so that you can get some inkling about what this article is about. But, since all you do is cry about me having an opinion, I doubt that will happen. Need some more tissues?


      Delete
    45. If humans acted like animals there would be no order. Of course some humans do act like animals, and that's why most of them are in prison.

      Oh, I thought of something funny about that comment (after re-reading it). Back in the caveman days, people did act like animals. They would threaten to hit each other over the heads with bricks and sometimes actually did it. But, that was before we became civilized and created laws against that kind of thing. I wonder if anyone we know still threatens to hit people over the head with bricks. Hmmm. I guess just people with caveman mentalities still do that. Ah ha ha ha.... get it ... civilized, caveman mentalities, hit over the head with bricks. Sheesh, jokes just don't work very well when you have to explain them, do they?

      Delete
    46. "That would mean you are saying that God created murderers who must decide between being "true to themselves" or not."

      No, it wouldn't mean that at all. Most obviously, you're confusing specific acts with a continuous state of being.

      "I believe God gave us free will to choose what we want ... to sin or not to sin."

      Which is why you have to go into contortions to believe that homosexuality is a choice. Otherwise, there's no free will for people who naturally are attracted to their own gender and not the opposite one.

      "Do animals depend on or make decisions based on free will?"

      That would be a point in my favor, obviously.

      "If humans acted like animals there would be no order."

      Humans do act like animals. The only thing that moderates that is our ability to philosophize.

      "Why not?"

      Because you can come to reasonable conclusions without absolute proof.

      "Actually, by my logic, you can choose whether to believe that or not."

      Then you could choose what to believe, as well. But you didn't give yourself that option.

      "You seem to be telling me that it is one way and there are no other ways."

      Logically, there is. If you want to present a logical argument that counters what I'm saying, then you would be engaging in critical thinking. So why don't you try that, if it's possible?

      "It is just another example of you twisting what is said to fit your own beliefs."

      And you don't justify your claims. That's not a surprise.

      "Obviously, you don't know anything about the situation."

      Did that explain how someone uninvolved with the racist comments would get kicked out of his ownership position? It doesn't appear so.

      "They would threaten to hit each other over the heads with bricks and sometimes actually did it."

      If they lived in caves, then they wouldn't have building materials such as bricks. I really would love to know how you missed that.

      "I wonder if anyone we know still threatens to hit people over the head with bricks."

      Nobody I know. I do know someone who pretends that hyperbole is supposed to be taken literally as threats, but he's a little crazy.

      Delete
    47. Most obviously, you're confusing specific acts with a continuous state of being.

      That means you are labeling Sterling a racist for one statement, since you say you are unaware of his previous racist actions. And, if you admit that he's been a racist all along, then you would be admitting that I am right about the hypocrisy of the NBA and some liberals. Hmm, didn't think that one through, did you? I guess you're the confused one, here.


      Which is why you have to go into contortions to believe that homosexuality is a choice.

      I don't have to go into "contortions" for that since there is no viable evidence to the contrary.


      Humans do act like animals.

      I know. I said that. At least we can agree on that point.


      Because you can come to reasonable conclusions without absolute proof.

      Yes. And, I've done that. Your opinion of what "reasonable" is is irrelevant in this discussion and reality.


      Then you could choose what to believe, as well. But you didn't give yourself that option.

      I'm pretty sure that my use of "you" was a generalized concept, so, yes I gave myself that option. Unless you wanted me to use "someone" "anyone" again. But, I know how you hate it when I point out those words are interchangable.


      Logically, there is.

      So, we need logic involved now? Why don't you present a logical explanation so I can discuss it, then?


      Did that explain how someone uninvolved with the racist comments would get kicked out of his ownership position?

      HER. See? You know nothing of this situation. Keep playing with your legos.


      If they lived in caves, then they wouldn't have building materials such as bricks. I really would love to know how you missed that.

      I'm pretty sure if you checked your history, not all "cavemen" lived in caves. But, considering you are just arguing with me because of your hatred, I would expect that kind of reply to a joke.

      Delete
    48. "That means you are labeling Sterling a racist for one statement, since you say you are unaware of his previous racist actions."

      The quote you provided was about your insane comparison between gay people and murderers. It's not clear how it's supposed to say something about Sterling.

      "And, if you admit that he's been a racist all along, then you would be admitting that I am right about the hypocrisy of the NBA and some liberals."

      I never disputed anything about the NBA. You can't assert hypocrisy for any liberals. How do you know that all the liberals who happened to see that particular ESPN segment didn't criticize him at the time? Also, saying that he's a racist for his known comments now doesn't mean that there was adequate evidence at any other point in time.

      "I don't have to go into "contortions" for that since there is no viable evidence to the contrary."

      Your definition of "viable" doesn't change the fact that you can't even explain how you supposedly "chose" to be straight. If your explanation isn't even possible, then it doesn't much matter if there's absolute proof for the alternative or not.

      "I know. I said that."

      No, you said if humans acted like animals, there would be no order. I wasn't addressing the exception to your general comment.

      "Yes. And, I've done that."

      If you know that, why did you ask "why not?" when I said that the lack of absolute proof doesn't make both sides equally acceptable?

      "Your opinion of what "reasonable" is is irrelevant in this discussion and reality."

      Make arguments, not assertions.

      "I'm pretty sure that my use of "you" was a generalized concept, so, yes I gave myself that option."

      No, you didn't: "Without ANY evidence that it isn't choice, how could I possibly believe anything other than it IS choice?"
      Notice the lack of the word "you" in that question.

      "But, I know how you hate it when I point out those words are interchangable [sic]."

      I find it amusing when you try to claim that. The last time I proved you wrong, you didn't even try to pursue your point.

      "So, we need logic involved now?"

      When would you not need logic to be involved? Your question summed up so much of what is so horribly wrong with your mindset.

      "Why don't you present a logical explanation so I can discuss it, then?"

      Apparently, you've forgotten that you were trying to shed the "bigot" label. It's up to you to provide a logical explanation. I've done so previously, as you've already alluded to on this thread.

      "HER. See? You know nothing of this situation."

      Did she make racist remarks? Did she do anything that's worthy of discussion? If not, why would I need to know about her? Good luck in trying to turn my infrequent ESPN viewing into a valid criticism and not just another display of your desperation. And you're still not explaining why she would get kicked out of her ownership position, of course.

      "I'm pretty sure if you checked your history, not all "cavemen" lived in caves."

      I'm very sure that they didn't live in brick structures. If you want to make historically-accurate comments, you probably want to use scientifically-accepted terms, as well.

      "But, considering you are just arguing with me because of your hatred, I would expect that kind of reply to a joke."

      I correct your stupidity whether you call your off-topic pettiness a "joke" or not. What's actually funny, as opposed to your attempts at humor, is that you're determined to condemn liberals for objecting to racism, and you want to accuse me of "arguing with me because of your hatred". If you didn't base your arguments on mindless loathing, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

      Delete
    49. The quote you provided was about your insane comparison between gay people and murderers. It's not clear how it's supposed to say something about Sterling.

      Irrelevant to the fact you are now claiming no knowledge of Sterling's earlier racist exploits and thus are basing your entire "racist" tangent on ONE incident and not a "continuous state of being". Proving you are a hypocritical bigot.


      You can't assert hypocrisy for any liberals.

      I can and I accurately did. You failed big time trying to back up your assertions.


      Also, saying that he's a racist for his known comments now doesn't mean that there was adequate evidence at any other point in time.

      When he is sued for racist actions, it does. Another giant failure on your part.


      Your definition of "viable" doesn't change the fact that you can't even explain how you supposedly "chose" to be straight.

      I can explain that ... I chose to be. Just like you chose to be. Assuming you did. I really don't know what you chose.


      Make arguments, not assertions.

      Ditto, my hypocritical bigoted liberal friend.


      The last time I proved you wrong, you didn't even try to pursue your point.

      You have never proved me wrong on that point. Opinions are not proof. Yet another failure on your part.


      Apparently, you've forgotten that you were trying to shed the "bigot" label.

      I'm not trying to do that. I'm proving it fits your behavior also. Which you fail to address.


      Did she make racist remarks?

      Yes, she has. But, it doesn't change the FACT you don't even know the pertinent facts of this situation. Are you going to claim she is a racist, now that I've told you she has? That's a lot of failures on your part during this discussion. Keep em coming.


      I'm very sure that they didn't live in brick structures.

      brick: " a block of something" MW. Keep your failures coming.


      Delete
    50. "Irrelevant to the fact you are now claiming no knowledge of Sterling's earlier racist exploits and thus are basing your entire "racist" tangent on ONE incident and not a "continuous state of being"."

      For starters, how is "racist" a "tangent", considering the subject of the article? And you still need to explain how blatantly racist comments don't warrant calling someone a racist. What's the claim, that he was joking? That he has to say some arbitrary number of clearly bigoted things before that can be determined?

      If you saw someone engaged in a passionate kiss with someone of the same gender, would that not suggest "homosexual" to you? That would still be a continuous state, as shown by one incident. You'll have to clarify your position, because you're not making a sensible point thus far.

      Also, how am I "now claiming" that I wasn't aware of Sterling's legal issues? That's what I've said consistently, so you shouldn't suggest that this is something new. If you weren't aware you were doing that, now you know better than to do it again.

      "I can and I accurately did."

      Again, how do you know that every liberal who actually saw that ESPN segment on the lawsuit didn't criticize Sterling at the time? If they did, then you can't claim "accurately".

      "When he is sued for racist actions, it does."

      The hell it does. People are wrongfully sued every day. And even if you could argue otherwise, you're still not disputing the general concept.

      "I can explain that ... I chose to be. Just like you chose to be."

      Then you didn't choose, because I never had to make a choice. I've always been attracted to the opposite sex, so there was never a decision at all.

      "Ditto, my hypocritical bigoted liberal friend."

      More empty assertions from you. Most notably, you can't point to a single instance of an assertion without an argument on my part.

      "You have never proved me wrong on that point. Opinions are not proof."

      Pointing out the specifics of how your substitution is improper English is not merely "opinions". Besides that, what is your claim that the two words are always interchangeable, if not an opinion?

      "I'm not trying to do that."

      You: "Refuting your claim of bigotry from me."
      Me: "No, you still have no justifications for your objections. The Bible doesn't help you, obviously, and claiming that there's no evidence doesn't excuse you from engaging in critical thinking."
      You: "You seem to be telling me that it is one way and there are no other ways."
      Me: "Logically, there is."
      You were trying to claim that you weren't a bigot.

      "I'm proving it fits your behavior also."

      No, you aren't. I've shot down every lame attempt of yours, but feel free to embarrass yourself further.

      "Yes, she has. But, it doesn't change the FACT you don't even know the pertinent facts of this situation."

      What's "pertinent" about that? Does it change anything you've said? Does it change the nature of Sterling's behavior?

      "Are you going to claim she is a racist, now that I've told you she has?"

      Not based on your empty assertions. Do you have any quotes?

      "brick: " a block of something" MW."

      What "block of something" would Neanderthals have had? They were threatening to hit each other with a "brick of cheese"? Maybe a "brick of weed"? And are you claiming that Eddie might have "threatened" to hit some unnamed person with a dairy product? It's really strange that you would consider that to be a cause of bodily injury, but I'll take you at your word that you're that delicate.

      Delete
    51. Again, how do you know that every liberal who actually saw that ESPN segment on the lawsuit didn't criticize Sterling at the time?

      I have said only certain liberals are hypocrites for their proclamation of racism.. More failures on your part.


      People are wrongfully sued every day.

      Are you defending a racist, now? I remember you deriding me for allegedly doing that.


      You were trying to claim that you weren't a bigot.

      There was no "trying" involved. I did claim that truth.


      Do you have any quotes?

      Do you have more quotes from Sterling that show his racism in a "continuous state of being"? 'Cause if you don't then you're basing his racism on one incident and you've inferred that isn't enough.


      Maybe a "brick of weed"?

      Weed doesn't come in a brick. Hash does, though. Either way, you have proof that cavemen ONLY lived in caves? If not, that is another failure on your part.

      Delete
    52. "I have said only certain liberals are hypocrites for their proclamation of racism.."

      You: "There was no harm done, other than to the many liberals who expressed such phoney disgust over comments he made and just seem to forget that he's been that way since day 1."

      So, "certain" liberals would be the ones who happened to hear about the lawsuit. Again, how do you know that any of them were uncharacteristically quiet over that, and then criticized Sterling for his racist comments? Saying you're talking about "certain" liberals doesn't explain how you can accuse even one liberal of hypocrisy. If you think you can say "accurately" to describe your claim, you should be able to justify what you say.

      "Are you defending a racist, now?"

      No, I'm saying that a lawsuit isn't adequate evidence of anything, contrary to your assertion. That's true whether he was wrongfully accused or clearly guilty.

      "There was no "trying" involved. I did claim that truth."

      You: "I'm not trying to do that. I'm proving it fits your behavior also."
      Which is it? Are you claiming that it's "truth" that you are not a bigot, or are you claiming that I'm supposedly also a bigot? The word "also" would mean that you're a bigot, in case you didn't realize that.

      "Do you have more quotes from Sterling that show his racism in a "continuous state of being"?"

      So, you don't have any quotes from the other owner. How odd. As for your confusion over "continuous state of being", I'll say again:
      "And you still need to explain how blatantly racist comments don't warrant calling someone a racist. What's the claim, that he was joking? That he has to say some arbitrary number of clearly bigoted things before that can be determined?...If you saw someone engaged in a passionate kiss with someone of the same gender, would that not suggest "homosexual" to you? That would still be a continuous state, as shown by one incident. You'll have to clarify your position, because you're not making a sensible point thus far."
      When you explain what the hell you're talking about, we can move forward. Make an effort.

      "Weed doesn't come in a brick. Hash does, though."

      You are wrong: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=brick%20weed
      And: http://marijuana.com/community/threads/brick-of-weed.226209/
      And: http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2011/04/5-pound_brick_of_marijuana_mailed_to_elderly_coupl.php
      And: http://www.stonerdays.com/brick-weed/
      I'm sure there's more, but that's enough to show that you did zero research before making your assertion.

      "Either way, you have proof that cavemen ONLY lived in caves?"

      You know that "cavemen" isn't even an accepted term, right? Are you trying to talk about specific details while using colloquial terminology? I'm also curious why you think that something you said was a "joke" isn't a "waste of time". Or is this the "real issue" now?

      The point would be that the name you used should have been an obvious indication that there would be no purpose for a "brick" at that time. Even if you believe they lived in huts, that's an awfully long way off from building with bricks. When you're not using literal terms, then you can't expect me to respond in literal terms. Is that a problem for you?

      Delete
    53. So, "certain" liberals would be the ones who happened to hear about the lawsuit.

      A 4-year old could tell I'm talking about the "many" "liberals" who showed "phoney disgust" and "knew" about Sterling since his earlier racist actions.


      Again, how do you know that any of them were uncharacteristically quiet over that, and then criticized Sterling for his racist comments?

      That would be like asking how do you know a racist will act a certain way? It's because that's the way they do things. Liberals are no different ... they do what liberals do.
      BTW, I never said it was "uncharacteristic" I said they were showing "phoney disgust". Who, in their right mind, would consider hypocrisy "uncharacteristic" of a liberal?


      No,

      Sure sounded like you were defending a racist. Because when I was talking about Sterling's continual racist behavior by being sued for racist hiring practices as owner of an NBA team you replied: "The hell it does. People are wrongfully sued every day.". You know we are not talking about general people, we were talking specifically about Sterling and you said his earlier behavior does not constitute racist behavior and even claimed the he may have been wrongfully accused.
      You are definitely defending a racist in THAT context. You may want to change context in order to squirm out of how you just defended a racist, but everyone can see what you just did.


      I'm sure there's more, but that's enough to show that you did zero research before making your assertion.

      I didn't realize you were such a specialist on drug use. I guess I should expect that considering you are a liberal.


      You know that "cavemen" isn't even an accepted term, right?

      Wow, you got beat down so bad you have to resort to that? Wow.


      Which is it?

      Can't you read? Figure it out. Go to your 3rd grade teacher and ask her/him how to understand English.


      What's the claim, that he was joking?

      You claimed confusion over a deity that would create people who must decide whether they want to be who they are or who they were created as. You then claimed "continuous behavior" as a defense for your statement. I then said you can't call Sterling a racist if you don't know he has ever shown any "continuous behavior" in racism. Since that was you statement about a deity creating homosexuals. Please, try to follow along with your own tangents.


      .If you saw someone engaged in a passionate kiss with someone of the same gender, would that not suggest "homosexual" to you?

      Well, I saw Madonna kiss a girl on an MTV show, but I don't think she (or the other girl) are gay. So, you can't use your assumptions and decide my thought pattern. Of course I've blamed you of doing that before and you continually deny doing it. Do you need to go back and read your previous answers to my accusations? I think you do.

      Good luck, troll

      Delete
    54. "A 4-year old could tell I'm talking about the "many" "liberals" who showed "phoney disgust" and "knew" about Sterling since his earlier racist actions."

      How is that inconsistent with what I said? Again, getting sued is not "racist actions" on Sterling's part. Surely, you didn't expect people to assume guilt. I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't want liberals to make a public issue over it, anyway, so it seems odd for you to use the lack of such outrage as evidence against anyone.

      "It's because that's the way they do things. Liberals are no different ... they do what liberals do."

      Your bigoted assumptions are not evidence.

      "BTW, I never said it was "uncharacteristic" I said they were showing "phoney disgust"."

      It has to be out of the ordinary, or it wouldn't be hypocritical. If liberals really didn't care about racism, then silence over any racist behavior wouldn't be hypocrisy, but the reaction to his recent comments would be. Conversely, if you think liberals do care about racism, then the uncharacteristic silence would be a sign of hypocrisy, but the current reaction would not be. Like I said before, you have to pick either the outrage or the lack thereof. They're not both "hypocrisy", even if you had any argument for either. And you don't seem to be willing to part with either claim, for some reason.

      "Sure sounded like you were defending a racist."

      Not to a sane person.

      "You know we are not talking about general people, we were talking specifically about Sterling and you said his earlier behavior does not constitute racist behavior and even claimed the he may have been wrongfully accused."

      How does "specifically" talking about Sterling change the general concept? Why would he be an exception? Again, getting sued is not his behavior. You could get sued, and that wouldn't be your behavior. And, any lawsuit could be baseless, mistaken or the result of ulterior motives. How would the public know otherwise? What's your point, that people should have known that the charges were true then because of his more recent comments?

      "You are definitely defending a racist in THAT context."

      By that logic, I'm defending Lee Harvey Oswald by saying that Jack Ruby shouldn't have shot him. It's not defending a racist to point out that accusations alone didn't justify that label.

      "I didn't realize you were such a specialist on drug use. I guess I should expect that considering you are a liberal."

      Amazingly, such aspects of the drug world are depicted in movies and on television shows. Besides that;
      Me: "Naturally, I have yet another high trump card to play."
      You: "Are you now admitting to being a drug user?"
      Apparently, you have some knowledge of drug terminology that I don't, because "trump card" doesn't have any such implications as far as I've heard.

      "Wow, you got beat down so bad you have to resort to that?"

      I know how you hate facts, sorry.

      Delete
    55. "Figure it out."

      You got caught in an inconsistency. I already figured it out, thank you.

      "You claimed confusion over a deity that would create people who must decide whether they want to be who they are or who they were created as. You then claimed "continuous behavior" as a defense for your statement."

      I claimed confusion? Where was that? I'm pretty sure I never said anything about choosing between "who they are or who they were created as", or any similar phrasing, either. I also mentioned "continuous state of behavior" in response to your absurd comparison to murderers, not as "defense" for anything.

      "I then said you can't call Sterling a racist if you don't know he has ever shown any "continuous behavior" in racism."

      Which is ludicrous. Your failure to answer why that would be true shows that you can't support it.

      "Since that was you statement about a deity creating homosexuals."

      My point was that you can't accept the concept of people being naturally gay, because then you can't logically call it a "sin". That has nothing to do with racism, because people aren't naturally racist. On top of that, as repeatedly noted, you don't need any long history of behavior to determine whether someone is racist or gay. Even if you had an argument otherwise, your question doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

      "Well, I saw Madonna kiss a girl on an MTV show, but I don't think she (or the other girl) are gay."

      I'm not talking about acting for shock value. You can also include "bisexual" in the question, if you're confused.

      "So, you can't use your assumptions and decide my thought pattern."

      So, if you saw your teenage daughter playing tonsil-hockey with another girl, you wouldn't draw any conclusions from that? If you need to pull out a punch-card and mark off a certain number of such incidents before you put a label on it, then tell me how many times it takes. Otherwise, I'm going to take Sterling's outrageously racist remarks as proof that he's a racist, and there's no way for you to object to that.

      Even better;
      You: "That would be like asking how do you know a racist will act a certain way? It's because that's the way they do things. Liberals are no different ... they do what liberals do."
      If you can't use your assumptions to determine the thought patterns of others, then your "that's the way they do things" is invalid.

      "Of course I've blamed you of doing that before and you continually deny doing it."

      Because your accusations are dishonest. For instance, I asked you a question for clarification, so I didn't "decide" anything. If you have an explanation, then provide it. Otherwise, my point stands.

      As always.

      Delete
    56. You got caught in an inconsistency. I already figured it out, thank you.

      I got caught in one of your many inaccurate interpretations of what I actually say? Ok, you run with that.


      I claimed confusion? Where was that?

      Here: " But, you can't very well believe in a deity that would create people who have to choose between the sin of being true to themselves (homosexuality) and the sin of pretending to be straight (lying). That would have to be a very confused and/or severely twisted god.".
      Obviously, you are confused about what God says about sin.


      Your failure to answer why that would be true shows that you can't support it.

      I did answer that in my analogy about murderers. Just because you can't read doesn't mean I'm responsible for your confusion.


      My point was that you can't accept the concept of people being naturally gay, because then you can't logically call it a "sin".

      I've never said I "can't" accept that concept. I've said I "don't" accept that concept. Since there is no proof of it being natural, then I don't accept your explanation that it is until you bring proof. That is VERY logical.
      BTW, I've never said or insinuated that I "can't" accept the concept of homosexuality being natural. Good way of bringing your own interpretations of what I've actually said and pretending they are fact. You do that often.


      That has nothing to do with racism, because people aren't naturally racist.

      People aren't "naturally" gay, either. What's your point?


      I'm not talking about acting for shock value.

      How do you know they were "acting for shock value". What is shocking about 2 girls kissing? Why is there "value" to that?


      You can also include "bisexual" in the question,

      Which is yet another choice. Duhhh.


      So, if you saw your teenage daughter playing tonsil-hockey with another girl, you wouldn't draw any conclusions from that?

      I don't have any teenage daughters. But, let's play your game anyway, the conclusion I would draw is she would be sinning. So, yes, I would draw a conclusion from that.


      Because your accusations are dishonest.

      How could that be if I continually point it out when you do it?


      How is that inconsistent with what I said?

      Because you said I referred to every liberal.



      Your bigoted assumptions are not evidence.

      But, your (and theirs) continual behavior IS (are).


      It has to be out of the ordinary, or it wouldn't be hypocritical.

      You got me there. It is ordinary for liberals to be hypocritical. Which I pointed out for the "many" that I mentioned.


      Not to a sane person.

      Explain who THAT is true, in this context?


      How does "specifically" talking about Sterling change the general concept?

      Because you were answering a question specifically about Sterling.


      By that logic, I'm defending Lee Harvey Oswald by saying that Jack Ruby shouldn't have shot him.

      No, that would be completely twisting that logic. Which you are very good at.


      Apparently, you have some knowledge of drug terminology that I don't, because "trump card" doesn't have any such implications as far as I've heard.

      But, you know that "high" does.


      I know how you hate facts, sorry.

      What FACT did you bring in that context?

      Delete
    57. "I got caught in one of your many inaccurate interpretations of what I actually say?"

      No, you got caught in your own inconsistency. Until you explain what's "inaccurate" about what I said, which would mean you have to make an effort at something. We both know that's not going to happen.

      "Obviously, you are confused about what God says about sin."

      Your unexplained conclusion isn't my claim.

      "I did answer that in my analogy about murderers."

      Obviously not, since the question was asked after that.

      "I've never said I "can't" accept that concept."

      I don't expect that sort of honesty from you. Obviously, you wouldn't be lying about choosing to be straight if you could accept the concept.

      "BTW, I've never said or insinuated that I "can't" accept the concept of homosexuality being natural."

      If you were in any way open to that possibility, you would accept a standard of proof somewhat lower than a DNA map marking a specific determining gene. If you consider anything else to be "evidence", you'll have to explain what that might be. Until then, your standard is irrational and advocated for the very clear reason that you can't accept the idea that homosexuality is not a choice.

      If you want to claim to be reasonable, you'll have to actually demonstrate reason.

      "People aren't "naturally" gay, either."

      According to you. Your opinion doesn't manifest itself in what I say.

      "How do you know they were "acting for shock value". [sic]"

      If it was a sincere expression of affection, then why would you be shy about drawing a conclusion from it?

      "What is shocking about 2 girls kissing? Why is there "value" to that?"

      Do behavioral norms really have to be explained to you, especially when discussing different time periods? The very fact that you remember that shows that it created an impression. It has nothing to do with personal disapproval, there are still things that go outside typical behavior, and thereby create shock value. I'm not offended by the interracial kiss on Star Trek, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a risky scene at the time it was originally broadcast.

      For your further education: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_value

      "Which is yet another choice."

      I'm addressing this: "but I don't think she (or the other girl) are gay."
      I know that you claim it's a choice. I'm clarifying so that you're not missing the point due to Madonna's romantic history with men. Duhh.

      "I don't have any teenage daughters."

      Either you have had one, or you will. And it's a hypothetical, even if you didn't have children at all.

      "But, let's play your game anyway, the conclusion I would draw is she would be sinning."

      Kissing outside of marriage is a sin? That's awfully strict.

      Delete
    58. "How could that be if I continually point it out when you do it?"

      Because I continually point out that your accusations are dishonest. Did you think that frequency was supposed to prove something?

      "Because you said I referred to every liberal."

      I said that? Even you contradict yourself on that score. Besides, I said this: "So, "certain" liberals would be the ones who happened to hear about the lawsuit."
      That's what you were responding to, not some phantom "claim" or suggestion about "every liberal". What you said didn't contradict what I did in the slightest, and that's what I was asking about.

      "But, your (and theirs [sic]) continual behavior IS (are[sic])."

      That "behavior" is based on your assumptions.

      "It is ordinary for liberals to be hypocritical."

      In other words, you're not even going to try to claim that liberals are indifferent to racism. That's why you're failing, partly.

      "Explain who THAT is true, in this context?"

      I'm not talking about you, if that was the thrust of your oddly-worded question.

      "Because you were answering a question specifically about Sterling."

      Then you must think that there are no general principles. Generally, it's wrong to kill someone, but I could kill someone and just say "we're not talking about anyone, we're talking about me." That would be a valid defense, according to your logic. In reality, you have to explain what there is about his specific case that would exclude it from the principle I cited, not just say that it's his specific case.

      If you can't do that, then are there any general principles? Or do they all disappear as soon as you notice that they happen to apply to specific people? You might want to think of a reason why Sterling should have been judged based on accusations alone, because the alternate path is very bumpy for you.

      "No, that would be completely twisting that logic."

      How so?

      "But, you know that "high" does."

      That's not the only meaning of "high", so there must be something else that made you think of drugs. Unless you want to admit that it was just a weak attempt at a personal attack, or that your thought process is completely random, of course.

      "What FACT did you bring in that context?"

      That "cavemen" isn't an accepted term. That's what you quoted, so that's obviously what I was referring to. Reading comprehension is something you should look into.

      Speaking of which, I noticed that you missed reading this part: "Surely, you didn't expect people to assume guilt. I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't want liberals to make a public issue over it, anyway, so it seems odd for you to use the lack of such outrage as evidence against anyone."

      You don't really expect people to assume anyone's guilt and make a public spectacle over such conclusions, do you? If you don't, then you clearly can't draw conclusions when people don't do that. If you do want that, say so. Otherwise, your argument is hypocritical by definition, since you're saying something you don't actually believe.

      Delete
    59. Until you explain what's "inaccurate" about what I said, which would mean you have to make an effort at something. We both know that's not going to happen.

      Trying means not having done it yet. I have done it. For instance when you said I should be calling liberals, conservatives and independent hypocrites also, you are insinuating that I called ALL liberals hypocrites when I obviously singled out only a certain portion of them.


      If you were in any way open to that possibility, you would accept a standard of proof somewhat lower than a DNA map marking a specific determining gene.

      Why would I consider scientific proof not acceptable? There seems to be DNA proof for all other aspects of human distinctions.


      If it was a sincere expression of affection, then why would you be shy about drawing a conclusion from it?

      Inhabitants of many European countries greet friends and relatives with "sincere" expressions of affection, when they see each other, by kissing each other on the cheek(s). Am I to call all those people gay too? If so, you're logic is majorly flawed.


      I know that you claim it's a choice.

      Then why did you ask me about bi-sexuality?


      Kissing outside of marriage is a sin?

      You didn't say anything about marriage or kissing. You said "tonsil-hockey". Misinterpreting what I say, again? Or just changing the parameters when you get an answer you don't like?

      Delete
    60. "Trying means not having done it yet. I have done it."

      No, you haven't explained your inconsistency between claiming that you're not a bigot and that I'm supposedly "also" a bigot.

      "For instance when you said I should be calling liberals, conservatives and independent hypocrites also, you are insinuating that I called ALL liberals hypocrites when I obviously singled out only a certain portion of them."

      Is that what you're claiming you're basing that interpretation on, now? That's not what you cited previously. Bring an actual quote, if you want to support your claim.

      "Why would I consider scientific proof not acceptable?"

      I said that your standard was irrational. That means what you accept as "proof".

      "There seems to be DNA proof for all other aspects of human distinctions."

      That's because you are woefully ignorant, at best: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00798.htm
      Do you understand why I've been pointing out that your standard is irrational, now? Science doesn't provide "proof" nearly as much as you claim to believe. That doesn't mean that it's a giant toss-up for everything that is not "proven", where all options are equal. Recognition of the best understanding available is what reasonable people strive to reflect.

      Even if "all other aspects" actually had specific DNA-based explanations, it doesn't logically follow that every trait has the same nature. A more complex determination would not be as simple to figure out, so other aspects wouldn't speak to that. You would simply be shutting yourself off to possibilities that aren't convenient to you.

      "Inhabitants of many European countries greet friends and relatives with "sincere" expressions of affection, when they see each other, by kissing each other on the cheek(s)."

      Is that really what you saw Madonna do? Be honest. If you scroll up a bit, you might realize that you're trying to shift the goalposts from what I previously said. A kiss on the cheek is not "tonsil-hockey", simply put.

      "Am I to call all those people gay too?"

      Do you and your daughter live in Europe in this scenario? I was working with your comments about living in California, but I can see why you're trying to change the parameters.

      "Then why did you ask me about bi-sexuality?"

      What do you imagine that I asked?

      "You didn't say anything about marriage or kissing. You said "tonsil-hockey"."

      What did you think "tonsil-hockey" was, if not "kissing"? You had to think it was something specific, or you would have no way of calling it a sin. Besides that, you're wrong. This is what I originally asked: "If you saw someone engaged in a passionate kiss with someone of the same gender, would that not suggest "homosexual" to you?"

      "Misinterpreting what I say, again?"

      If you weren't talking about kissing, then you're the one who misinterpreted what I said. And if the "sin" isn't determined by marital status, then what is it based on? Is there an age limit, maybe?

      Delete
    61. No, you haven't explained your inconsistency between claiming that you're not a bigot and that I'm supposedly "also" a bigot.

      When have I claimed I am not a bigot? I'm merely showing you that (by your standards) you fit the same description. If you don't fit your description, then neither do I.


      That's not what you cited previously. Bring an actual quote, if you want to support your claim.

      I've posted this quote several times. Let's see if you get it this time: "There was no harm done, other than to the many liberals who expressed such phoney disgust over comments he made and just seem to forget that he's been that way since day 1.".


      Do you understand why I've been pointing out that your standard is irrational, now?

      So, you're saying that racial discrimination against a very tanned whiter person is considered racial discrimination because they are very tanned? A lot of people in Hollywood would probably be discriminated against then, if that were true. What determines whether someone is black/brown/yellow/red/white. Is it there natural color? Same with hair color, it can be changed, but what determines the original color?


      Is that really what you saw Madonna do?

      Well, I didn't see her playing "tonsil-hockey".


      Do you and your daughter live in Europe in this scenario?

      Obviously, you're still talking hypothetical because I told you I don't have any teenage daughters. Never have, never will. But, yes, I've lived in Europe before That's how I know they do that.


      This is what I originally asked: "If you saw someone engaged in a passionate kiss with someone of the same gender, would that not suggest "homosexual" to you?"

      Sure, then you changed it to "tonsil-hockey". Both my answers fit both your descriptions. What are you having a problem with?


      And if the "sin" isn't determined by marital status, then what is it based on?

      The "passion" involved. I answered your question as you wrote it. What did you think I was answering it to? The question you hadn't asked yet?


      Delete
    62. "When have I claimed I am not a bigot?"

      Me: "You were trying to claim that you weren't a bigot."
      You: "There was no "trying" involved. I did claim that truth."

      "I'm merely showing you that (by your standards) you fit the same description."

      You didn't show that, though.

      "I've posted this quote several times. Let's see if you get it this time:"

      You quoted your words, not mine. That obviously doesn't substantiate your claim about what I supposedly said.

      "So, you're saying that racial discrimination against a very tanned whiter person is considered racial discrimination because they are very tanned?"

      Where do you imagine that was suggested?

      "What determines whether someone is black/brown/yellow/red/white.[sic] Is it there [sic] natural color? Same with hair color, it can be changed, but what determines the original color?"

      From the article: "For some traits, we have a good idea of which gene controls a trait. For other traits, there is no single gene or protein than determines the trait. It's a combination of many."
      What is your point?

      "Well, I didn't see her playing "tonsil-hockey"."

      Was it a kiss on the cheek or not? It wasn't a complicated question.

      "Obviously, you're still talking hypothetical [sic] because I told you I don't have any teenage daughters."

      That's what "in this scenario" would mean, obviously.

      "Never have, never will."

      So you must have married a woman when she already had two grown daughters;
      Me: "I could also ask you if you have a daughter. That would be on topic."
      You: "Yes you could do that. And, I would answer yes, 2."
      In that case, you could easily apply the concept to one of your grown stepdaughters, since you seem to be having trouble with this level of thought.

      "But, yes, I've lived in Europe before [sic] That's how I know they do that."

      Then you know that cultural norms differ, so that has no implications regarding sexual orientation.

      "Sure, then you changed it to "tonsil-hockey"."

      What's the "change" between "passionate kiss" and "tonsil-hockey"?

      "Both my answers fit both your descriptions."

      You: "You didn't say anything about marriage or kissing."
      That doesn't fit, since I clearly had said something about kissing.

      "The "passion" involved. I answered your question as you wrote it."

      You didn't specify "passion". So, you have to avoid passion with your wife, because that's a "sin"? That sounds awfully repressive.

      So, how many times would you have to see your daughter kiss another girl, before you drew a conclusion about her sexual orientation? You forgot to answer that, somehow.

      Delete
    63. Me:

      What "truth" am I talking about? You need to fill in the holes before you start assuming what I am talking about. Don't forget about context, bring the complete context of that statement. Without context the other readers of this article may not understand your hypocrisy and lies that you constantly bring.


      Where do you imagine that was suggested?

      When you said: "Do you understand why I've been pointing out that your standard is irrational, now?", that insinuated that my statement about DNA causing traits in people is incorrect. Which would make many discrimination issues become caused by mere changing of appearance by artificial means.


      What is your point?

      My point, for this time, is that you believe too many articles you find on the internet. You do realize that anything can be found on the internet. So, I really cannot be sure of the factual content of an article that you are believing entirely and unquestioning.


      Was it a kiss on the cheek or not? It wasn't a complicated question.

      Did you see tongue movement during the kiss? That's what "tonsil-hockey" is, right?


      So you must have married a woman when she already had two grown daughters;

      Wow, how long did it take you to figure that one out?


      In that case, you could easily apply the concept to one of your grown stepdaughters, since you seem to be having trouble with this level of thought.

      You can call them whatever you want. But I call them my daughters.


      Then you know that cultural norms differ, so that has no implications regarding sexual orientation.

      They don't have "sexual orientation" over there. They only have male and female.


      What's the "change" between "passionate kiss" and "tonsil-hockey"?

      Different words. You can look either up in the dictionary. But, I'm sure you can trust me on the fact they are different words.


      That doesn't fit, since I clearly had said something about kissing.

      No, you said "passionate kiss" not "kissing". Kissing is very generic, passionate kiss is much more descriptive.


      So, how many times would you have to see your daughter kiss another girl, before you drew a conclusion about her sexual orientation?

      They're both married with men and have kids. There is no question about what they chose.

      Delete
    64. "What "truth" am I talking about? You need to fill in the holes before you start assuming what I am talking about."

      Since you said there was no "trying", that would mean that you succeeded. So, you were saying that you established that you are not a bigot. If you have some context to show otherwise, let's see it.

      "When you said: "Do you understand why I've been pointing out that your standard is irrational, now?", that insinuated that my statement about DNA causing traits in people is incorrect."

      No, it did not. You can't possibly substantiate that nonsense. We're talking about your demands for DNA proof of homosexuality, not traits in general. If I really thought otherwise, then I clearly wouldn't have given you that link. Notice that you didn't ask why I provided that, which is odd if you thought I was questioning the entire concept of DNA.

      Me: "If you were in any way open to that possibility, you would accept a standard of proof somewhat lower than a DNA map marking a specific determining gene."
      You: "There seems to be DNA proof for all other aspects of human distinctions.
      That's the context. I was correcting your "all other aspects" claim, not saying that DNA didn't affect any aspects at all.

      Further;
      You: "Why would I consider scientific proof not acceptable?"
      Me: "I said that your standard was irrational. That means what you accept as "proof"."
      In other words, scientific proof is acceptable, the problem is your definition of "proof".

      "Which would make many discrimination issues become caused by mere changing of appearance by artificial means."

      You'll have to clarify how a conversation on a comment page affects how people are actually discriminated against. Your thoughts are not connected, as far as you're demonstrating.

      "My point, for this time, is that you believe too many articles you find on the internet. You do realize that anything can be found on the internet."

      Then why do you ask for evidence? And you don't believe that scientists are credible sources for information on science, now? What would you accept?

      Delete
    65. "So, I really cannot be sure of the factual content of an article that you are believing entirely and unquestioning."

      You can't discard it without cause. Do you have contrasting information? Is that scientist biased? Otherwise, you're just clinging to your beliefs because you can't accept the idea that homosexuality is natural. As I said.

      "Did you see tongue movement during the kiss? That's what "tonsil-hockey" is, right?"

      I didn't bring up Madonna, you did. Was it a kiss on the cheek or not?

      "Wow, how long did it take you to figure that one out?"

      I figured it out when you provided information. What else did you say to convey that impression?

      "You can call them whatever you want. But I call them my daughters."

      Which is why I used the example that I did, so it would be easier for you to imagine. And you still pretend to have problems.

      "They don't have "sexual orientation" over there. They only have male and female."

      What the hell? What do we have besides "male and female" that they don't have in Europe? And sexual orientation would apply to "straight", so there's sexual orientation everywhere, even if you're making the insane claim that there's no homosexuality in Europe.

      "Different words."

      Except that "tonsil-hockey" would qualify as a "passionate kiss". I didn't change anything.

      "No, you said "passionate kiss" not "kissing"."

      The phrase "passionate kiss" is consistent with "I clearly had said something about kissing". You can't use something specific to claim that I didn't say "anything" about the general concept that it comes from. That would be like someone talking about their Camaro and then you telling them that they didn't say anything about a car.

      "They're both married with men and have kids."

      Why can't you answer the question? Is abstract thought too difficult for you, or is it just too damaging to your argument?

      Delete
    66. So, you were saying that you established that you are not a bigot.

      No, you established that I am not a bigot by your expressed criteria for you being a bigot. If you are not one, then I am not one ... using your criteria.


      No, it did not.

      If my standard is that DNA decides your traits (ie; skin color, hair color, ect) and you say my standards are "irrational" that means you are saying that DNA coding is incorrect. So, yes, you did suggest that DNA is incorrect.


      Then why do you ask for evidence?

      Well, you wouldn't accept Dr. J Vernon McGee as evidence (in another article) and he is a professional Dr. with over 60 years of professional study in his field. Why would I accept your random evidence?


      I didn't bring up Madonna, you did. Was it a kiss on the cheek or not?

      It doesn't have to be "on the cheek". Different cultures have different customs. Was it a "passionate kiss"? Can you prove that? That would be quite a feat for you to do.


      Except that "tonsil-hockey" would qualify as a "passionate kiss". I didn't change anything.

      And, I answered for both options. Your first expression was "passionate kiss". No "kissing" or "tonsil-hockey". So, yes, you DID in fact change something. That's why I brought up the Madonna thing, because you seem to think a basic kiss is the same as a passionate kiss. They are different with different implications.


      Why can't you answer the question?

      What question are you asking that I did not answer?

      Delete
    67. "No, you established that I am not a bigot by your expressed criteria for you being a bigot."

      No, your representation of my criteria isn't my responsibility. That's just your claim. As I said, you claimed that you were not a bigot, and you just did it again.

      "If my standard is that DNA decides your traits (ie; skin color, hair color, ect [sic]) and you say my standards are "irrational" that means you are saying that DNA coding is incorrect."

      When was "DNA decides your traits" established as your "standard"? I didn't say that, and neither did you. Your "if" doesn't apply, so your conclusion is invalid.

      "Well, you wouldn't accept Dr. J Vernon McGee as evidence (in another article) and he is a professional Dr. [sic] with over 60 years of professional study in his field."

      He has experience in explaining your personal views? That's what you tried to hand off to him. If I had asked a question about the Bible itself, you would have a point. Sadly for you, that's not what happened.

      "Why would I accept your random evidence?"

      You have no valid reason not to accept it. How is it "random", exactly? The article is by an acceptable authority, as far as you've shown, and it addresses your hilariously ignorant presumption. It's not clear what other criterion is supposed to be met.

      Do you even remember that you asked why you wouldn't accept scientific proof? If you're going to object to what an authority says, without any justification, then how the hell can you pretend that you would accept anything as proof? Linking you to a DNA map which pinpoints the gene that determines sexual orientation could just as easily be brushed off as "random" and with "anything can be found on the internet".

      "It doesn't have to be "on the cheek"."

      That's what you brought up. If it didn't apply to what Madonna did, then it wasn't relevant.

      "Different cultures have different customs."

      I'm not talking about other cultures. Again, that's you.

      "Was it a "passionate kiss"? Can you prove that?"

      So, it wasn't a kiss on the cheek, for starters. Also, you brought Madonna up, as I said already. If it wasn't a "passionate kiss", then she wasn't relevant, either. If it was passionate and it wasn't acting, then you need to explain why that doesn't suggest homosexuality to you.

      "Your first expression was "passionate kiss". No "kissing" or "tonsil-hockey". So, yes, you DID in fact change something."

      You're making distinctions without differences. Again, when I say "passionate kiss", you can't claim that I didn't say "anything" about "kissing". There's no reason that I can't use synonyms and more specific terminology, so there's nothing for you to bitch about here.

      Seriously, how do you get through a book? No experienced author uses the same word exclusively when synonyms are available. Do you have to stop after a few sentences because the author "changed" what they were saying, and you no longer understand what he's writing about? If you don't, then you'll have to specify what your problem is with saying both "passionate kiss" and "tonsil-hockey".

      Delete
    68. "That's why I brought up the Madonna thing, because you seem to think a basic kiss is the same as a passionate kiss."

      You're lying;
      Me: "If you saw someone engaged in a passionate kiss with someone of the same gender, would that not suggest "homosexual" to you?"
      You: "Well, I saw Madonna kiss a girl on an MTV show, but I don't think she (or the other girl) are gay."
      That was your immediate response, and that was the first mention of any sort of kiss. That was before "tonsil-hockey" or your claim that I didn't say anything about kissing. Even better, I never said anything to suggest a "basic" kiss, even if you apply what I said after your Madonna reference. You, yourself, said that Madonna was not playing "tonsil-hockey", and you said that "passion" would be the "sin" caused by "tonsil-hockey", so obviously you know that term is consistent with "passionate kiss".

      I said "passionate kiss", and that's what I meant. Your attempts to move the goalposts are your failure, and don't reflect on what I said at all.

      "What question are you asking that I did not answer?"

      Again: "If you saw someone engaged in a passionate kiss with someone of the same gender, would that not suggest "homosexual" to you?"
      And, in the context of the previous question: "So, if you saw your teenage daughter playing tonsil-hockey with another girl, you wouldn't draw any conclusions from that? If you need to pull out a punch-card and mark off a certain number of such incidents before you put a label on it, then tell me how many times it takes."
      To make the obvious even more clear, we're talking about sexual orientation. Your conclusions about "sin" due to some forbidden "passion" are not relevant to the discussion.

      Delete
    69. That was your immediate response, and that was the first mention of any sort of kiss.

      And you left out your reply about tonsil hockey. Which I said was a sin.


      You, yourself, said that Madonna was not playing "tonsil-hockey", and you said that "passion" would be the "sin" caused by "tonsil-hockey", so obviously you know that term is consistent with "passionate kiss".

      That's right, so I answered both questions you had about passionate/tonsil-hockey kissing. And left the other "basic" kissing issues alone. What are you having a problem with?
      BTW, I don't think I said she was "not" playing tonsil-hockey. If I did you should bring that quote. I'm pretty sure I said it didn't look that way to me. Which is slightly different to sane minded people. Ooops sorry, another ad-hominen attack, huh?.


      Again:

      You said tonsil-hockey and passionate kiss are the same. I answered it. Please move on to something of substance.


      No, your representation of my criteria isn't my responsibility.

      But, your stated standards are.


      He has experience in explaining your personal views?

      I never, ever said that. He has expertise in his field and I used him as a reference to help explain the concern you had at the time. Just as you do with your random internet links that you bring.


      How is it "random", exactly?

      Where did you find your evidence? On the internet? Well, if your internet evidence is sufficient for you, why is it not for me?


      It's not clear what other criterion is supposed to be met.

      Apparently so. Since you wouldn't accept my "acceptable authority" on religion.


      That's what you brought up.

      I also brought up that different cultures do it different ways. Did you forget to mention that part of it? Major ... major failure on your part.


      If it was passionate and it wasn't acting, then you need to explain why that doesn't suggest homosexuality to you.

      I think you just explained it for me with your previous 3 sentences. Wow, you are good at failing.


      Seriously, how do you get through a book?

      I don't read many. That's how. What do you know about books anyhow? You seem to rely on the internet to provide all the information you need.
      Trust me, I know what you were talking about and I answered your question. Passionate kissing and tonsil-hockey would be a sin. What are you having such a problem with (again)?


      Delete
    70. "And you left out your reply about tonsil hockey."

      No, that post came later.

      "That's right, so I answered both questions you had about passionate/tonsil-hockey kissing."

      You didn't, because you never said what it takes for you to come to the conclusion that someone is homosexual.

      "And left the other "basic" kissing issues alone."

      What "issues" were those, specifically?

      "BTW, I don't think I said she was "not" playing tonsil-hockey."

      You: "Well, I didn't see her playing "tonsil-hockey"."
      There's no flexibility in that answer. You did not see her playing "tonsil-hockey". If you didn't see the kiss at all, then you shouldn't be using it as an example for any purpose. And, the two comments you're trying to contrast both rely on your perception, so there's no discernible difference in meaning. It's not as if saying that she wasn't playing "tonsil-hockey" would assert that as absolute, objective fact. It would be how you saw it, either way.

      "You said tonsil-hockey and passionate kiss are the same. I answered it."

      Then there was no "change" from one term to the other, and I never suggested anything about kissing that wasn't "passionate".

      "Please move on to something of substance."

      Like the supposedly vast difference between "passionate kiss" and "tonsil-hockey", as you wanted to argue? Or other cultures that clearly don't apply to the discussion? By all means, show me how your arguments are supposed to serve as an example of "substance". That would be side-splitting comedy, indeed. Meanwhile, your attempts to change the parameters of my question are fair game for me. Your dishonesty is always a matter of substance, as much as you don't want me to talk about it.

      "But, your stated standards are."

      As I stated it, not as you misrepresent it.

      "I never, ever said that."

      I didn't even suggest that you said that. Factually, you were asked about your views, not anything that anyone else could possibly comment on.

      "He has expertise in his field and I used him as a reference to help explain the concern you had at the time."

      My concern was where you derived your attitude from. That isn't "his field".

      "Where did you find your evidence? On the internet?"

      As opposed to what, sending scientists to your front door? That didn't explain how it's supposedly "random", either, which was the question you were responding to.

      Delete
    71. "Well, if your internet evidence is sufficient for you, why is it not for me?"

      I never said it wasn't. You haven't brought any conflicting evidence, though.

      "Since you wouldn't accept my "acceptable authority" on religion."

      Your authority wasn't useful, because he had no expertise in what I was asking about. That's a pretty fair standard, by any measure.

      "I also brought up that different cultures do it different ways. Did you forget to mention that part of it?"

      No, I pointed out that different cultures are irrelevant as well.

      "I think you just explained it for me with your previous 3 sentences."

      How so?

      "You seem to rely on the internet to provide all the information you need."

      So, I'm supposed to mail you a book every time you ask for evidence of something? Even when you specifically ask for a "link"?

      "I don't read many."

      When you do, are synonyms troublesome for you?

      "Passionate kissing and tonsil-hockey would be a sin."

      I'm not talking about "sin", since I don't even believe in that. I'll repeat from my previous post, quotation marks not even being necessary;
      Again: "If you saw someone engaged in a passionate kiss with someone of the same gender, would that not suggest "homosexual" to you?"
      And, in the context of the previous question: "So, if you saw your teenage daughter playing tonsil-hockey with another girl, you wouldn't draw any conclusions from that? If you need to pull out a punch-card and mark off a certain number of such incidents before you put a label on it, then tell me how many times it takes."
      To make the obvious even more clear, we're talking about sexual orientation. Your conclusions about "sin" due to some forbidden "passion" are not relevant to the discussion.

      This isn't as complicated as you pretend. You recognize the concept of homosexuality, so you must have some idea of who is and who is not gay. Do you need some arbitrary number of blindingly obvious signals for that? If so, why?

      Delete
    72. You didn't, because you never said what it takes for you to come to the conclusion that someone is homosexual.

      You asked what conclusion I would draw if I saw my daughter playing tonsil-hockey with another girl. I gave you that answer.


      There's no flexibility in that answer.

      Yes, there is. There are specific movements of the face that would indicate someone is playing tonsil-hockey. I did not "see" that movement. I obviously saw the kiss. So did millions of others. It was broadcast on the news and most media outlets covered it extensively. You didn't see it because you're too busy living in your basement while mommy brings down milk and cookies for you.


      Factually, you were asked about your views, not anything that anyone else could possibly comment on.

      Liar. That isn't how Dr. J Vernon McGee got into that conversation. BTW, you can find him at TTB.ORG .


      My concern was where you derived your attitude from. That isn't "his field".

      Liar. That wasn't your concern, either.


      No, I pointed out that different cultures are irrelevant as well.

      Funny how when proof is brought that shoots your argument out of the water it suddenly becomes irrelevant.


      When you do, are synonyms troublesome for you?

      Oh no. I love them, especially the ones with the rich cream cheese frosting.


      Your conclusions about "sin" due to some forbidden "passion" are not relevant to the discussion.

      Your conclusion as to what my response is, is irrelevant. You asked a question, I gave you the answer. If you don't like the answer, you shouldn't have asked the question. Being a "SIN" is what all that would suggest to me.


      You recognize the concept of homosexuality, so you must have some idea of who is and who is not gay.

      I think one of the early signs is when someone continually asks for answers that he has already been given. It shows a sign of confusion within the brain of that individual and hence the person being confused about sexuality. Should I address you as Brabantia from now on?

      Delete
    73. "You asked what conclusion I would draw if I saw my daughter playing tonsil-hockey with another girl."

      We were talking about sexual orientation. The first question was explicit about that, and you falsely claimed that you answered it.

      "I did not "see" that movement."

      So, according to you, she was not playing "tonsil-hockey". And?

      "You didn't see it because you're too busy living in your basement while mommy brings down milk and cookies for you."

      I've seen it. It's your example, so it's up to you to explain how it was supposed to be relevant.

      "Liar. That isn't how Dr. J Vernon McGee got into that conversation."

      Prove it.

      "Liar. That wasn't your concern, either."

      Again, prove it.

      "Funny how when proof is brought that shoots your argument out of the water it suddenly becomes irrelevant."

      You: "Your first expression was "passionate kiss". No "kissing" or "tonsil-hockey"."
      A kiss on the cheek as a greeting is irrelevant to what you admit that I was talking about.

      "I love them, especially the ones with the rich cream cheese frosting."

      That was cryptic.

      "You asked a question, I gave you the answer."

      No, because you're talking about a different concept than what was in the question. That's not "the" answer, that's "an" answer, and an irrelevant one at that.

      "Being a "SIN" is what all that would suggest to me."

      So, you don't draw conclusions about homosexuality from two people of the same gender involved in a passionate kiss. How many such incidents does it take for you to think that someone is gay, and why are you so slow to catch on?

      "I think one of the early signs is when someone continually asks for answers that he has already been given."

      You didn't answer the question as it was given to you, which means I never asked for the answers I've "been given". If you can show where I said that you could substitute "sin" for "homosexuality", do so.

      "It shows a sign of confusion within the brain of that individual and hence the person being confused about sexuality."

      You: "They don't have "sexual orientation" over there. They only have male and female."
      That might explain how you believe you "chose" to be straight, because you're attracted to men and women. Your conflation between "homosexual" and "sin" due to "passion", and your otherworldly comment about sexual orientation not existing in Europe would be clear signs of confusion within your brain, which would mean you're confused about sexuality. According to you, anyway.

      Answering questions honestly would be much less embarrassing for you, in all seriousness.

      Delete
    74. We were talking about sexual orientation.

      Yes, I know that. How would your misunderstanding of my answer change that?


      So, according to you, she was not playing "tonsil-hockey". And?

      And .. that means she was just greeting a friend. Just as other cultures do with their own form of greeting.


      Prove it.
      Again, prove it.

      I knew I caught you in a lie. That's your usual response when I do. Go back and do your own work to prove what YOU said. If you aren't a liar you will bring that proof. If you are a liar you will continue to demand that I prove something you said. There are no other options.


      No, because you're talking about a different concept than what was in the question.

      You asked what it would "suggest" to me. I answered. How is it different?


      So, you don't draw conclusions about homosexuality from two people of the same gender involved in a passionate kiss.

      Yes. I said what my conclusion would be.


      How many such incidents does it take for you to think that someone is gay, and why are you so slow to catch on?

      Continued behavior. Why is it so hard for you to grasp a simple discussion?


      Answering questions honestly would be much less embarrassing for you, in all seriousness.

      Which question have I not answered "honestly". Be specific.

      Delete
    75. "Yes, I know that."

      Then your answer was irrelevant, and you knew it.

      "And .. that means she was just greeting a friend."

      Then it didn't apply to my question. So, why did you bring it up? Also, it wasn't a kiss on the cheek, and Madonna isn't from Europe, so it wasn't "greeting a friend". If that was actually the case, nobody would even remember it. The entire point was to create an impression by going outside of accepted social norms.

      And what happened to your complaint that you were somehow misrepresented? You seem to forget that the quote you provided was made in that context.

      "I knew I caught you in a lie. That's your usual response when I do."

      It's your accusation. If you felt comfortable in making it, then you should have no problem backing it up.

      "Go back and do your own work to prove what YOU said."

      No, you do your own work to back up your own accusations. You brought it up when trying to make a point, not me.

      "If you aren't a liar you will bring that proof."

      I can say the same to you, the only difference being the fact that I have justification to do so.

      "If you are a liar you will continue to demand that I prove something you said."

      You claimed that I did something. That's not my responsibility, it's yours. You're not going to send me off on errands every time you lie about me, sorry. If you can't back up your claims, then your point fails.

      "You asked what it would "suggest" to me."

      I asked about homosexuality. Since you said you answered both questions, you obviously know that both questions involved your perception of homosexuality.

      "Yes. I said what my conclusion would be."

      Not regarding homosexuality, no. You said it would be a "sin" because of its "passion", which has nothing to do with what I actually asked.

      "Continued behavior."

      How many times would constitute "continued behavior"? And what's your theory as to why anyone would be engaged in a genuinely passionate kiss with someone of the same gender if they're not gay?

      "Why is it so hard for you to grasp a simple discussion?"

      Why is it so hard for you to answer straightforward questions?

      "Which question have I not answered "honestly".[sic]"
      Here's one: "If you saw someone engaged in a passionate kiss with someone of the same gender, would that not suggest "homosexual" to you?"
      If you were honest, you could simply say "it would" or "it wouldn't". Bringing up kisses that don't apply to what I said is not honest behavior.
      And: "So, if you saw your teenage daughter playing tonsil-hockey with another girl, you wouldn't draw any conclusions from that? If you need to pull out a punch-card and mark off a certain number of such incidents before you put a label on it, then tell me how many times it takes."
      Since that's in the context of the question about homosexuality, I wasn't asking you for conclusions about "sin". Your religious aversion to "passion" is irrelevant. Feigning confusion about the concept of hypothetical scenarios is also less than honest, of course.

      Delete
    76. I can say the same to you, the only difference being the fact that I have justification to do so.

      Yeah, you do. That justification is it will prove you are a liar. Of course you wouldn't want to find it.


      Here's one:

      Answered that one. You didn't like the answer, though. Not my problem.


      And:

      Answered that one, too. Again, you didn't like the answer. Again ... not my problem.


      Delete
    77. "That justification is it will prove you are a liar."

      It's your accusation, it's your responsibility to prove it. That is my justification. You have no basis for demanding that I disprove your lies. We've been through this on another thread, so you know that I'll just keep pointing that out until you run away without proving your claim.

      "Answered that one. You didn't like the answer, though. Not my problem."

      You asked what you didn't answer honestly, not what you didn't respond to in any way. You're not showing how your answers were honest, only that you don't care about such things. That's not news to me, of course.

      Anything else? You seem to be losing steam in a hurry. And, to preempt your typical response, you haven't proven any lies on my part.

      Delete
    78. You have no basis for demanding that I disprove your lies.

      Prove that I'm lying, then.

      Delete
    79. "Prove that I'm lying, then."

      Again: "It's your accusation, it's your responsibility to prove it."
      You have three paths available here:
      1) Back up your accusation.
      2) Explain why I'm supposedly obligated to make an effort to disprove a claim that you won't make an effort to prove.
      3) Make petulant, arrogant and irrational demands until you abandon your accusation, leaving it unsubstantiated and worthless.

      Notice that convincing me to do your work by repeating your demand isn't one of your options. That's simply not going to happen. A word to the wise is sufficient, but I'm sure I'll have to tell you again.

      Delete
    80. You have three paths available here:

      You forgot path number 4.
      4) Ignore your lying bullshit

      I'll choose that path. At least until you stop lying about what has and what has not been said. Proof has nothing to do with it. You know you said it. I'm just not going to play your games. I'm not a toy like you are. When you tell me to jump ... I don't ask how high.

      Notice that convincing me to do your work by repeating your demand isn't one of your options.

      I notice that you admitting what you've said also isn't one of the options. That ain't going to happen either, huh?

      Delete
  5. LIsten, Bubba-troll, you haven't been on topic since you started. You have taken an opinion, of mine, about the obvious hypocrisy of liberals and the NBA concerning racism and how they suddenly expressed phoney disgust of Sterling and sent him through the mass-media trial system for the sake of firing of a known white racist.

    You don't have ONE post that is on topic since my original opinion. You've lied throughout and twisted what I've said in the past to mean something that it doesn't mean. You've expressed support for government surveillance on private citizens and called racism innate. You bring in homosexuality, Michael Savage and your ignorance of Sterling's history in your tangent against my opinion on hypocrisy.
    None of what you DID bring has any bearing (relevance) on this article. You CAN be fired for being gay, you CAN be fired for being racist. None of that changes. However, the hypocritical support that liberals give gays for the choices they make stands out when they demand the firing of racists for the choices they make. Which is what my opinion is on. Liberals have created laws that protect the choice gays make, but YOU feel the government should create laws to punish racists for their speech.
    Then you totally ignore these were private comments made in the privacy of his home. He didn't say this on the phone (as you suggested), he didn't make them at a public function, he didn't make them on twitter. He had a private conversation with his girlfriend. And you show hypocritical support, actually demand, that the government spy on racists (only) in order to get them fired. Hypocritically ignoring the fact that the SC has determined government intrusion into private lives is NO reason for punishment and is against the law. Sure, a boss CAN still fire you, but it would also still be illegal to tell you that you've been fired because you are gay or racist.
    So, while my comments and opinion on firing hasn't changed, you have shown great hypocrisy throughout this article without ever doing any research on it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You have taken an opinion, of mine, about the obvious hypocrisy of liberals and the NBA concerning racism and how they suddenly expressed phoney disgust of Sterling and sent him through the mass-media trial system for the sake of firing of a known white racist."

      It's not the hypocrisy of liberals, it's the hypocrisy of everyone. You never showed how their behavior was distinguished from anyone else's.

      "You don't have ONE post that is on topic since my original opinion."

      If that's true, then you were never on topic.

      "You've lied throughout and twisted what I've said in the past to mean something that it doesn't mean."

      Demonstrate that. You didn't even try to claim that previously, in case you forgot.

      "You've expressed support for government surveillance on private citizens and called racism innate."

      You probably don't realize how funny that is, considering that you put it right after a comment about twisting words to change meanings. Which, of course, I've demonstrated for your lie about surveillance. I also never suggested that racism was innate, of course. I only asked if you thought that.

      "You bring in homosexuality, Michael Savage and your ignorance of Sterling's history in your tangent against my opinion on hypocrisy."

      Where was Michael Savage mentioned? Also, you:
      "I do have plenty of opportunities to show the hypocrisy of liberals when race is involved while comparing it to their love of sexual behaviors. If pointing out that liberals feel sexual behaviors (that millions consider immoral) are acceptable and should have laws created to protect and defend a person's "right" to be immoral (as considered by millions) and then point out that those same liberals will denounce racial behaviors (that millions consider to be immoral) basing most of that on the fact that millions consider it immoral behavior as being hypocritical is what you consider "support" then you have a lot to learn by taking some remedial Reading Comp 101."
      You claimed that homosexuality was part of your argument, so obviously you're lying when you say it was irrelevant. Or, were you lying previously? And it's even more strange to claim that anything about Sterling's history could be a "tangent" to a thread about Sterling.

      "You CAN be fired for being gay, you CAN be fired for being racist."

      If you think you can be fired for being racist, then you know that you can get fired for what you say. No questions about spying are necessary for you to understand the concept.

      "However, the hypocritical support that liberals give gays for the choices they make stands out when they demand the firing of racists for the choices they make. Which is what my opinion is on."

      If that's what your opinion is about, then you can't claim that I "bring in" homosexuality. And, again, different matters are evaluated differently. Your bizarre view that two things are the same don't make other people hypocrites.

      "Liberals have created laws that protect the choice gays make, but YOU feel the government should create laws to punish racists for their speech."

      I never said anything remotely like that. You: "That is your specialty ... telling me what I said. Albeit, usually incorrectly and/or out of context and/or off-topic." Also, homosexuality isn't a choice. Again, your bizarre views aren't my responsibility.

      Delete
    2. "Then you totally ignore these were private comments made in the privacy of his home. He didn't say this on the phone (as you suggested), he didn't make them at a public function, he didn't make them on twitter."

      There's nothing to "ignore", because that's not a factor. Note these:
      http://uinterview.com/news/clippers-owner-donald-sterling-allegedly-made-racist-remarks-in-recorded-conversation-11277
      http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/28/
      It was reported as a phone conversation, and that didn't seem to change anything at the time. Why is that? Phone conversations are assumed to be private, so your distinction is meaningless.

      "He had a private conversation with his girlfriend."

      Even if he didn't know he was being recorded (and that's disputed), that doesn't change anything. There's no reason to ignore his racism. As you, yourself said: "Don't get me wrong, the guy is still a racist and it should be publicized so that people know who they are dealing with and be able to make informed decisions."

      "And you show hypocritical support, actually demand, that the government spy on racists (only) in order to get them fired."

      Obviously, I never said that, but I do enjoy how you keep exaggerating to make up for your demonstrated lack of justification. It seems to frustrate you that you can't bend reality to suit your petty purposes.

      "Sure, a boss CAN still fire you, but it would also still be illegal to tell you that you've been fired because you are gay or racist."

      It's not illegal to openly fire someone for being a racist. Who the hell told you that? And if you can't be told that you've been fired for something, then you can't be fired for that reason. The phrase "can be fired" refers to legality. Otherwise, you can be fired for anything as long as that reason is concealed, so the phrase would have no meaning. It wouldn't even make sense for you to ask a question about that, obviously.

      "So, while my comments and opinion on firing hasn't changed, you have shown great hypocrisy throughout this article without ever doing any research on it."

      You didn't even know that the NBA investigated the incident. Also, if there are any aspects where details change anything, you haven't demonstrated them. So, it's not clear why research on Sterling is at all necessary to comment on your inconsistency, absurd criticism of liberals, and, above all, your defense of racists.

      Delete
    3. It's not the hypocrisy of liberals, it's the hypocrisy of everyone.

      Everyone, DOES include liberals, right? Or are liberals "special" people who aren't included in your statement?


      Demonstrate that.

      Well, for starters, in your very first sentence: "So, people who have sexual relations that you disapprove of should be vulnerable to being fired for the sake of the image of the business, but you're worried about the employment security of people who hate others based on skin color.". Where did I mention the vulnerability of sexual relations? That is twisting what I said and going off topic on your very first sentence. Do you want me to continue?


      You probably don't realize how funny that is, considering that you put it right after a comment about twisting words to change meanings.

      It's also funny how you didn't demonstrate how I twisted your words and you haven't denied you've expressed that.


      Where was Michael Savage mentioned?

      Sorry, it was Rush Limbaugh here: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/04/sterling-silver.html?showComment=1398947927160#c1682054147378049086
      Moral crusading here: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/04/sterling-silver.html?showComment=1399075055507#c364074362527470152
      Tourette's syndrome here: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/04/sterling-silver.html?showComment=1399298856908#c5946998077073636721
      and the Queen of England here: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/04/sterling-silver.html?showComment=1399439985497#c6162241100558788000


      If you think you can be fired for being racist, then you know that you can get fired for what you say.

      Not legally.


      And, again, different matters are evaluated differently. Your bizarre view that two things are the same don't make other people hypocrites.

      But your opinion that different choices garner different advantages do make you a hypocrite.


      If that's what your opinion is about, then you can't claim that I "bring in" homosexuality.

      But, you did, in your very first sentence (the one I referenced near the top of this post).


      Also, homosexuality isn't a choice. Again, your bizarre views aren't my responsibility.

      Yes it is. You have nothing and there is nothing to prove otherwise. So, your bizarre views aren't relevant in this conversation.

      Delete
    4. "Everyone, [sic] DOES include liberals, right? Or are liberals "special" people who aren't included in your statement?"

      If you're talking about everyone, then why are you so focused on liberals? Obviously, there's no criticism of liberals, specifically, if everyone else has done the same thing.

      "Where did I mention the vulnerability of sexual relations?"

      You said that people can get fired for being gay. My comment, as you quoted, was "vulnerable to being fired". What are you confused about?

      "That is twisting what I said and going off topic on your very first sentence."

      It didn't alter your meaning at all, and you're claiming that you were talking about homosexuality in your very first post. So, you can't criticize for "off topic", either.

      "Do you want me to continue?"

      Why not? You obviously aren't presenting any challenge.

      "It's also funny how you didn't demonstrate how I twisted your words and you haven't denied you've expressed that."

      I showed the context which proved that you weren't asking about the propriety of government intrusion. Ergo, you taking "yes" to a completely different question and applying it to something that you didn't ask would be twisting my words. And, I've denied your ludicrous accusation multiple times.

      "Sorry, it was Rush Limbaugh here:"

      As an example of someone with a history of racist comments, where some new comment would still be disgusting. Why is that a problem? This article isn't about government surveillance, but you still used that as an example when trying to claim that people can't get fired for what they say.

      "Not legally."

      Prove it. While attempting that, remember that criminal charges aren't the same as employer action.

      "But your opinion that different choices garner different advantages do make you a hypocrite."

      My opinion doesn't involve "different choices". Yours does. I'm not responsible for your opinion. Does that need to be explained to you any further? Besides, your comment doesn't even make sense. Getting a college degree is a choice, and so is dropping out of high school. Do you think that one garners different advantages than the other?

      "But, you did, in your very first sentence (the one I referenced near the top of this post)."

      Then your opinion didn't involve homosexuality, as you claimed. You can't say that you commented on something, then say that I'm introducing the subject by mentioning the same thing.

      "Yes it is. You have nothing and there is nothing to prove otherwise."

      Logic and science are both on my side, sorry.

      "So, your bizarre views aren't relevant in this conversation."

      If you're going to hold me responsible for believing something, then I get to correct your mistakes regarding that. You don't get to assert that I believe anything about a "choice" of homosexuality and claim "hypocrite" based on that assertion, but then act as if reality is irrelevant. If you have an argument to the contrary, please present it.

      Delete
    5. It didn't alter your meaning at all, and you're claiming that you were talking about homosexuality in your very first post. So, you can't criticize for "off topic", either.

      I didn't mention homosexuality at all in my first post. So I can criticize you for lying. Is that better for you?


      Ergo, you taking "yes" to a completely different question and applying it to something that you didn't ask would be twisting my words.

      Actually, you answered yes to the very same question. Not a completely different one. Making you a liar, yet again.


      Prove it.

      I did prove it with the case concerning sodomy that I brought.


      Logic and science are both on my side, sorry.

      Too bad neither have anything to prove their stance. Other than your "it wouldn't make sense" comments ... ah ah ha ha ha.

      Delete
    6. "I didn't mention homosexuality at all in my first post."

      I didn't say you mentioned it. You said you were referring to it, trying to point out hypocrisy between views on homosexuality and racism. Yet again, your charge of "lying" fails.

      "Actually, you answered yes to the very same question."

      You never asked the question that you claimed that you did. I answered a question about getting fired, whether illegal surveillance was "OK" or not. Again, your "liar" claim blows up in your face.

      "I did prove it with the case concerning sodomy that I brought."

      Wrong. Criminal prosecution isn't the same as employer action. Your example doesn't apply.

      "Too bad neither have anything to prove their stance."

      Your absurd standard of proof isn't required for anyone except yourself. Thanks for admitting that reason is on my side, though.

      "Other than your "it wouldn't make sense" comments ... ah ah ha ha ha."

      Technically, there are no such comments. My phrasing was "It makes no sense". Obviously, you still haven't been able to find those quotes, and your memory isn't reliable. Your assertions can be judged appropriately, bearing your limited capacity in mind.

      Delete
    7. You said you were referring to it, trying to point out hypocrisy between views on homosexuality and racism. Yet again, your charge of "lying" fails.

      I did not refer to homosexuality at all in my first post, whether in regards to hypocrisy or any other matter, until after you brought up homosexuality. So, my charge stands as true.


      You never asked the question that you claimed that you did.

      I must have, because you answered yes to it as long as someone (anyone) releases that information. Which means you support government spying and releasing of information in efforts to get certain people punished.
      BTW, I notice you didn't dispute that I did not ask a "completely different question", so my accusation of you being a liar stands.


      Wrong. Criminal prosecution isn't the same as employer action. Your example doesn't apply.

      Illegally gathering information and causing a punishment is the same, though. So my example does apply.


      Your assertions can be judged appropriately, bearing your limited capacity in mind.

      But, since you didn't deny that is all you have to prove innate, then my assertions (and laughter) stand.

      Delete
    8. "I did not refer to homosexuality at all in my first post, whether in regards to hypocrisy or any other matter, until after you brought up homosexuality."

      You, regarding your original post: "Obviously, when you refer to me being "worried" you must be talking about the last 2 questions I asked. That is an unbelievably obvious reference to liberal support of PRIVATE abnormal sexual behaviors being protected behaviors from workplace reprisals, while liberals consider PRIVATE abnormal racial behaviors unacceptable and fully agree with and support workplace reprisals."
      You say right there that you made an "unbelievably obvious reference" to homosexuality in your first post. Were you lying then, or are you lying now?

      "I must have, because you answered yes to it as long as someone (anyone) releases that information."

      I answered "yes" to your question about whether people "can be fired" under those circumstances. That's all you asked. It's still not clear what your theory is as to how surveillance would be supposedly acceptable if the information is released. It's odd that you never asked why it would not be acceptable if the information was not released. That would seem to be a strange distinction, so I wonder why you wouldn't ask about it if you really thought that you had asked a different question than what you actually had.

      "BTW, I notice you didn't dispute that I did not ask a "completely different question", so my accusation of you being a liar stands."

      There is no "very same question", because you never asked any question about whether surveillance was acceptable or not. As I said:
      "I showed the context which proved that you weren't asking about the propriety of government intrusion. Ergo, you taking "yes" to a completely different question and applying it to something that you didn't ask would be twisting my words."
      We're not talking about two questions that you asked. The point is that the question of getting fired or not is a completely different question than what you falsely claim to have asked. I quite clearly disputed your lie, sorry.

      "Illegally gathering information and causing a punishment is the same, though."

      The punishment isn't the same. The process that applies to criminal matters is not followed by your boss, so your example doesn't apply. Feel free to explain how you're claiming otherwise.

      "But, since you didn't deny that is all you have to prove innate, then my assertions (and laughter) stand."

      I don't have to deny it. Reasonable people don't abide by your standard, so your laughter doesn't suggest any cause for embarrassment.

      Delete
    9. You, regarding your original post:

      Again, I didn't mention homosexuality in my first post. You are saying I did. That is a lie.
      Me: "I didn't mention homosexuality at all in my first post."

      You: "I didn't say you mentioned it. You said you were referring to it, trying to point out hypocrisy between views on homosexuality and racism."
      I did not even refer to homosexuality in my first post. Stop lying.


      I answered "yes" to your question about whether people "can be fired" under those circumstances.

      And, illegal circumstances is what you said "yes" to. Quit twisting what I actually DID say to fit what you THINK I said. That is a form of lying. Twice in one post, you've lied.


      The punishment isn't the same.

      So? That doesn't matter. The "boss" is still subject to laws regarding hiring/firing practices. We've been over this before. Explain the difference.


      I don't have to deny it. Reasonable people don't abide by your standard, so your laughter doesn't suggest any cause for embarrassment.

      Of course you don't HAVE to deny it, you can't.
      "Reasonable people" is an opinion of yours that doesn't fit the discussion. That would be forcing your opinion onto others, which you claim you do not do.
      Massive failure on your part on each count. Get some real answers to the real issue or just stop lying and admit you have no basis to continue your argument ... other than to express your disapproval of me posting ... IMHO ... as I said at the beginning. You are a loser who is too proud to admit when you are wrong. Worse, yet, you are a troll who simply posts out of hatred. In other words ... you are a hateful bigot as has been pointed out before and you continue to prove that as true.
      Good luck with that throughout your life.

      Delete
    10. "Again, I didn't mention homosexuality in my first post. You are saying I did. That is a lie."

      No, I am not saying that you mentioned homosexuality.

      "I did not even refer to homosexuality in my first post. Stop lying."

      Again, you:"Obviously, when you refer to me being "worried" you must be talking about the last 2 questions I asked. That is an unbelievably obvious reference to liberal support of PRIVATE abnormal sexual behaviors being protected behaviors from workplace reprisals, while liberals consider PRIVATE abnormal racial behaviors unacceptable and fully agree with and support workplace reprisals."
      If you weren't referring to homosexuality, then that quote was a lie. Thanks for admitting what I already knew.

      "And, illegal circumstances is what you said "yes" to."

      That was your example. You didn't ask for an opinion on the nature of your example.

      "Quit twisting what I actually DID say to fit what you THINK I said. That is a form of lying."

      That would be a form of lying, which is why you insisting that I said anything about surveillance is a lie. I'm glad you understand that, so you can work on fixing yourself.

      "The "boss" is still subject to laws regarding hiring/firing practices."

      And what you say isn't protected by any of them. Racism is not a religion.

      "Explain the difference."

      The government is restricted by rules of evidence. It can not take action when it obtains evidence illegally. Private industry is not restricted. If your racist comments are released to the public, there's no court of appeals for you to go to when your boss fires you for what you said.

      "Of course you don't HAVE to deny it, you can't."

      That didn't even make sense. I don't need to deny it. That has nothing to do with ability to do so.

      ""Reasonable people" is an opinion of yours that doesn't fit the discussion."

      How does it not "fit the discussion"?

      "That would be forcing your opinion onto others, which you claim you do not do."

      It's not "forcing" anything. You're not even trying to make sense, as far as you're demonstrating here.

      Delete
    11. "Get some real answers to the real issue or just stop lying and admit you have no basis to continue your argument ... other than to express your disapproval of me posting ... IMHO ... as I said at the beginning."

      What is the "real issue"? I've addressed everything you've said, so obviously you need to figure that out. As for "disapproval", I pointed out your inconsistency, your irrational criticism of liberals, and your defense of racists. You're accountable for what you say, so quit whining about it.

      "You are a loser who is too proud to admit when you are wrong."

      You'd have to show where I was wrong, first. Meanwhile, you keep claiming that I expressed an opinion on something you didn't ask me about. Let's see you make a good example, and admit that you were wrong.

      "Worse, yet, you are a troll who simply posts out of hatred."

      You haven't defended yourself, in case you didn't realize that. You've admitted that everyone is supposedly a "hypocrite" for criticizing Sterling, yet you denounce only liberals. Your concern about "PRIVATE" conversations can't be assumed to apply to "all the other racists in America", who you perversely expressed concern for. So, obviously I had good cause to address your post, no matter how much you want to bellyache over it.

      "In other words ... you are a hateful bigot as has been pointed out before and you continue to prove that as true."

      Criticizing your behavior proves no such thing. On the other hand, when you twist yourself into a knot to find a way to chastise liberals for condemning a goddamned racist, you clearly are consumed by hatred. If you can't even accept that action from liberals, then you have no room to be talking about anyone else in the world being a "hateful bigot".

      You lose, sorry.

      Delete
    12. If you weren't referring to homosexuality, then that quote was a lie. Thanks for admitting what I already knew.

      Sure I was referring to homosexuality in that quote. But, that is not my "original" or "very first post". You are still lying. I never referred to homosexuality in either my "original" or "very first post". You have brought quotes from later on, not my very first one. Why don't you go back and re-read my first post and tell me where I was referring to homosexuality. You're so good at interpreting what you think I say.


      That was your example. You didn't ask for an opinion on the nature of your example.

      You sure offered one, though. Ooops, you didn't think that one through at all, did you?


      That would be a form of lying, which is why you insisting that I said anything about surveillance is a lie. I'm glad you understand that, so you can work on fixing yourself.

      You answered "yes" to the question, surveillance was part of the question. That means you answered "yes" to the whole question, including the surveillance part of it.


      Private industry is not restricted.

      Yes it is. But there are about 30 exceptions (depending on state).
      http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/proving-hearsay-in-a-personal-injury-case.html


      How does it not "fit the discussion"?

      Your opinions are irrelevant.


      What is the "real issue"?

      I didn't think you knew what this is about. Thanks for admitting that much.


      I've addressed everything you've said, so obviously you need to figure that out.

      Actually, you've been addressing what I've said in past articles. From the very first post, of yours, you went off-topic and started talking about gays. I never mentioned or referred to gays in my very first post, so I don't know what gave you the idea I was referring to gays.
      If you need to go back and read my "very first post", here's a link to it: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/04/sterling-silver.html?showComment=1398867553081#c45347880788138763
      Re-read it and post a reply if you need to. Otherwise, talking about homosexuality, the Queen of England, Tourette's syndrome, moral crusading and Rush Limbaugh is just a little off-topic and a general waste of time. You want to try discussing my first post, go ahead and do it. You want to discuss your off-topic tangents? I'll pass.


      You've admitted that everyone is supposedly a "hypocrite" for criticizing Sterling, yet you denounce only liberals.

      That is a bold-faced lie! Looks like I've caught you in another lie. Are you going to apologize now or defend your own lies, yet again?


      On the other hand, when you twist yourself into a knot to find a way to chastise liberals for condemning a goddamned racist, you clearly are consumed by hatred.

      If you think that racist have been damned by god, then why haven't you commented about his previous racist actions. You know, the ones that are actually performed in public to the public? Obviously, I am chastising liberals because of their hypocrisy. They love him as long as he donates money to their cause. When he stops they attack him. That is true liberal form, though. So, while I fully EXPECT liberals to act that way, I am personally obligated to point out their hypocrisy. You have defended that hypocrisy harder than anyone (someone) else. I have never expressed concern for racists. That is just your hatefulness trying to excuse your own perverse actions.


      If you can't even accept that action from liberals, then you have no room to be talking about anyone else in the world being a "hateful bigot".

      Why would I EVER accept hypocrisy from liberals?

      Delete
    13. "Sure I was referring to homosexuality in that quote. But, that is not my "original" or "very first post". You are still lying. I never referred to homosexuality in either my "original" or "very first post"."

      The quote you're referring to was preceded by this: "Let's have some fun and recap your complaints about my original post." So, the "unbelievably obvious reference" was in your original post, according to your own words.

      "You have brought quotes from later on, not my very first one."

      In which you were talking about your original post.

      "Why don't you go back and re-read my first post and tell me where I was referring to homosexuality."

      I'll let you tell yourself:
      Me: "So, people who have sexual relations that you disapprove of should be vulnerable to being fired for the sake of the image of the business, but you're worried about the employment security of people who hate others based on skin color."
      You: "Obviously, when you refer to me being "worried" you must be talking about the last 2 questions I asked. That is an unbelievably obvious reference to liberal support of PRIVATE abnormal sexual behaviors being protected behaviors from workplace reprisals, while liberals consider PRIVATE abnormal racial behaviors unacceptable and fully agree with and support workplace reprisals."
      You point to the last two questions of your original post. Now you know.

      "You're so good at interpreting what you think I say."

      That's hilarious, considering your habit of attributing opinions to me. Did you ever explain how I supposedly find religion unacceptable? That's just one example, of course.

      "You sure offered one, though."

      Since you just admitted that you didn't ask the question, you can't claim that I answered it. You didn't think that through at all, obviously. Also bear in mind that you haven't even explained how my comment would even match a question about surveillance. So, since you didn't ask, and there's nothing that makes my comment appear to be about surveillance, it's very difficult to assert that I was talking about anything other than employment.

      "You answered "yes" to the question, surveillance was part of the question."

      It was your scenario. You only asked about the employment issue, not the surveillance. If you wanted to ask about the spying angle, then you needed to specify that.

      In fact, the entire purpose of creating such circumstances is to test a premise. Like I said before: "Your point would actually be that someone could not get fired if the cause was discovered illegally." If you were open to any input on the legality of spying, then your question was idiotic. The only reason for asking something like that is to introduce circumstances that would force me to modify what I said, so you had to think that I would disapprove of such spying, otherwise you wouldn't be challenging my comment at all. On top of all of the other ways that your claim fails, your "listening device" question would have had no purpose.

      "http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/proving-hearsay-in-a-personal-injury-case.html"

      What would hearsay have to do with taped conversations? And we're talking about employment, not personal injury cases. Again, private employers can fire people if their racist comments are made public, regardless of how they come to light.

      Delete
    14. "Your opinions are irrelevant."

      Of course they're relevant. If you're going to require a standard of proof, then I can dispute the rationality of your demands.

      "I didn't think you knew what this is about."

      I don't know what you're claiming this is about. Like I said, I've addressed everything you've said. Whatever you think the "real issue" is, it must be something you're avoiding.

      "From the very first post, of yours, you went off-topic and started talking about gays."

      Your views on justifiable termination aren't off-topic. Besides, you said that you were talking about homosexuality in your original post, so I must have been on-topic.

      "Otherwise, talking about homosexuality, the Queen of England, Tourette's syndrome, moral crusading and Rush Limbaugh is just a little off-topic and a general waste of time."

      That's interesting, because most of those are examples inserted to demonstrate a point. Since spying isn't part of this topic, and you used that as an example, then you must think it's a waste of time to talk about it. In other words, you didn't want me to comment on spying at all, the same way I never asked you to comment on the Queen of England, Rush Limbaugh, et cetera. And that means that your claims that you asked for that comment are all lies. Or, that you think that your tangents are acceptable, while my examples are not.

      That really did not work out well for you.

      "That is a bold-faced [sic] lie!"

      No, it isn't:
      You: "You have taken an opinion, of mine, about the obvious hypocrisy of liberals and the NBA concerning racism and how they suddenly expressed phoney disgust of Sterling and sent him through the mass-media trial system for the sake of firing of a known white racist."
      Me: "It's not the hypocrisy of liberals, it's the hypocrisy of everyone. You never showed how their behavior was distinguished from anyone else's."
      You: "Everyone, [sic] DOES include liberals, right? Or are liberals "special" people who aren't included in your statement?"
      Right there, you admitted that "everyone" was a hypocrite, since you were justifying your accusation by saying that "everyone DOES include liberals".

      "Are you going to apologize now or defend your own lies, yet again?"

      Neither. As always, I can prove your accusations to be flawed, if not downright dishonest.

      Delete
    15. "If you think that racist [sic] have been damned by god, then why haven't you commented about his previous racist actions."

      Because I missed that story on ESPN that day. Remember? There was no public outrage over that.

      "You know, the ones that are actually performed in public to the public [sic]?"

      Someone getting sued for business practices isn't something "performed in public" by that person. Did he make a public statement that he wouldn't rent out living space to certain groups of people? No? Then he didn't do anything publicly in that case. If he was discriminating based on race, I hope he paid through the nose for it, but it's still not "public" action.

      "They love him as long as he donates money to their cause. When he stops they attack him."

      When I heard his comments, I denounced them immediately. I didn't know he had made any change in political support at the time. Everyone attacked him, because what he said was wrong. Again, that isn't "phoney". What you should say is that liberals should have criticized him previously, but then you can't show how anyone can be expected to know about a story with virtually no coverage.

      "So, while I fully EXPECT liberals to act that way, I am personally obligated to point out their hypocrisy."

      If you give yourself that right, then you can't complain about your inconsistencies being pointed out. I'm personally obligated to do so.

      "I have never expressed concern for racists."

      You: "How about all the other racists in America? Are they suddenly exposed to being fired for being racist? Or, only the white ones?" And:
      "There are hundreds of people, living in the deep south, who feel racism IS acceptable. How DARE you force YOUR beliefs onto them."
      You're defending racists. No matter how many empty denials you give, your words don't disappear.

      "Why would I EVER accept hypocrisy from liberals?"

      Outrage at Sterling's recent comments isn't "hypocrisy". That's justified criticism, plain and simple. If you wanted to claim hypocrisy, you would have to point to the previous silence. You still don't have an argument that way, but at least that would make sense as a general concept. That is a literally infinite improvement over chastising anyone for objecting to blatantly racist remarks.

      Delete
    16. No, it isn't:

      YES, it IS a lie. I have criticized the NBA also. Not ONLY liberals. And I didn't criticize every liberal (as you claim) I criticized the many who "expressed such phoney disgust". See? I caught you in 2 lies with one post. Are you expressing "phoney disgust"? If not, then I'm not criticizing you. You ARE a liberal, right?


      I don't know what you're claiming this is about.

      Of course not, because you haven't read what I wrote. You just focused on the word "liberal" and went off on another weird-ass tangent of yours. Like usual.


      That's interesting, because most of those are examples inserted to demonstrate a point.

      The point that you don't know what you're talking about? Good point. You win that one.


      So, the "unbelievably obvious reference" was in your original post, according to your own words.

      Nope, don't see that one either. I don't even know what you're talking about now. But, that phrase is not in my original post. But, feel free to make up more shit if you want. Use you extra tissues (if you have any left) for wiping your ass as you shit out this stuff.


      In which you were talking about your original post.

      Sorry, you said I actually said those words in my original post. I did not. You lied.


      You point to the last two questions of your original post. Now you know.

      Me: "Are they suddenly exposed to being fired for being racist? Or, only the white ones?"
      Those are the last 2 questions in my original post. How are they related even the slightest with homosexuality??? You lied, get over it and move on to your next lie.


      Did you ever explain how I supposedly find religion unacceptable?

      Do I need to? But, if you want me to I can give you one simple example that will absolutely show you find religion unacceptable: Can a public school teacher wear a Christian cross or Catholic rosary while in school?


      If you wanted to ask about the spying angle, then you needed to specify that.

      I did specify that. It was in the question that you answered "yes" to. Reading comp 101.

      Delete
    17. What would hearsay have to do with taped conversations? And we're talking about employment, not personal injury cases.

      Doesn't matter. You said "Private industry is not restricted" (by rules of evidence). It is. So you are wrong.


      Again, private employers can fire people if their racist comments are made public, regardless of how they come to light.

      If that's true then private employers can fire people for being gay regardless of how it comes to light. Since you have no evidence that people aren't naturally racist, then the same rules would apply to racists as they do to gays. And since racism occurs in nature, then it must be natural ... according to YOUR accepted and applied standards. Didn't think that one through too well, huh?


      There was no public outrage over that.

      Hence, my claim of hypocrisy from the NBA and many liberals (not all as you claim). Because some people DO pay attention to current events. Just because you don't doesn't make my claims inaccurate.