Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017.

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. ;)

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

Monday, December 15, 2014

Racism Part 2: What they don't teach you in school



Babies are racists. LOL - OK not really, but read #5 on that list. (From Cracked.)

The history of how White, Southern Racism shaped this country from the beginning. (From Kos.)

The Case for reparations. (From the Atlantic)

And Racism is still worse than we realize. (Cracked.)

Now lets examine the effect of the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

For this exercise I am going to focus on two geographic areas in particular: The SOUTHEAST, defined as Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia; and the NORTHEAST, defined as Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont.  (For their parts, the MOUNTAIN STATES have always been Republican strongholds, and that hasn't changed. The MIDWEST has always been a contentious battleground and that hasn't changed. The PACIFIC STATES, with the exception of Alaska (which votes like a Mountain State) DID flip, from Republican to Democrat, but did so much later, in the 1990's, so they're not relevant to the discussion either.)

I am going to look at two time periods. The first starts in 1876 which was the first post-Civil War in which the Democrats were able to challenge the Republicans with a unified party and a single candidate.  It ends in 1960, the last Election before the passage of the Civil Rights Act. The second period begins with 1964 and goes through to the present day.  In this exercise I am looking the results of the States' PRESIDENTIAL Elections.  This oversimplifies a bit, but I spot-checked a few of the Southeastern States' Gubernatorial races once when a Tea Party friend of mine challenged it and the pattern held pretty solid on the states he had me check.  I may do Governors, Senators or Representatives one day, but for now let's just look at Presidential results.

From 1876 to 1960, the Southeast held 300 total Presidential Elections. This takes into account that North Carolina was not part of the Electoral College following the Civil War until 1908. In these 300 Elections, the DEMOCRATIC Candidate (Tilden, Hancock, Cleveland (3x), Bryan (3x), Parker, Wilson (2x), Cox, Davis, Smith, Roosevelt (4x), Truman, Steveson (2x) and Kennedy) won 255 of them.  That's a winning percentage of 85%.  So.. Pretty clear that the DEMOCRATS were strong in the Southeast following the Civil War and Prior too Civil Rights.

In the Northeast, in the same time period, there were 242 total Presidential Elections. In those, the same Democratic Candidates took home only 79 Victories, for a 32.6%  Winning Percentage.

NOW... Since the signing of the Civil Rights act, what has changed?

Well, since 1964, the Southeast has held 182 Presidential Elections. In that time, the Democratic Candidate (Johnson, Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton (2x), Gore and Obama (2x)) has won a mere 43 of these, dropping their winning percentage from 85% to a paltry 23.6% - a decline of 61.4%!  Meanwhile, of the 156 Presidential Elections held in the Northeast since the signing of the Civil Rights act, those same Democrats won 108 times. That's a 69.2% Winning percentage, up from 32.6% - a gain of 36.6%!  So clearly...

1) There has been significant ideological drift in both the Northeast and Southeast.

2) This shift is shown to have happened almost immediately after the signing of the Civil Rights act.

3) The Democratic Party (the one who's President SIGNED the Civil Rights Act) moved North, while the Republicans became the darlings of the Old Confederacy and Segregationist States.

A coupe of notes:

1) I counted DEMOCRATIC Victories, so that no one could call Bullshit if I tried to lump Independent such as Strom Thurmond or George Wallace in with the Republicans.  As it is, they were not counted. Also, if I was counting Republican victories, what do you call Teddy Roosevelt in 1912?  Seems wrong to count the Bull Moose Candidate, but it seems just as wrong to leave him out. So we'll use the Democratic performance to show the trend.

2) Surprisingly the biggest exception to the trend in the Southeast is actually NOT Florida: It's WEST VIRGINIA!  West Virginia has gone to the Democrat SEVEN TIMES since the signing of the Civil Rights act.  Florida has gone only five, and three other have gone four times. The STRONGEST Republican States since the signing of the Civil Rights act (in the Southeast) are Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma and South Carolina. Since 1964 a Democrat has only won ONCE in each of these States.

3) Prior to Barack Obama in 2008, the only Democrats to win ANY of the Southeastern States were themselves Southerners :Johnson, from Texas, Carter from Georgia and Clinton from Arkansas. (This was no help to Gore, of Tennessee, who failed to win any in 2000, though we won't discuss Florida.)

4) If you ignore the influence of NATIONAL LANDSLIDES, which say little about any one regions politics and more about the politics of THE DAY, the trend gets even more stark. If I remove the Four Franklin Roosevelt land slides on '32, '36, '40 and '44, the Johnson landslide of '64, the Nixon landslide of '72 and the Reagan landslide of '84, here's how it breaks down:

Southeast, 1876-1960: 244 Elections, 199 Democratic Victories, 81.6% Winning Pct.
Southeast, 1968-2012: 140 Elections, 34 Democratic Victories, 24.3% Winning Pct.

Northeast, 1876-1960: 198 Elections, 47 Democratic Victories, 23.7% Winning Pct.
Northeast, 1876-1960: 120 Elections, 93 Democratic Victories, 77.5% Winning Pct.

So they go down 57.3% in the Southeast, a little less than before, but go up 53.8% in the Northeast - a LOT more than before.

Take either methodology, as you prefer. AND, if you're going to make the argument that the Democrats are the REAL racists, you're going to have to explain THIS phenomenon away first, if you expect to be taken seriously. Robert Byrd or no Robert Byrd.

Now for something a bit lighter, here are Five Shockingly Racist Scenes in Famous Superhero Comics. (Cracked.)


274 comments:

  1. Racism: What they DO teach you in school ... stats can be used to prove anything. Anyone can find a stat that will show completely different "facts". Here is a good article to prove what I say:
    http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/02/politics/kristoff-oreilly-police-shooting-numbers-fact-check/

    In the article it explains that black males aged 15-19 are killed by police at a rate of either 300 per year or 14. So the FACTS are that your stats mean nothing when you are using your tweaked idealogical standpoint to broadcast them from. And that includes the tweaked standpoint that cracked broadcasts them from.

    Still waiting for you to take your family for a walk through the streets of Detroit some evening. Or are you worried that some republican will jump out of the shadows and rob your pasty-white ass and/or rape your wife? Because, according to your stats democrats (who moved up north) would never do such a thing.

    The thing about your stats ... Detroit has voted democrat since at least 1960 in presidential elections. Does that help or hurt your statistical whine about democrats and republicans. Oh, BTW, what is the financial situation in Detroit? Is it really better to be democratic?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a very good article, thank you for posting it. It certainly bears some discussion, but after reading it, I hardly think that it "proves [what] you say," unless you merely saying that " stats can be used to prove anything." And I'll take issue with even THAT. Statistics can be used (and misused) to SUPPORT anything. PROOF, otoh, requires that one uses them properly, in a way that copasetic with generally accepted practice. Now I would have to dig deeper into both sets of numbers to be sure, but all I see is that the larger estimate corrects for the differences in population when comparing the "rate." This is an acceptable practice. Not some kind of tweak or trick. That's not to say that I'm endorsing their MATH - like I said, I'd have to dig deeper - but I'm perfectly happy with what that article presents. It explains the difference and, the way I read it, basically says that O'Rielly's methodology is wrong.

      I HAVE walked through the streets of Detroit, with my family, on several occasions. We've been to ballgames, shows at the incredible beautiful Fox theatre, and are planning a trip to the DIA. Casinos aren't my thing, but you can't beat drinking a Guinness while taking in the live Celtic Folk Music at the Old Shillelagh. Greektown was nice, as was trapper's alley before they plopped a casino down on it. See... DETROIT, like most cities, has places you can go, and places that are better avoided. But I've been downtown MANY a time, and have never feared for anything. Don't believe everything you read in the paper / hear on Fox / see on the Internet.

      As for the city’s finances? Looking pretty good now, actually. Will it keep? Meh. I'm not personally optimistic (meaning that *I'M* not buying any bonds!) but time will tell. Detroit’s problems, however, ARE a long time in the making, and are far more complex a history that simply, "blacks" or "democrats." But there's no part of "austerity" or "conservatism" that is going to fix them. That I have no doubt of.

      As for the stats... There are too many cities to look at over such a long time period. MICHIGAN has been a legitimate battleground for pretty much... ever, like most o9f the Midwest outside of Minnesota (D) and Indiana (R). I figure you were just being an ass (or poking me in the...) rather than asking a serious question, but I would happily run the same analysis for State Governors, if you'd be interested in seeing that. (Hell, I'll probably do it anyway, but if you're genuinely interested in continuing this conversation, it might get done a bit faster.) I may go as far as Senators one day as well, buy Rep's and Mayors... that gets way too big to tabulate too quickly, in any comprehensive way at least.

      Good talk, Will. I hope this continues.

      Delete
  2. Some excellent reading here Eddie!

    “There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over and men are no longer willing to be plunged into an abyss of injustice where they experience the bleakness of corroding despair.” –Martin Luther King in his “Letter From Birmingham Jail.”

    I don’t see the rioting/looting in places such as Ferguson, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc. as action by unlawful thugs. Rather, I see it as the product of despair.

    Like most Americans, I grew up respecting our police officers, so it's quite painful to see such behavior amongst their ranks. Yet, it is in fact happening, and it’s happening at alarming rates; rates that defy any claim of “random,” or “sporadic” occurrence.

    When random and sporadic are taken out of the equation, you have in their place, purpose and design from which to reason behavior. And that is a very frightening thought.

    It's very apparent that many within the ranks of our law enforcement officers are now of the opinion they have received complete autonomy to assume the role of praetorian prison guards assigned the task of keeping all their captives in line.

    Many of our law enforcement departments, after the social upheaval of the 1960’s, began serious efforts to retrain their officers to be an integral part of their communities. For some time, this effort seemed to be showing signs of success; until the departments began redesigning their tactics and appearance as militarized organizations with a perception that they are guardians of the law at all costs.

    And, like any military in need of an enemy, their enemy of design is, once again, the socially disadvantaged; the vast majority of which are black.

    Our law enforcement departments need to refocus on the idea of “protecting and serving” the people of their communities instead of guarding an abstract rule of law at the expense of those living in the communities.

    Until they do this, we are going to continue to see these acts of despair.

    And I, for one, cannot fault them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Bob, and welcome.

      "The praise of the praiseworthy is above all rewards." ~Faramir

      Delete
    2. "I don’t see the rioting/looting in places such as Ferguson, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc. as action by unlawful thugs. "

      In Oakland, San Francisco and Berkeley the rioting and looting ARE being done by unlawful thugs. And, the majority of them are white. Once again exposing police to the probability of harming someone innocent. People tend to blame the cops for isolated instances, but don't forget the responsibility of the criminal. That aspect seems to be overlooked as we complain about isolated instances of criminal cop behavior.

      "And, like any military in need of an enemy, their enemy of design is, once again, the socially disadvantaged; the vast majority of which are black."

      If I had said that, Eddie and barbietio would have instantly called me a racist. You get props for saying it.
      What I want to ask is what makes them "socially disadvantaged"? I'm sure you meant something else. And, why do you think blacks are the "vast majority" of those who are "socially disadvantaged"?

      Delete
    3. What a whiny little bitch you're being William! You turning Liberal?

      "People tend to blame the cops for isolated instances, but don't forget the responsibility of the criminal."

      They're not isolated, and none of the people in question are CRIMINALS.

      "If I had said that, Eddie and barbietio (sic) would have instantly called me a racist."

      WRONG. But I'll call you a MORON for saying THAT. POINTING OUT that Blacks are socially and economically disadvantaged in this country is not racist. IT'S DATA. What's RACIST is when you use this data as evidence that the blacks are a bunch of lazy, good-for-nothing criminal, who APPARENTLY it is OK to shoot on site. IOW: WE used that data to show that racism EXISTS, not to try and JUSTIFY it, doofus!

      In the other thread, you say that want cops held accountable WHEN THEIR IS A CRIME. Do you not see a crime in any of the above videos?

      You say they shouldn't be tried on the internet. I agree, but we are left with no choice, because of prosecutors repeatedly shit-canning their own prosecutions in order to let these guys off. If these were accused cop-killers, do you think the prosecutor would be calling potential defense witnesses, who might cast SOME doubt on his evidence to the GRAND JURY?

      HELL NO! That's not his job! But it happened here.

      And when the DEFENSE inevitable called this self-avowed racist of a defense witness (who's also been shown to have a history of lying to the cops, I might add) to testify AT THE ACTUAL TRIAL, it would then be the PROSECUTORS JOB to point all that out in an effort to UNDERMINE said witnesses credibility! Instead we get the prosecutor CALLING HER and letting her story go UNCHALLENGED. THAT'S why Darren Wilson got off, you racist buffoon! Because McCullough is either incompetent or corrupt! Don't you even know how the system is supposed to fucking function, even in THEORY?!

      What do you think McCullough’s JOB was?! It certainly wasn't to decide whether the cop was guilty or innocent! That's not EVEN the GRAND JURY'S job! (Not until the actual TRIAL!) And he's the PROSECUTOR! His ONLY JOB is to MAKE THE CHARGE STICK. Fucking DUH!

      Also? I'm not racist because I avoid going into high-crime areas. That not racism, that survival instinct. YOU claim that the blacks will shoot me and the whites won't. SO? Why does that make ME racist? Seems to me that a good case to suggest that RACISM EXISTS. (Esp when you consider that many of those good old boy white areas are where bad things tend to happen to black people WITHOUT the involvement of the police.

      Oh, and you’re not only happy to let the Government kill innocent people after giving them due process (something that has ABSOLUTELY HAPPENED, MORE THAN ONCE), but you're even happy to let cops do it WITHOUT giving them due process, just as long as they’re the kind of people you don't like.

      How very Christian of you. I'm sure Jesus would be proud.

      BTW? You can be sure you've created God in your own image when he hates all of the same people you do!

      I can't say if any of the verbal diarrhea that you've farted out here makes you a racist, but it does prove a few things to me:

      1) You don't know how our justice system works, and who has what role to play in it.

      2) You don't know what words like , "racist," and "hypocrisy" mean. (Or you have only the vaguest idea and so consistently point out incorrect examples.)

      3) You are no Christian. Not by any Christ that I have ever read or been taught about.

      4) You do not believe in Small Government. You, in fact, favor a police state. (As long as the whites are never bothered by it.)

      Wait... I guess that DOES make you a racist.

      Oh... AND a hypocrite.

      And now I'm bored. So I'll let others take care of you from this point out, unless you have something that piques my interest.

      Delete
    4. "They're not isolated, and none of the people in question are CRIMINALS."

      Says you.

      "Do you not see a crime in any of the above videos?"

      I have not watched the videos and I am not a judge.

      " I agree, but we are left with no choice, because of prosecutors repeatedly shit-canning their own prosecutions in order to let these guys off."

      Well, maybe you should be whining about the prosecutors then.

      "HELL NO! That's not his job! But it happened here."

      Then cry about the prosecutor not doing his/her job. Or cry that THEY are racist too.

      " (Esp when you consider that many of those good old boy white areas are where bad things tend to happen to black people WITHOUT the involvement of the police."

      But you ignore that you just said you would avoid black populated areas out of survival instincts. That means you think the same happens to whites in black areas. We can't call them (blacks) "good ole boys" can we? That would be racist.

      BTW, the way you make up how I feel about things gives you a good 'out' for being the way you are towards others. Very catholic of you.

      Delete
    5. "POINTING OUT that Blacks are socially and economically disadvantaged in this country is not racist. IT'S DATA."

      If that is true then it is YOUR fault. You are the one (along with many others) who fear to enter their areas because of your survival instincts and refuse to spend money at their shops and business's. No wonder they are economically disadvantaged. And your behavior towards them socially (won't enter their areas out of survival instincts) only adds to their supposed social disadvantages. THAT makes you a racist. You refuse to socialize with them and refuse to spend money with them in their own areas. They must come to you for you to even consider interacting with them ... out of survival instincts.

      Delete
    6. "'They're not isolated, and none of the people in question are CRIMINALS.'
      Says you."

      No... Says DATA, and says our criminal justice system. What crime are you under the impression was committed by Tamir Rice or John Crawford?

      "I have not watched the videos"

      This explains this:

      "Well, maybe you should be whining about the prosecutors then."

      And a good chunk of the rest of you ignorance, of what's really begin discussed here actually.

      I mean... Wow. Just... wow.

      Delete
    7. "No... Says DATA, and says our criminal justice system. "

      What are you commenting on? You're mixing two different ideas of yours into one answer. First you say DATA proves they are socially disadvantaged, but you are answering to a statement on isolated instances. I'll comment on the DATA part, since the other is proven to be simply isolated instances. You've got a small handful of instances out of millions and millions of interactions. That makes them isolated instances.

      Don't skirt the issue. The FACTS are they become economically and socially disadvantaged because people like YOU refuse to do business with them in their own areas. People like you are under the impression that 'those people are dangerous' and YOU refuse to enter their areas out of your "survival instincts". Don't deny YOU said that. Now you want to ignore that you've said it? Or, are you trying to backtrack that you said it? People like YOU whine about blacks being socially disadvantaged, then people like YOU refuse to accept responsibility for being the ones who cause it. Talk about your true liberalism: refuse to accept accountability for your own actions.

      "And a good chunk of the rest of you ignorance, of what's really begin discussed here actually. "

      I don't need to watch the videos to know that when police do something wrong (I've never watched the Rodney King video either and I know what happened), it isn't them who decide whether they are charged with the crime or not. This entire protest movement is based on the FACT that the grand juries decided not to prosecute. It starts with the actions of the police, then the protests started because they weren't charged with crimes. There isn't a person in the world who needs to watch a video to know that the entire movement is based on no charges being filed. How can you NOT understand that?
      So you can just STFU about me not watching videos of crimes I know have been committed. But the FACT stands, it is in the court of LAW that those crimes must be determined, not through the internet. You whined about ME not know how the justice system works, apparently it is YOU who have no knowledge of that process.

      I mean ... Wow. Just ... wow.

      Delete
    8. William, now: "People like you are under the impression that 'those people are dangerous' and YOU refuse to enter their areas out of your "survival instincts"."

      William previously: "Also, my commute is 13 miles each way (Oakland, San Leandro and Hayward CA city streets). That's 26 miles total (for the <70 IQ crowd). Can you name a more dangerous city than Oakland Ca for a white guy to ride a bike through."

      Delete
    9. Which goes to show that I'm not like "people like you" (who are afraid to enter areas based on race). Thanks for proving my point, braby.

      Delete
    10. No, you riding a bike through the area is irrelevant. You say that other people think "those people are dangerous", when you clearly said that those people are dangerous. You believe that there's an actual reason to be afraid, so it's odd that you used the phrase "under the impression" as if you believed something different.

      I also doubt that you're doing a great deal of shopping while riding your bike through an area that you think is dangerous.

      Even further, nobody else said that people are dangerous because of race; parts of Detroit are dangerous because of poverty, so there's no "their areas". You, on the other hand, specified that Oakland is dangerous "for a white guy", meaning that your race is what puts you at risk.

      I didn't prove your point, William; you proved that you're a racist hypocrite.

      Delete
    11. "I also doubt that you're doing a great deal of shopping while riding your bike through an area that you think is dangerous."

      Apparently, a great deal more than "people like you".

      "You, on the other hand, specified that Oakland is dangerous "for a white guy", meaning that your race is what puts you at risk."

      Gangs come in all packages. Perhaps in your racially compromised viewpoint there is only one race that is affected by poverty.

      Delete
    12. "Apparently, a great deal more than "people like you"."

      I don't live near a city, so it's not clear what the expectations are.

      "Perhaps in your racially compromised viewpoint there is only one race that is affected by poverty."

      Was that supposed to make sense? How does that address the fact that you linked potential harm to race, not me?

      Delete
    13. Was that supposed to make sense?"

      Yes. It directly relates to the fact that I'm of the race that other races do not like. How many other races are there? How hard is that to figure out? Oh, wait, you're the one who brought the quote about IQ levels of some, here.

      "I don't live near a city, so it's not clear what the expectations are."

      You're just one of the many "people like you". It's good to see you keep those excuses going.

      Delete
    14. "It directly relates to the fact that I'm of the race that other races do not like."

      The race that other races don't like? You poor victim. If only African-Americans had some idea of what it would be like to be a member of the race that other races don't like.

      "You're just one of the many "people like you". It's good to see you keep those excuses going."

      How would that be an "excuse"? If I don't live near a city, you can't very well criticize me for that. Was "people like you" supposed to be those living in rural areas? Otherwise, the valid reason that I have for not shopping in a place like Detroit would clearly weaken the force of your generalization.

      Delete
    15. " If only African-Americans had some idea of what it would be like to be a member of the race that other races don't like."

      And, yet, many of them still venture into areas that don't like them (according to you) and do business with then. If only "people like you" would do the same and help correct the "social" and "economic" disadvantage that is being discussed.

      Delete
    16. "If only "people like you" would do the same and help correct the "social" and "economic" disadvantage that is being discussed."

      It's still not clear who "people like you" is supposed to be. You used the phrase when talking about the "impression" that "those people are dangerous", when you yourself believe that. That means you're part of "people like you" as well, so it clearly goes beyond political differences.

      Delete
    17. "It's still not clear who "people like you" is supposed to be."

      That's the best you got?

      Delete
    18. Demonstrating your hypocrisy was the entire point, so yes.

      Delete
    19. ROTFLMAO@U That was a true classic by you. If only you would have actually done that.

      Delete
    20. You believe that African-Americans are dangerous, so you can't criticize others for being under the "impression" that "those people are dangerous".

      That's clearly hypocritical, and you haven't gotten around that yet. Your appeal to ridicule isn't a valid argument.

      Delete
    21. Your opinions on what I believe aren't an issue and therefore invalid.

      Delete
    22. Your words speak for you. I only commented further because you didn't seem to grasp the point.

      Also, look up "genetic fallacy". By the same lack of logic, your opinions on what "liberals" believe aren't an issue and therefore invalid. So why are you posting?

      Delete
    23. "Your words speak for you."

      They sure do. And, the words that you brought (of mine) show that I don't use "survival instincts" as an excuse not to do business within the more poor areas. Showing that you have shown how I am NOT a hypocrite. Thanks.

      Delete
    24. I don't care about you pedaling through that area. That's irrelevant, as already demonstrated. Try to address what's been said, not what you wish had been said.

      Delete
    25. "I don't care about you pedaling through that area. That's irrelevant, as already demonstrated."

      Actually, when you brought that quote you demonstrated how I am doing my part to help curb the "social" and "economic" disadvantages that the discussion, you entered, was about. Your claim of irrelevance shows your inability to follow along with simple discussions.

      Delete
    26. No, it wasn't implied that you traveling through that area did anything financially for it. Besides that, the part about the "impression" that "those people are dangerous" is hypocritical whether you spend money along your route or not. All you're claiming is that you ignore "survival instincts", nothing more.

      Delete
    27. " All you're claiming is that you ignore "survival instincts", nothing more."

      Wow, you sure cry a lot. I've said I ride a bike as my part to combat climate change and you whined then. I ride my bike through areas "people like you" wouldn't venture to go and you whine about that. Do liberals ever actually DO things to correct the many, many things they whine about? Or just whine when someone expresses a willingness to do things others (who whine) don't seem to want to because of the inconvenience or "survival instincts"?

      Delete
    28. So, when you accuse others of hypocrisy and racism, that's fine. When I point out your hypocrisy and racism, that's supposedly "whining".

      What are you even claiming that I "whined" about regarding you riding your bike? It seems to me that you were complaining that I drive a car instead of doing that, which would seem to make you the one crying in that particular picture.

      William: "You are a liberal: you drive an internal combustion powered vehicle daily (contributes to global warming), I am a conservative: I ride a bicycle daily (no contributions to global warming)."

      You prove your hypocrisy, yet again. Anything else?

      Delete
    29. Also, let's note that you didn't address the part about how your "impression" comment was hypocritical. You seem to be merely whining that you got caught, or you're trying to deflect from your guilt. Neither option helps you.

      Delete
    30. " When I point out your hypocrisy and racism, that's supposedly "whining".

      It is whining when you don't achieve either of your claims.

      "You prove your hypocrisy, yet again. Anything else?"

      It's hypocrisy to say there is a climate change problem and to do something about it?
      It's hypocrisy for me to say I'm not afraid to enter and/or commerce in areas "people like you" would avoid because or 'survival instincts"?

      And, nothing else, unless you want to discuss the topic. Because continually pointing out your crying gets old after a while.

      Delete
    31. "It is whining when you don't achieve either of your claims."

      You haven't changed the clear meaning of your words; until then, my argument stands.

      "It's hypocrisy to say there is a climate change problem and to do something about it?"

      No, it's hypocrisy to say that I'm "whining" about you riding a bike when you were crying about me not doing that.

      "It's hypocrisy for me to say I'm not afraid to enter and/or commerce in areas "people like you" would avoid because or 'survival instincts"?"

      No, that's just stupid. What's hypocritical is for you to say that other people have the "impression" that "those people are dangerous" when you expressed that very idea yourself.

      "Because continually pointing out your crying gets old after a while."

      Wait, so your examples of my "crying" would be me demonstrating your hypocrisy. Why is you supposedly pointing out anything about me not be "crying", by the same standard?

      Delete
    32. "What's hypocritical is for you to say that other people have the "impression" that "those people are dangerous" when you expressed that very idea yourself."

      Taken out of context you can make it seem anything. Bring the correct context and we'll see how far that gets you.

      Delete
    33. "Correct" context for which? You made the "impression" comment on this thread, so you must see it. And I'd love to see you explain how any other sentence could significantly change your challenge to name a more "dangerous" place than Oakland "for a white guy", but go ahead and try: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/10/seven-things-liberals-already-knew.html?showComment=1412781320300#c1676842291891086161

      Delete
    34. So, you won't bring the correct context after you've been called on your misleading statement. I never doubted that for a minute. Welcome back. I see you haven't changed your tactics one iota since your last comment months ago.

      BTW, I never made any kind of "challenge" in the reference you brought. Go figure ... more lies from the liberal.

      Delete
    35. What context are you asking for? I provided the link to the other thread. Are you saying that "people like you are under the impression that 'those people are dangerous'" doesn't mean that some group of people is under the impression that "those people are dangerous", or what? Sorry, just claiming that you're not getting what you asked for doesn't suffice.

      "BTW, I never made any kind of "challenge" in the reference you brought."

      You challenged me to come up with a place more dangerous than Oakland "for a white guy": "Can you name a more dangerous city than Oakland Ca for a white guy to ride a bike through."

      Challenge: v: "to make or present a challenge"
      Challenge: n: "a stimulating task or problem"

      So, any such "can you" proposition constitutes a "challenge" by definition. If you really feel the need to change the subject and suggest that some other word is more appropriate, good luck; in the meantime, your uneducated disagreement doesn't qualify as a "lie" on my part.

      Delete
    36. Bring the context for the "impression" statement or STFU.
      And, your link doesn't show I was talking about PEOPLE. It shows I was talking about an area. Have you ever looked up the crime rates in the AREAS I mentioned? Well, do it and then try an informed comment. Instead of your usual uninformed comments.

      Questions are not challenges every time. You can bring the definition of challenge all day long, but you need to bring the definition of question.
      Can you.

      BTW, I see you have started the usual grammar corrections/lessons during your replies. I take it that means you give up again. Since it is well known that correcting grammar during on-line discussions is a prime signifier that one has given up.

      Delete
    37. "And, your link doesn't show I was talking about PEOPLE. It shows I was talking about an area. Have you ever looked up the crime rates in the AREAS I mentioned?"

      Do you realize that you specified "white" people as victims? What is that supposed to say about the PEOPLE committing crimes in that area?

      "Questions are not challenges every time."

      I didn't say "every time", and my phrasing made that clear. If someone says "can you name all fifty state capitals", for example, that would be a challenge. You presented a problem of trying to find a city that is more dangerous "for a white guy" than Oakland. The word fits, and you haven't demonstrated otherwise.

      "You can bring the definition of challenge all day long, but you need to bring the definition of question."

      No, you disputed the term "challenge", so I don't need to bring the definition of "question". That would obviously be irrelevant.

      "BTW, I see you have started the usual grammar corrections/lessons during your replies."

      Factually, you protested the use of "challenge", so you "started" the discussion. That's a cute little game; you accuse me of telling "lies", then you take the warranted response as a "prime signifier that one has given up". So either I let your absurd charge stand, or you get to pretend that I'm deflecting. Besides that, of course, your "since it is well known" line is just a baseless assertion; you have nothing to show that any such thing is "well known" outside of your wishful thinking.

      Is that the best you can do?

      Delete
    38. "Bring the context for the "impression" statement or STFU."

      It's on this thread, from the comment directly above where I first posted here. What are you disputing? If you can't explain how the quote is supposedly misleading, then you have no reason to make the demand. This would be especially obvious when the full comment is right here for you to see. It's not as if I'm referring to an old thread that you might not remember at all.

      Step up, or shut up.

      Delete
    39. "Do you realize that you specified "white" people as victims?"

      No, I did not. I specified ONE person only. Show me where I included ALL white people in that quote. (that is a challenge).

      "What is that supposed to say about the PEOPLE committing crimes in that area?"

      Umm, they are criminals who commit crimes? What are YOU insinuating that I said?

      "No, you disputed the term "challenge", so I don't need to bring the definition of "question"."

      Wrong, yet again, I stated fact. Is there a problem with using facts during a discussion? You should try it sometimes. Any time. Maybe just once or twice, for a change? Those are challenges.

      "It's on this thread, from the comment directly above where I first posted here."

      That's exactly right. So, you should have no problem apologizing for using it out of context and basing your entire whine on an out-of-context statement.
      You are telling ME what I "believe" based only on an out-of-context statement:
      "You believe that there's an actual reason to be afraid, so it's odd that you used the phrase "under the impression" as if you believed something different.". If my quote is used in text of the entire paragraph, then there is no way you could logically and/or intelligently come to the conclusion of what I believe as you claimed it to be.

      Explain yourself. Or correct yourself.

      Delete
    40. "I specified ONE person only."

      So you're wondering about the statistics of crime rates regarding you in Oakland? Has there been a study on that?

      "What are YOU insinuating that I said?"

      I'm taking your reference to race as being relevant to your meaning. Did you specify "a white guy" for no reason? If there was a reason, what was it?

      "Wrong, yet again, I stated fact."

      No, you expressed an opinion regarding meaning. You didn't substantiate it. Yet again, I have to remind you that you don't dictate truth.

      "That's exactly right."

      I'm glad you've caught up on that much.

      "So, you should have no problem apologizing for using it out of context and basing your entire whine on an out-of-context statement."

      You should have no problem explaining how the context changes the implied meaning. Yet, you haven't done so.

      "If my quote is used in text of the entire paragraph, then there is no way you could logically and/or intelligently come to the conclusion of what I believe as you claimed it to be."

      You haven't provided any explanation of how any other conclusion is supposed to be reached based on "context". When you do that, we can move forward. Until that time, you'll presumably just whine impotently.

      Delete
    41. "I'm taking your reference to race as being relevant to your meaning. Did you specify "a white guy" for no reason? If there was a reason, what was it?"

      You're asking me about something from another thread? Why don't you use that thread to ask that question?

      " Yet again, I have to remind you that you don't dictate truth."

      I didn't say "truth", I said fact.

      So, nothing more on topic?


      Delete
    42. "You're asking me about something from another thread?"

      You haven't had a problem commenting on it here until this moment. Again: "Did you specify "a white guy" for no reason? If there was a reason, what was it?"

      "I didn't say "truth", I said fact."

      Distinction without a difference. You're asserting your opinion as fact, therefore you're trying to dictate what the truth is.

      Some points you avoided:

      "So you're wondering about the statistics of crime rates regarding you in Oakland?"

      "You should have no problem explaining how the context changes the implied meaning."

      "You haven't provided any explanation of how any other conclusion is supposed to be reached based on "context"."

      You previously seemed to think that you were owed an apology, but now you aren't interested in justifying it. I'll take that as an admission that you were being disingenuous at the time, and you admit to what you clearly said.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    43. Ooo I guess you got me. (note the sarcasm)

      Delete
    44. I like how when your errors are pointed out you go straight to the "anything else" comment while ignoring the facts that are brought to the discussion on a topic you seem to ignore while making up your own shit to whine about. With the new year, I wonder if you'll change your usual tactics (misleading, misquoting, misinterpreting) and actually discuss what's being discussed.

      Too bad you can't discuss honestly or intelligently.

      Delete
    45. You didn't point out any errors, nor did you present any facts. You claimed that you were being misrepresented, then you clammed up when given the opportunity to explain how.

      Until you fix your behavior, you're just whining because you don't like being held accountable for your hypocrisy.

      Delete
    46. I'll give you some starting points:

      "Did you specify "a white guy" for no reason? If there was a reason, what was it?"

      "So you're wondering about the statistics of crime rates regarding you in Oakland?"

      "You should have no problem explaining how the context changes the implied meaning."

      "You haven't provided any explanation of how any other conclusion is supposed to be reached based on "context"."

      And no, to preempt your typical response, you did not address any of those.

      Delete
    47. "a white guy"

      What article is that from? Bring the quote and direct link to the statement. Until you do that your demands are meaningless because you cannot (or will not) provide proper documentation of your claims (whines).

      ""So you're wondering about the statistics of crime rates regarding you in Oakland?""

      What's a matter? Are you afraid to address what I actually asked before you made that statement? I thought so. You typically refuse to answer direct questions, instead opting for unrelated comments that you seem to think are important.

      ""You should have no problem explaining how the context changes the implied meaning.""

      Done that. You just seem to have a problem with reading comprehension ... selectively.


      So, ignoring actual statements and creating your own in place of what I actually said isn't being very honest or intelligent. My challenge stays in effect: are you capable of honest, intelligent conversation? I say you will continue to not be intelligent or honest. But, that is just MHO

      If you continue your usual MO, I will just reply in turn; playing you like a fiddle.
      BTW, you are SO easy to play. You sit there waiting for my every reply, you'd be completely lost without me to post to. It is completely hilarious how I can make you post any time I want. You are such a toy. Albeit dishonest/unintelligent one ... a toy just the same.

      Since you insist on discussing off-topic subjects on this thread: how come you haven't posted anything countering what I have to say about cops being killed by criminals and criminals being killed by cops?

      Delete
    48. A couple issues you have ignored since I asked:

      "No, I did not. I specified ONE person only. Show me where I included ALL white people in that quote. (that is a challenge)."

      "Umm, they are criminals who commit crimes? What are YOU insinuating that I said?"

      "Wrong, yet again, I stated fact. Is there a problem with using facts during a discussion? You should try it sometimes. Any time. Maybe just once or twice, for a change? Those are challenges."

      "And, yet, many of them still venture into areas that don't like them (according to you) and do business with then. If only "people like you" would do the same and help correct the "social" and "economic" disadvantage that is being discussed."

      "They sure do. And, the words that you brought (of mine) show that I don't use "survival instincts" as an excuse not to do business within the more poor areas. Showing that you have shown how I am NOT a hypocrite. Thanks."

      Delete
    49. "What article is that from? Bring the quote and direct link to the statement."

      Scroll up. I already provided a link.

      "You typically refuse to answer direct questions, instead opting for unrelated comments that you seem to think are important."

      That would seem to be exactly what you're currently doing. You didn't answer the question, and instead tried to deflect.

      "Done that."

      No, you did not. You claimed "out of context", but you never cited any alternative meaning.

      "So, ignoring actual statements and creating your own in place of what I actually said isn't being very honest or intelligent."

      You haven't demonstrated any "ignoring" or "creating". You've only asserted, which is insufficient. That isn't very honest/intelligent on your part.

      "It is completely hilarious how I can make you post any time I want."

      That's funny, considering that you felt compelled to post even though I didn't bother to reply to your previous comment. Something must have been nagging at you.

      "how come you haven't posted anything countering what I have to say about cops being killed by criminals and criminals being killed by cops?"

      My point was regarding your blatant hypocrisy. Try to stay focused.

      "A couple issues you have ignored since I asked:"

      I addressed all of those. The ball's in your court, and you've failed to deliver.

      Delete
    50. "Scroll up. I already provided a link."

      Then, go to that link and ask those questions on that thread. Using this thread to rehash illogical arguments you try to make on another thread isn't going to get you the answers you seek.

      "I addressed all of those. "

      With statements like: "It's still not clear who "people like you" is supposed to be." while responding to a statement about social and economic disadvantages caused by "people like you". It was clearly pointed out who "people like you" are earlier in the thread. Go back and read. If your diversions are all you got then the ball is still in your court since you can't actually discuss what was being discussed when you popped in to change the subject: social and economic disadvantages and who causes it.
      I fully understand why you wouldn't want to discuss that (you're one of those "people like you") since it would make you appear racist for refusing to do business with people living in poorer areas based solely on race (like Eddie). Especially when you promote that it would go against your "survival instincts" to enter the poorer areas of this nation (like Eddie). Making you more of a racist.

      "You claimed "out of context", but you never cited any alternative meaning."

      Yes I did. Go back and read.

      Delete
    51. "Then, go to that link and ask those questions on that thread."

      No, you answer them here. There's no reason not to do so, if you actually have a defense. Also, if you admit that there might be a link, why did you ask for one as if I hadn't provided one already ("...because you cannot (or will not) provide proper documentation of your claims...")? That's an interesting inconsistency on your part.

      "It was clearly pointed out who "people like you" are earlier in the thread."

      Did that group include you? If not, then what distinction are you making, considering that you think that Oakland is dangerous for white people?

      "I fully understand why you wouldn't want to discuss that (you're one of those "people like you") since it would make you appear racist for refusing to do business with people living in poorer areas based solely on race (like Eddie)."

      Your claimed concept of what might "appear" as racist is meaningless. Again, I don't live anywhere near any such area, so there's no reasonable expectation for me to patronize any businesses within one. You can call that an "excuse" all day, but any sane person knows better.

      "Especially when you promote that it would go against your "survival instincts" to enter the poorer areas of this nation (like Eddie)."

      You said that Oakland is dangerous for white people. Again, you aren't disputing "survival instincts", you're only claiming to ignore them during your commute.

      "Yes I did."

      No, you did not. You never showed what difference the context was supposed to make. Without that explanation, your quote proves that you are a hypocrite, and you were dishonest in claiming any misrepresentation.

      Delete
    52. "Did that group include you? If not, then what distinction are you making, considering that you think that Oakland is dangerous for white people?"

      If you aren't able to follow along in simple conversations, why do you even show up, here? Go back and read what was being discussed (before you changed the subject). If you have trouble understanding what was being discussed, then of course, continue with your subject change. After all, that IS why you changed the subject ... because you aren't intelligent enough to follow along with simple conversations.

      "Again, you aren't disputing "survival instincts", you're only claiming to ignore them during your commute."

      I never made such a claim. Unless you're creating more shit and then say I made the claim. If you're done lying, perhaps you should try honesty for a change.

      "You never showed what difference the context was supposed to make. "

      Yes I did. Go back and read. Without your apology, it shows what a liar you are for taking quotes out of context and YOU saying they mean something according to YOUR imagination with nothing to back up what you say other than your imagination. I do not have to defend myself against lies that you make up.

      Delete
    53. "Go back and read what was being discussed (before you changed the subject)."

      I've read it. Again, did "people like you" include yourself or did it not?

      "I never made such a claim."

      I wasn't asserting you used that specific phrase. You can't deny that you recognize "dangerous" areas, since your point was that Oakland was dangerous. So, unless you're using some definition of "dangerous" which doesn't involve potential harm, then "survival instinct" would obviously apply.

      "Yes I did."

      No, you did not. Show me where you demonstrated context and how it changed the meaning of your words. You can't do it, obviously, because it never happened.

      What were you saying about not answering direct questions? You seem to be displaying your hypocrisy yet again, further substantiating my point.

      Delete
    54. I'll give you another chance at this one: "Also, if you admit that there might be a link, why did you ask for one as if I hadn't provided one already ("...because you cannot (or will not) provide proper documentation of your claims...")?"

      Really, if you want to talk about honesty/intelligence, you have to explain that one. Otherwise, you can't very well criticize me for anything if I provided a link and you then pretended that I didn't.

      So, did I post the link that you then asked for again, or not?

      Delete
    55. "No, you did not. "

      I sure did. Go back and read it. You won't bring links to your claims why should I?

      "I wasn't asserting you used that specific phrase. "

      Then, you admit to being a liar. Since you said I made that claim and now you say you didn't. The liar is making up more shit. Which is it liar? You said it or not?

      "Really, if you want to talk about honesty/intelligence, you have to explain that one. "

      A liar wants me to explain myself. No thanks, I'll pass on explaining myself to a liar.

      Delete
    56. You said: "What's hypocritical is for you to say that other people have the "impression" that "those people are dangerous" when you expressed that very idea yourself."
      Then use a link to another thread to show I used the wording of "impression" where I never even used the word. Now, you claim you brought a link that proves something completely different. Make up your mind, braby, just bring it or STFU.

      Don't worry, though, I don't expect a liar to be able to defend his own statements, let alone that same liar try to defend shit he makes up. You'll just make up more shit and say I claimed it.

      ROTFLMAO@U

      Delete
    57. "You won't bring links to your claims why should I?"

      You already admitted that I brought a link. Why are you lying? You also don't have to post a link; summarize what you previously said, if you actually said anything.

      "Then, you admit to being a liar."

      No, I was restating your position. I didn't use quotes. I didn't even use the past tense. I said that you're claiming that you ignore your survival instinct, which you clearly are.

      "Since you said I made that claim and now you say you didn't."

      I never said you "made that claim". By the same standard you're trying to use, you just lied.

      "A liar wants me to explain myself."

      Genetic fallacy, as well as an unsubstantiated assertion. Notice that I explained myself after you accused me of lying, even though you again falsely claimed that I didn't provide a link; your dishonesty doesn't free me from any such obligation. It's a shame that your ethical standards can't rise to that level. In the meantime, I'll take it that you were simply lying when you claimed that I never posted a link.

      "Then use a link to another thread to show I used the wording of "impression" where I never even used the word."

      You said "impression" on this thread. I didn't suggest that you used it on any other one, sorry. What you quoted was the phrase "that very idea", which would be you saying that Oakland is dangerous for white people.

      "Now, you claim you brought a link that proves something completely different."

      It's not at all different. You saying that Oakland is dangerous for white people is completely consistent with the impression that "those people are dangerous".

      You previously said that the context exonerated you, but now you're trying to backpedal and claim that something's been manufactured. Make up your mind. If you can show how context helps you, do so. Otherwise, the clear meaning of your words stand, despite all your desperate flailing.

      Delete
    58. "What you quoted was the phrase "that very idea", which would be you saying that Oakland is dangerous for white people."

      You are a liar. I NEVER said "white people". Unless you bring the quote where I said that, then you are a liar.

      "You already admitted that I brought a link."

      You brought a link completely unrelated to what you said. And, I've already shown that and you did not refute what I said.

      "You saying that Oakland is dangerous for white people is completely consistent with the impression that "those people are dangerous"."

      Again, you fail at reading comprehension. I said the Oakland AREA is dangerous. I've never said the people LIVING in Oakland are dangerous. AND I NEVER said "white people". You are just too adept at lying that you probably don't even realize you do it all these times that you DO lie.

      "You previously said that the context exonerated you, but now you're trying to backpedal and claim that something's been manufactured."

      Text does exonerate me. AND, I continued to say you manufacture statements/beliefs and attribute them to me. I've pointed that out repeatedly.

      "It's a shame that your ethical standards can't rise to that level."

      You claimed to have brought a link that proves what you said. It did not. It looked like a random link to some other post where you were getting your ars beat in a simple conversation ... yet again. Bringing random links and say they prove something does not qualify as any "ethical" level you want to use unless you want to continue your lying. Which I've shown over and over. So don't whine to me that you lie because of your genetic deficiencies.

      "Again, did "people like you" include yourself or did it not?"

      Oh, I forgot to answer that one. Of course not. How could I be "people like you" since I go into those areas and advance their businesses as possible. "People like you" would include those of you who refuse to enter those areas because of your "survival instincts". Which, BTW, is VERY racist. Are you a racist? It sure seems that way when you defend using "survival instincts" as a reason to avoid areas populated by people you don't want to associate with. You sure make a strong case for YOU being a racist. I guess if you talk like a racist and act like a racist ... you must be a racist.

      Delete
    59. "You are a liar. I NEVER said "white people"."

      I didn't put "white people" in quotes. You said that it was dangerous "for a white guy", which means white people.

      "You brought a link completely unrelated to what you said."

      Funny, you didn't claim that at the time. I quoted you, you wanted the link to that quote, and I provided it. Are you saying that the link didn't contain the quote that I posted in this thread?

      "And, I've already shown that and you did not refute what I said."

      You never said that it was an errant link in any way. All I needed to show was your original quote, and I did that. So, when you again asked for a link to your original quote, why did you do that? Why did you claim that I never provided a link, if you know that I did?

      "I said the Oakland AREA is dangerous. I've never said the people LIVING in Oakland are dangerous."

      You were talking about crime, which is committed by people. What's your theory, that people are commuting into Oakland to commit crimes, as if there's a time clock to punch in at there? Even further, if you aren't talking about people living in Oakland, then how can you attribute the phrase "those people are dangerous" to Eddie? Whatever way it was supposed to work for him, the same goes for you, whether you're talking about people "LIVING" there or not.

      "Text does exonerate me. AND, I continued to say you manufacture statements/beliefs and attribute them to me."

      You would have to show how the context helps you. Just saying it doesn't make it true. The same goes for your second sentence above; you actually have to demonstrate that your words mean something else, not just assert it.

      "You claimed to have brought a link that proves what you said. It did not."

      It proves that you made the quote that I posted here. If you want to claim that there's context which changes the meaning, that's up to you to provide. In the meantime, I did provide the link that you asked for, therefore it's dishonest to claim that I did not.

      "Of course not."

      Then you can't criticize anyone else for the "impression" that "those people are dangerous", since you belong to the group you call "people like you".

      ""People like you" would include those of you who refuse to enter those areas because of your "survival instincts". Which, BTW, is VERY racist."

      No, it's not. I wouldn't want to go to Afghanistan (again), but it has nothing to do with the race of the people. On that note, if I were to say that it was dangerous "for a white guy", that would suggest that the risk is due to race, which is what made your comment racist.

      "It sure seems that way when you defend using "survival instincts" as a reason to avoid areas populated by people you don't want to associate with."

      Again, you recognize "survival instincts" by saying that Oakland is dangerous for white people. What else do you think such instincts are, outside of alerting you to potential danger?

      Delete
    60. " You said that it was dangerous "for a white guy", which means white people."

      Continuing to defend you lie? You said I said "white people". I did not. I said "a white guy". A white guy shops at Macy's, does that mean ALL white people shop at Macy's?

      "Funny, you didn't claim that at the time."

      I didn't need to. But it IS funny how you continue to defend your lies.

      " All I needed to show was your original quote, and I did that."

      That quote did not have "impression" in it, and that was your complaint.

      "You were talking about crime, which is committed by people."

      I asked you for the stats on crimes in that area. You have not brought any stats that show only one race commits those crimes. Therefore, it is your racism that assumes only one race commit crimes in any given area.

      "You would have to show how the context helps you."

      And, I did that. You refuse to read it or lack the capability to understand. I think it is the later.

      "It proves that you made the quote that I posted here."

      A quote unrelated to your crybaby antics. As I said and you have not denied or shown otherwise.

      "Then you can't criticize anyone else for the "impression" that "those people are dangerous", since you belong to the group you call "people like you"."

      Again proving you don't have the intelligence level to understand/comprehend written English. Obviously, I said I do not belong to that group and you say I do.

      "No, it's not. I wouldn't want to go to Afghanistan (again), but it has nothing to do with the race of the people."

      Which further exemplifies your racist attitude. I do business with several Afghanistan people, you say you would not. Making your statement racist. Making you racist.

      "Again, you recognize "survival instincts" by saying that Oakland is dangerous for white people."

      I have never said "white people". You misinterpreted what I said and continue to support that lie.

      Wow, you just keep defending your lies and your racism. And you have the nerve to bring ethics into the conversation.

      Delete
    61. "You said I said "white people". I did not. I said "a white guy". A white guy shops at Macy's, does that mean ALL white people shop at Macy's?"

      No, I didn't put quotes around it as if you used that wording. And what does "a white guy shops at Macy's" mean? Are you telling a story there? Saying that Oakland is dangerous "for a white guy" is a general statement, which is proven by your own reference to statistics.

      "I didn't need to."

      If you had a concern, you would need to say so in order to let that be known. Obviously it wasn't a concern.

      "That quote did not have "impression" in it, and that was your complaint."

      No, it wasn't. Where did you get that from?

      "I asked you for the stats on crimes in that area. You have not brought any stats that show only one race commits those crimes."

      If crime isn't related to race, then why do you think it's dangerous for white people in Oakland?

      "And, I did that."

      No, you did not.

      "A quote unrelated to your crybaby antics."

      It contained the quote that I originally cited. How would that be "unrelated"?

      "Obviously, I said I do not belong to that group and you say I do."

      Because you believe that "those people are dangerous".

      "Which further exemplifies your racist attitude. I do business with several Afghanistan people, you say you would not."

      You travel to Afghanistan often? I doubt that.

      "I have never said "white people"."

      The phrase "for a white guy" means the same thing, until you have an explanation as to who keeps crime statistics regarding you personally. Also, the comment still applies if I use your original wording; you still recognize "survival instincts" because you believe that Oakland is dangerous "for a white guy" to ride a bike through.

      Delete
    62. Here are a couple stats for you (since you are afraid to admit facts):

      Oakland is 1/4 white, 1/4 African American and 1/4 Hispanic. And you assume I ONLY mean one race. Wow, simply ... wow.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland,_California#Race_and_ethnicity

      There are an average of 5 times more violent crimes in Oakland than the national median. Who are YOU blaming for those crimes? Think about that before you spout some racist comment, yet again.
      http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/oakland/crime/

      Delete
    63. "There are an average of 5 times more violent crimes in Oakland than the national median."

      So you specified your race for no reason at all? If it's no more dangerous for you than it is anyone else, then there's no need to say "for a white guy". The only way your comment makes sense if if you think it's more dangerous for you because of your race.

      And, again, if you now want to separate potential danger from race, then Eddie's comment can also be separated from race; whatever it is that makes people of all races dangerous would apply to Detroit as well, therefore it can't be taken as a comment on African-Americans.

      Delete
    64. I'm also especially interested in your travels to Afghanistan. Do expand on that.

      Delete
    65. "If you had a concern, you would need to say so in order to let that be known."

      Umm, I did just that. That's what you're crying about now.

      "You travel to Afghanistan often? I doubt that."

      I never said I did. Still have that reading comprehension problem?

      " you still recognize "survival instincts" because you believe that Oakland is dangerous "for a white guy" to ride a bike through."

      But, I don't use it as an excuse for racism, like you are doing. I don't live in a crime-less area like you insinuate you do. It's only smart to recognize danger. I don't avoid those places, based on race, like "people like you" do, though (my point).

      Delete
    66. "then Eddie's comment can also be separated from race;"

      Eddie specified race. Not me.

      Delete
    67. "Umm, I did just that."

      Not at the time, no.

      "I never said I did."

      You: "I do business with several Afghanistan people, you say you would not."
      how did I suggest that I wouldn't do business with anyone just by saying that I don't want to go back to Afghanistan? If you're setting up a contrast to me not going to Afghanistan, that obviously means that you travel to Afghanistan. Otherwise, there's no difference demonstrated.

      "But, I don't use it as an excuse for racism, like you are doing."

      So you admit to recognizing "survival instincts", so that's clearly a valid reason not to frequent an area. Since there's a valid reason, you can't assume "racism" from it.

      "I don't live in a crime-less area like you insinuate you do."

      I didn't insinuate any such thing.

      "I don't avoid those places, based on race, like "people like you" do, though (my point)."

      If there's danger, then the concern isn't automatically based on race; you are trying to make that exact point regarding your own "for a white guy" comment. So, the same would apply to your "people like you" group. If you want to claim that you recognize danger and there's nothing wrong with that, then you can't apply racism to the exact same understanding as expressed by other people.

      Like I said, all you're claiming is that you ignore "survival instincts", so you can't criticize people for recognizing those instincts.

      "Eddie specified race."

      How so? What exact comment are you referring to?

      Delete
    68. " If you're setting up a contrast to me not going to Afghanistan, that obviously means that you travel to Afghanistan."

      If you're selling that I say "a white guy" means all white people, then you saying Afghanistan means you are talking about all Afghani people.

      "So you admit to recognizing "survival instincts", so that's clearly a valid reason not to frequent an area."

      Apparently you ignored the stats I brought. there's a 4 in 1000 average that anyone (someone) will be a victim of violent crime nationwide. So, there is "danger" everywhere. You use "survival instincts" as an excuse to avoid some areas specifically while there is the same danger everywhere. I recognize danger ion all areas.

      Delete
    69. "If you're selling that I say "a white guy" means all white people, then you saying Afghanistan means you are talking about all Afghani people."

      Wrong. When you say that Oakland is dangerous "for a white guy", there's no other interpretation. You're referring to white people in general. When I say that I don't want to go back to Afghanistan, that means exactly that; it doesn't specify a race, especially since the name of the country doesn't even mean a race. That would be a "nationality". So, contrary to your assertion, I didn't even suggest that I refuse to do business here with anyone from Afghanistan. In case you were unaware, many FOBs actually host local nationals who operate businesses within the wire. That includes the PX, so obviously I didn't have any problems dealing with anyone due to their "race". Stopping in town during a mission to patronize a business, though, was not wise, even though that business owner was of the same race. The difference between those two situations should be clear.

      "Apparently you ignored the stats I brought."

      They aren't relevant to my comment.

      "So, there is "danger" everywhere."

      If every place is "dangerous", then the word has no meaning; it's a relative measurement, as indicated by your original quote. Remember, you challenged me to name a place more dangerous than Oakland, so you already admitted that there isn't "the same danger everywhere".

      Delete
    70. "When I say that I don't want to go back to Afghanistan, that means exactly that; it doesn't specify a race, especially since the name of the country doesn't even mean a race."

      Saying it's dangerous in Oakland doesn't indicate a race either. As the statistics point out.

      "When you say that Oakland is dangerous "for a white guy", there's no other interpretation. You're referring to white people in general."

      Wrong. The context is that I'm talking about ME, not all white people. Your misinterpretation of what was said is your own problem, not mine.

      "They aren't relevant to my comment."

      They are relevant to mine, which is what you are crying about. Right?

      "If every place is "dangerous", then the word has no meaning;"

      Then why are you crying about danger and survival instincts?

      Delete
    71. "Stopping in town during a mission to patronize a business, though, was not wise, even though that business owner was of the same race."

      What "race" would that be? I thought you said they were a "nationality". Make up your mind.

      Delete
    72. "Saying it's dangerous in Oakland doesn't indicate a race either."

      Saying that it's dangerous for white people does indicate a race, because it asserts that race is the reason for the level of risk. And thanks for admitting that my comment had nothing to do with race, therefore your racism charge was false. I accept the implied apology.

      "The context is that I'm talking about ME, not all white people."

      No, the context says the opposite; there are no statistics regarding the crime rate and your. Further, you didn't ask me to name a more dangerous place for you personally, because you couldn't expect me to know of any factors that make any place dangerous to you as opposed to anyone else.

      "Then why are you crying about danger and survival instincts?"

      Actually, that would be you, since you called Eddie a racist for it. I'm simply demonstrating that you previously said that cities are dangerous, and you attributed that risk to your race. So your comment about the "impression" that "those people are dangerous" applies to you.

      Delete
    73. " I'm simply demonstrating that you previously said that cities are dangerous, and you attributed that risk to your race."

      Ahh, but my race is a minority in Oakland and minorities are not racist when they recognize a danger to themselves because of race. People like you use race as the reason they avoid areas and you use "survival instincts" as the excuse. That would make you the racist, not me.

      "No, the context says the opposite; there are no statistics regarding the crime rate and your. "

      Yes there are. Read the stats. I have a 1 in 50 chance of being a victim of violent crime in Oakland.
      BTW my what?

      Delete
    74. "Ahh, but my race is a minority in Oakland and minorities are not racist when they recognize a danger to themselves because of race."

      According to your racial breakdown, there is no majority group. So, again, there's no reason to specify your race unless you think it puts you in greater danger, somehow.

      "People like you use race as the reason they avoid areas and you use "survival instincts" as the excuse."

      No, because the "survival instincts" have nothing to do with race. You haven't established that connection for anyone besides yourself.

      "Yes there are."

      Is that "1 in 50" dependent on race? If not, then why did you mention race?

      "BTW my what?"

      That was something I forgot to edit. Don't comment on grammar, because that means you've given up.

      Delete
    75. "According to your racial breakdown, there is no majority group."

      There are minority races within the city. Mine is one of them. So my statement is true and not racist. Unlike yours.

      " You haven't established that connection for anyone besides yourself."

      Yes I have. I've established it with "people like you" who have no logical reason except race to avoid specific areas.

      "Is that "1 in 50" dependent on race? If not, then why did you mention race?"

      Not dependent. Because I'm one of the minority races in that area. And minority races are allowed to use that excuse. Unlike "people like you" who are completely dependent on race being the reason to avoid certain areas.

      "Don't comment on grammar, because that means you've given up."

      I didn't comment on grammar. I asked what you were talking about. You still haven't clarified.

      Delete
    76. "There are minority races within the city. Mine is one of them."

      If there's no majority to contrast that with, then your comment doesn't make any sense. That would rely on other minorities teaming up against you, obviously.

      "I've established it with "people like you" who have no logical reason except race to avoid specific areas."

      Your assertion is not evidence. Besides, distance is a "logical reason", and failure to recognize that smacks of intellectual dishonesty and desperation.

      "Not dependent."

      Then you had no reason to mention your race.

      "I didn't comment on grammar. I asked what you were talking about. You still haven't clarified."

      I did clarify, because I said that I forgot to edit that word. Quit lying.

      Delete
    77. " That would rely on other minorities teaming up against you, obviously."

      Obviously.

      "Your assertion is not evidence."

      It's good enough to be opinion.

      "I did clarify, because I said that I forgot to edit that word. Quit lying."

      You didn't mention anything about "that word". For all I know you wanted to put another word in. Why do you think I asked "my what"? Sorry, not lying ... again.

      Delete
    78. "Obviously."

      Fascinating. Do other races organize their opposition to white people, or do you think it's more of a natural instinct?

      "It's good enough to be opinion."

      Anything is "good enough to be opinion". What happened to you chastising people for stating opinion and not fact?

      "You didn't mention anything about "that word"."

      I said: "That was something I forgot to edit." I didn't put "that word" in quotes. You seem to have a problem grasping that concept.

      "Why do you think I asked "my what"?"

      Because you were referring to the word "your", which means that when I said that I forgot to edit that part that it was not supposed to read "your". If I had needed to add something, I would have done so. Otherwise, the clear alternative is "you". If you aren't stupid, then you would already have surmised that. If there's a problem here, then I'll be glad to fix it by simply assuming that you're an idiot from this point forward.

      And, either way, I did clarify it simply by admitting that it was an error. Do you want to focus on minutiae, after criticizing me for responding to your comment about word usage? That would be rather blatantly hypocritical of you.

      Delete
    79. "Fascinating. Do other races organize their opposition to white people, or do you think it's more of a natural instinct?"

      I've already fully explained that. Go back and read.

      "What happened to you chastising people for stating opinion and not fact?"

      When facts are required, opinion will not do. What facts are required now? I've already given all the pertinent facts. You haven't brought any so, what further facts are required at this point?

      "If I had needed to add something, I would have done so. Otherwise, the clear alternative is "you". If you aren't stupid, then you would already have surmised that."

      You could easily have wanted to put the word "race" after "your". If you weren't such a crybaby you could have just let it go, but NOOOO, you've got to cry about it till the vessels stick out of your forehead. If you weren't so stupid you would have fixed the word to begin with ... like you said you would have if you were going to add a word after it. Wow, what an ego you have!!

      "If there's a problem here, then I'll be glad to fix it by simply assuming that you're an idiot from this point forward."

      If you stop crying long enough to assume anything, let us know. Your nickname should read cry-braby.

      Delete
    80. "I've already fully explained that."

      I don't see where. In any event, if your comments are somehow justified by being a "minority", then why would that not apply to "survival instincts" for anyone else?

      "What facts are required now?"

      If you're going to assert that "survival instincts" are connected to race, you need more than opinion to substantiate that. You said that you established it for people besides yourself, remember?

      "You could easily have wanted to put the word "race" after "your"."

      Again, if that had been the case, then obviously I would have said so when made aware of the error.

      "If you weren't such a crybaby you could have just let it go, but NOOOO, you've got to cry about it till the vessels stick out of your forehead."

      I told you that I forgot to edit that part. You continuing to talk about it would be you not letting it go.

      "If you weren't so stupid you would have fixed the word to begin with ... like you said you would have if you were going to add a word after it."

      Why would I believe that to be necessary, if "you" obviously fits in the sentence? Are you claiming that you really couldn't figure that out?

      "If you stop crying long enough to assume anything, let us know."

      You're crying about a typo. I admitted the error, and you felt some childish need to continue on. Let it go.

      Delete
    81. "I don't see where."

      That's your problem, not mine.

      "If you're going to assert that "survival instincts" are connected to race, you need more than opinion to substantiate that."

      I've brought the facts that prove what I said. You have brought nothing to show otherwise, that must mean you agree with the facts as they are brought.

      "Why would I believe that to be necessary, if "you" obviously fits in the sentence?"

      At least I now know why you misinterpret/misquote so many of my posts. You just simply add words as you need to make them fit your agenda.


      So, unless you got some facts to dispute my stance or you have an opinion on topic, I take it you are done. Too bad, I was having fun with your.

      Delete
    82. Even though you're done, you still forgot to answer to this exchange:

      You: "Stopping in town during a mission to patronize a business, though, was not wise, even though that business owner was of the same race."
      Me: What "race" would that be? I thought you said they were a "nationality". Make up your mind.

      What race are you talking about? Did you forget to answer or realize you made another "error" and just ignored it? I don't need an answer, that's just the way you seem to work ... make errors, misinterpret, misquote and accept no responsibility for it.

      Delete
    83. "That's your problem, not mine."

      No, it leaves your claim unsubstantiated. That's your problem, since I'm glad to let your argument fall on its face.

      "I've brought the facts that prove what I said."

      No, you have not. As long as there's a reasonable basis of understanding risk, then race is an irrelevant factor.

      "You just simply add words as you need to make them fit your agenda."

      Like you taking the idea of traveling to Afghanistan as a comment about a race? Hilarious. Further, I didn't ask you to "add words"; all you have to do is remove a letter.

      Again: "In any event, if your comments are somehow justified by being a "minority", then why would that not apply to "survival instincts" for anyone else?"

      Delete
    84. "What "race" would that be? I thought you said they were a "nationality". Make up your mind."

      I didn't use the name of the country when saying "race". I didn't say that they didn't have a race, I said that "Afghanistan" is not one. What are you confused about here?

      Delete
    85. "I didn't use the name of the country when saying "race"."

      Sure you did. Maybe you don't remember saying: " So, contrary to your assertion, I didn't even suggest that I refuse to do business here with anyone from Afghanistan. In case you were unaware, many FOBs actually host local nationals who operate businesses within the wire. That includes the PX, so obviously I didn't have any problems dealing with anyone due to their "race". Stopping in town during a mission to patronize a business, though, was not wise, even though that business owner was of the same race."
      You're talking about Afghani people and referring to them as a "race". What race is that? Because you had just said you wouldn't have any problem doing business with "anyone from Afghanistan" then later referred to them as a "race". Twice, actually.

      "No, it leaves your claim unsubstantiated."

      Not true. You just have to find your own way back and read it. Just because you refuse to find it does not mean it isn't there.

      "As long as there's a reasonable basis of understanding risk, then race is an irrelevant factor."

      So, you consider racism to be a "reasonable basis"? Interesting. I've kind of thought that about you all along anyways, so it isn't surprising. But, it is interesting that you would admit to it.


      Delete
    86. "You're talking about Afghani people and referring to them as a "race"."

      No, I'm not. I stated where I was, and simply said that two people in different settings shared the same race. I didn't use "Afghanistan" to label it.
      In contrast, you: "Which further exemplifies your racist attitude. I do business with several Afghanistan people, you say you would not."
      You connected the name of a country with a "race" that would apply to people in other countries. My comment actually made the distinction clear; I would have no problem with any Middle-Eastern ethnicity here, contrary to your baseless accusation.

      "Because you had just said you wouldn't have any problem doing business with "anyone from Afghanistan" then later referred to them as a "race". Twice, actually."

      No, I said "anyone" due to "their" race. Further, I said "same" race for the second example. Neither of those connect "Afghanistan" to "race". Sorry.

      "You just have to find your own way back and read it."

      No, I don't see what you're referring to. That's not due to any refusal to look for it.

      "So, you consider racism to be a "reasonable basis"?"

      No, and you have no basis for attributing "racism" to the comment you quoted.

      Delete
    87. Here's a clue: if I had said "that race", then that could be taken as a reference to "Afghanistan". Saying "their race" doesn't speak to location, it only speaks to the specific race of the individual in question.

      Delete
    88. "I stated where I was, and simply said that two people in different settings shared the same race."

      And, I asked you what race was that. Did you conveniently ignore that part of the question?

      "No, I said "anyone" due to "their" race. Further, I said "same" race for the second example. Neither of those connect "Afghanistan" to "race". Sorry.

      Sure you did. You specifically referred to people from Afghanistan and then referred to their "race". What race is that? (3rd time I've asked).

      "Saying "their race" doesn't speak to location, it only speaks to the specific race of the individual in question."

      Here's a clue: I know that, so what race, of the individual shop owner who you will avoid because of survival instincts, are you talking about? You just keep digging deeper and deeper. You either need to admit you're a racist or get someone (anyone) much smarter than you to get yourself out of the hole you keep digging. Because in your very last statement, you are referring to Afghanis as a race.

      What a moron you are: you take a conversation about cops killing people to you being a racist towards Afghani people. I just don't understand why you would do something so illogical as that. Why couldn't you just stay on topic and avoid all this embarrassment?

      Delete
    89. "And, I asked you what race was that."

      It's not "Afghanistan", obviously.

      "You specifically referred to people from Afghanistan and then referred to their "race"."

      That doesn't identify "Afghanistan" as a race, again. People have a race regardless of location.

      "Here's a clue: I know that, so what race, of the individual shop owner who you will avoid because of survival instincts, are you talking about?"

      If you know that, then you can't connect "Afghanistan" to "their race" as if one speaks to the other.

      "Because in your very last statement, you are referring to Afghanis as a race."

      No, I'm not. Sorry, you have no argument thus far.

      "What a moron you are: you take a conversation about cops killing people to you being a racist towards Afghani people."

      No, "Afghani" isn't a race. You're the one who's confused here.

      Delete
    90. "People have a race regardless of location."

      Yes, I know that. I'm asking what race you are referring to when addressing the Afghani people? Simple question, why are you having such a hard time answering it?

      Delete
    91. "Yes, I know that."

      Then you know that my reference to location wasn't a declaration of race.

      Further, the quote you provided flatly dispels any charges of "racism", because I clearly stated that it was the environment that made patronizing one person's business something to avoid, not their race.

      So, you have no point. Now what?

      Delete
    92. "Now what?"

      I'll just sit back and watch as you refuse to explain yourself for referring to Afghani people in the context of their "race", while you refuse to explain what race you are talking about.

      It's funny as hell to watch you flounder like that.

      Delete
    93. "I'll just sit back and watch as you refuse to explain yourself for referring to Afghani people in the context of their "race", while you refuse to explain what race you are talking about."

      I explained myself entirely. The quote you provided did most of the work for me.

      As I said, the race isn't "Afghanistan". Anything beyond that is irrelevant.

      Delete
    94. "I explained myself entirely."

      Except for the part where you referred to "their race" when talking about Afghani people. I'm simply asking what race are you talking about. You seem to have left that part out of any explanation you have made about that ONE question I have.

      Delete
    95. "Except for the part where you referred to "their race" when talking about Afghani people."

      You've admitted that location has nothing to do with "their race".

      "I'm simply asking what race are you talking about."

      No, you asserted that I was "racist" in some way, so you aren't "simply asking" anything. If that question is somehow relevant, do some research. It's not a homogeneous country.

      Delete
    96. " If that question is somehow relevant, do some research. It's not a homogeneous country."

      Then why did you refer to them (shop-owner) as the "same race"? What race could they be the same as if the country isn't homogeneous? Did you mean the same race as each other? Which I asked: what race. Or, did you mean the same race as you? Which I asked: what race. And you continue to refuse to answer that one simple question. That tells me a lot about your ability to intelligently converse.

      Delete
    97. "Did you mean the same race as each other?"

      Yes, as far as I was able to tell. It's not as if I asked everyone what their race was, but smaller areas tend to have a majority of one race over another. Without any basis of saying otherwise, they would clearly seem to have been of the same race.

      If you explain how your question is relevant to your accusation, we can move forward.

      The entire issue is a deflection anyway, since you're avoiding exchanges like this:
      You: So, you consider racism to be a "reasonable basis"?
      Me: No, and you have no basis for attributing "racism" to the comment you quoted.

      You've been smacked down on everything you've said, so you need to compensate by manufacturing an issue out of my straightforward comments. What a surprise.

      Delete
    98. " Without any basis of saying otherwise, they would clearly seem to have been of the same race."

      So, you will stereotype people based on race and you think that is a "reasonable basis" to be a racist?

      " It's not as if I asked everyone what their race was, but smaller areas tend to have a majority of one race over another."

      Well, what were your choices when you were talking about Afghani people being the "same race" or "their race"?

      Still seem to be avoiding that question. Hmmm You must have nothing else to discuss since the answer to that question relates to the exchange you just brought.

      Delete
    99. "So, you will stereotype people based on race and you think that is a "reasonable basis" to be a racist?"

      There is no "stereotype" involved. So, what are you claiming is "racist"? Be specific.

      "Well, what were your choices when you were talking about Afghani people being the "same race" or "their race"?"

      It's not relevant. Your desperation is amusing, though.

      Delete
    100. Actually, I'll amend that; your phrasing is misleading. I wasn't talking about "Afghani people" as a whole, I was mentioning two particular people in a specific area.

      Delete
    101. "It's not relevant."

      You don't think stereotyping people by race isn't relevant to a discussion on what isn't taught in school about racism? I think you're avoiding the question.

      Delete
    102. "You don't think stereotyping people by race isn't relevant to a discussion on what isn't taught in school about racism?"

      There was no "stereotyping" involved. Don't use words that you don't understand.

      Delete
    103. Sure there was. When you referred to them as "their race". What race is that?

      Delete
    104. "Hmmm You must have nothing else to discuss since the answer to that question relates to the exchange you just brought."

      So is your insertion of "stereotyping" what you were referring to with that?

      Delete
    105. "Sure there was. When you referred to them as "their race". What race is that?"

      The recognition of race doesn't qualify as "stereotyping", so the answer is irrelevant.

      I think you're almost out of steam here.

      Delete
    106. Talking about stereotyping in a discussion about what isn't taught in school about racism isn't relevant? Maybe you don't even know what this discussion is about. I guess I would lose a little steam while discussing on topic with someone who isn't.

      Delete
    107. Let me put it this way: when "people like you" stereotype an area of a city inhabited mainly by African/Americans as being so dangerous that you must use an excuse like "survival instincts" to justify completely avoiding the area, you don't consider that racism?
      No wonder there are economic/social injustices in those areas. People like you help promote that ideal.

      Delete
    108. "Talking about stereotyping in a discussion about what isn't taught in school about racism isn't relevant?"

      If you could explain where the supposed "stereotyping" would be, it might be relevant.

      "Let me put it this way: when "people like you" stereotype an area of a city inhabited mainly by African/Americans as being so dangerous that you must use an excuse like "survival instincts" to justify completely avoiding the area, you don't consider that racism?"

      It would have to be based on race in order to be "racism". For instance, believing that people of other races are ganging up against white people would be racist.

      Delete
    109. "It would have to be based on race in order to be "racism"."

      Using your standards, then believing an area is dangerous and you use "survival instincts" instead of "ganging up" as the reason, then that would be racist, too.

      Delete
    110. "Using your standards, then believing an area is dangerous and you use "survival instincts" instead of "ganging up" as the reason, then that would be racist, too."

      No, because "believing an area is dangerous" in itself doesn't speak to race. Also, "survival instincts" would be based on the perceived danger, not the reason for believing that there is danger. You're a little confused, to put it kindly.

      Delete
    111. You say you won't do business with Afghani people because of "their race" and "survival instincts", then won't name the race of the people you won't do business with because you think it is irrelevant in a discussion on racism. All while you think it's justifiable to stereotype based on race.

      I'm not the confused one.

      Delete
    112. "You say you won't do business with Afghani people because of "their race" and "survival instincts", then won't name the race of the people you won't do business with because you think it is irrelevant in a discussion on racism."

      That's a lie. I didn't say that I wouldn't do business with anyone because of "their race", and the quote you posted proved the exact opposite.

      "All while you think it's justifiable to stereotype based on race."

      There is no "stereotype". You're still using a word that you don't understand.

      Delete
    113. That is no lie and the quote that I posted of yours proves it. Hell you're so scared to admit you're wrong that you won't even name the race that you say Afghani people are.

      Delete
    114. "That is no lie and the quote that I posted of yours proves it."

      No, the quote made it clear that race isn't a factor, since I had no problem dealing with the local nationals at the PX. Go back and read it. In the meantime, I accept your apology in advance.

      Delete
    115. Oh I get it, you're claiming you're not racist because you deal with people of other races while in government controlled buildings. Anywhere else in the world (including your neighborhood) you won't dare visit areas where the majority of the people aren't the same race as you because that would cause your "survival instincts" to kick in.

      Delete
    116. "Oh I get it, you're claiming you're not racist because you deal with people of other races while in government controlled buildings."

      You've obviously never seen a FOB PX. Do you think they have a security checkpoint or something? Thanks for the laugh.

      Delete
    117. Sorry, government controlled truck. We didn't have those things back when I was in the Army.
      So, you're not arguing the main pretext of my statement, just the type of construction used for the store you visited.

      I think I'm getting the last laugh.

      Delete
    118. "Sorry, government controlled truck."

      What "control" are you pretending is supposed to make any difference?

      "So, you're not arguing the main pretext of my statement, just the type of construction used for the store you visited."

      If you're going to claim that the "control" over the building makes a difference, then it would help your point if that was actually true.

      Also, pretext: "a purpose or motive alleged or an appearance assumed in order to cloak the real intention or state of affairs" (merriam-webster.com). That would mean that your statement involves deception.

      Thanks for yet another laugh.

      Delete
    119. Still no denial of your racism and the bonus grammar correction.

      Thanks for playing.

      Delete
    120. "Still no denial of your racism and the bonus grammar correction."

      I denied your racism charges multiple times. You can't very well claim that I was making any distinction for "government controlled buildings" when you're talking about an unguarded trailer. That obviously wasn't part of my rationale, because your claim of fact was based on complete ignorance.

      As for "grammar", if you can harp on a typo, then I can laugh at your unwitting admission of dishonesty. If you don't accept that, then you're a hypocrite.

      Funny how that just came around full circle, isn't it?

      Delete
    121. "I denied your racism charges multiple times."

      But you still haven't answered what race the shop owner is ,of that shop you wouldn't go to, because he was the "same race" as others in his area.

      Delete
    122. "But you still haven't answered what race the shop owner is ,of that shop you wouldn't go to, because he was the "same race" as others in his area."

      Why would that make a difference, if I have no problem with the race of the person in the PX? That obviously can't be the reason for not patronizing his business, so there must be another factor involved. On that note, it's not as if I had the option to go shopping during missions, so the phrasing of "you wouldn't" doesn't make any sense. For someone who claims to have been in the Army, you don't seem to know anything about the military at all.

      Delete
    123. "Why would that make a difference, "

      Because your stereotyping creates that false impression of the inhabitants which causes your "survival instincts" to kick in and for you to avoid stereotypically "dangerous" areas. And obviously you're using stereotypes to pass judgement on all people in that area because you won't even admit to what race those people are.
      You can use "survival instincts" all day long and twice on Sunday, for all I care, but it remains true that you are a racist for avoiding areas that have a larger population of African/Americans since you use racist stereotyping in your judgement making.
      Do you avoid your all-white neighborhoods where you live? No, you probably don't.
      Do you avoid your all-black neighborhoods in the nearby cities? Yes, you've already said you do.
      Since the conversation (before you entered) was about social and economic disadvantages of blacks in cities (and America in general) it is very hard for you to deny that your actions contribute to the situation that the liberals (on this forum) were complaining about. Conditions that I correctly pointed out they helped to create. Then you show up and give us all the reasons why you liberals treat minorities that way: stereotyping races to validate your use of survival instincts. You've admitted doing it everywhere you go.
      I just don't see where my use of "you wouldn't" could make a pile of shits difference on your racist attitude and treatment of blacks in America.
      Face it, pal, I'm 100% right this time: people like you contribute to the social and economic disadvantages of blacks in America based on your stereotypical views of blacks in general and how dangerous they are.
      The funniest thing is that you complained when I said I enter areas that you would avoid. Interpretation: you're mad that I am helping low income people out when you will not. Some compassionate liberal you are. Sorry, I forgot, you're the atheist type. Stereotypically, you people don't help anyone except yourselves.

      Delete
    124. "Because your stereotyping creates that false impression of the inhabitants which causes your "survival instincts" to kick in and for you to avoid stereotypically "dangerous" areas."

      There is no "stereotyping". Are you claiming that there's no significant risk for soldiers in foreign countries? This should be amusing.

      "And obviously you're using stereotypes to pass judgement on all people in that area because you won't even admit to what race those people are."

      Except for the local nationals who work on the FOB, who I mysteriously don't apply "stereotypes" to. That's a very selective sort of racism, in this theory of yours. I expect you to crop that last sentence, but feel free to surprise me and refrain from your typical dishonest tactics.

      "You can use "survival instincts" all day long and twice on Sunday, for all I care, but it remains true that you are a racist for avoiding areas that have a larger population of African/Americans since you use racist stereotyping in your judgement making."

      I don't live anywhere near any sort of area that you're talking about. Besides that, by your standard, claiming that minorities are conspiring against you would be "racist stereotyping".

      "Do you avoid your all-white neighborhoods where you live?"

      How would anyone avoid the neighborhood they live in? You need a nap.

      "Do you avoid your all-black neighborhoods in the nearby cities?"

      What "nearby" cities? You're making quite the reckless assumption there.

      "Since the conversation (before you entered) was about social and economic disadvantages of blacks in cities (and America in general) it is very hard for you to deny that your actions contribute to the situation that the liberals (on this forum) were complaining about."

      It's very easy to deny that there's any reasonable expectation for me to travel to any major city to patronize businesses. You haven't even tried to establish that.

      "Then you show up and give us all the reasons why you liberals treat minorities that way: stereotyping races to validate your use of survival instincts."

      You haven't demonstrated any stereotyping on my part. As far as I can tell, you don't even know what the word means.

      Delete
    125. "You've admitted doing it everywhere you go."

      No, I've said that it's not a good idea for soldiers to go shopping outside the wire. You can't possibly claim that's unreasonable, and it doesn't even come close to "everywhere" I go.

      "I just don't see where my use of "you wouldn't" could make a pile of shits difference on your racist attitude and treatment of blacks in America."

      The phrase "you wouldn't" suggests that there's a choice involved, as if I had the opportunity to do it and I "would not". More realistically, I couldn't have done so even if I didn't realize that it was a horrible idea.

      "Face it, pal, I'm 100% right this time: people like you contribute to the social and economic disadvantages of blacks in America based on your stereotypical views of blacks in general and how dangerous they are."

      You must be right, because you've never proclaimed yourself to be right previously. Hilarious. And remember, you're the one who thinks it's dangerous for white people to travel through Oakland, so you can't criticize anyone else here.

      "The funniest thing is that you complained when I said I enter areas that you would avoid. Interpretation: you're mad that I am helping low income people out when you will not."

      You pedaling through Oakland still doesn't suggest any economic benefit for anyone. Sorry. Besides that, we weren't talking about money or even racism at the time. I was simply pointing out that your expectation for me to ride a bike through my area was unreasonable. I gave you the link, so you can go back and read the other thread for yourself.

      "Stereotypically, you people don't help anyone except yourselves."

      Only you're stupid enough to make a prejudiced statement while straining to come up with a way of criticizing me for prejudice. Thanks for yet another laugh at your expense.

      Are you done, or do you want to slam your head against the wall a little more?

      Delete
    126. "Except for the local nationals who work on the FOB, who I mysteriously don't apply "stereotypes" to. That's a very selective sort of racism, in this theory of yours."

      I find that one quite funny. What competition is present at your FOB's? How in the hell can you be thinking one FOB in Afghanistan is going to affect the disadvantage that blacks have in America socially/economically?

      " Besides that, by your standard, claiming that minorities are conspiring against you would be "racist stereotyping"."

      But there is no "minority", you've admitted that yourself. How can you even ask such a ridiculous question when there is no minority other than the "others".

      "What "nearby" cities? You're making quite the reckless assumption there."

      You live in the Jersey area, how far could a city be?

      "Only you're stupid enough to make a prejudiced statement while straining to come up with a way of criticizing me for prejudice."

      I knew I should have written: "note the sarcasm". Silly me for thinking you are smart enough to figure that out. I won't make that mistake again. (note the sarcasm).

      Delete
    127. "What competition is present at your FOB's? How in the hell can you be thinking one FOB in Afghanistan is going to affect the disadvantage that blacks have in America socially/economically?"

      We're talking about your accusations of racism against the people of Afghanistan there. You're the one who's trying to make an issue there, so you should have already known that.

      "But there is no "minority", you've admitted that yourself."

      No, I don't believe I did. Even if I had, try "other races" instead of "minorities" if it helps you focus.

      "You live in the Jersey area, how far could a city be?"

      Who told you that? Your assumptions are getting more specific as we go along.

      "I knew I should have written: "note the sarcasm"."

      How would that be "sarcasm"? Are all the sweeping comments you've made on previous threads supposed to be "sarcasm" as well?

      Still waiting for you to justify your use of the term "stereotyping". You're dead in the water until you do so.

      Delete
    128. A few examples:

      "Are you talking about you atheists? Or are you talking about religious people? First: no (I think they are cheap). Second: yes. Are you kidding me? You don't give at LEAST $10 back to your community each week? Wow, no wonder so many people have a negative impression of atheists"

      "Of course you don't care. That's what I've said about atheists."

      "Nobody cares about atheists."

      "No, I want to act like an atheist. You don't back up what you say, why should I?"

      "Sheesh, an atheist trying to argue religion is like a troll trying to argue with facts ... it just can't happen."

      "But atheists do when they start asinine tangents on subjects they are completely ignorant about."

      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/03/government-welfare-or-private-charity.html

      And that's just one thread. Sorry, but you've firmly established that you're prejudiced against atheists, so your "sarcasm" excuse doesn't hold water.

      Delete
    129. Me: "I'm curious, though, given your frothing at the mouth over anyone who doesn't view the world exactly as you do, would you fire an atheist for their lack of religion?"
      You: "No. I would fire them because they are liars. I wouldn't wan't a liar working for me."

      That's a classic. Even more:

      "Obviously, you know nothing of the Bible or you wouldn't be an atheist. Atheism is for people who don't want to follow rules on morality and they think they can decide better what is moral and what isn't than the God who created everything."

      "Didn't seem to do any good, you immoral atheist."

      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-radical-gay-agenda.html

      "If you have no ability to distinguish good from evil, then you become and atheist or liberal or both."

      "That is why you chose atheism, because you don't want to be bound by laws and you want to do things as you please. Typical liberal action, there."

      "And from your posts, you don't seem to think lying is wrong either. But, that's ok. I fully understand your reasoning since you chose atheism and it's implied and inherent lack of morals."

      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/07/another-old-friend.html

      That's enough for now. I look forward to your crying when I check back in.

      Delete
    130. "Sorry, but you've firmly established that you're prejudiced against atheists, so your "sarcasm" excuse doesn't hold water."

      Whew ... that was funny. Thanks for reminding me what a punk-ass religion you follow. Come to think of it, you never have denied thats how it is in your religion. So, you're right, I didn't need the sarcasm statement. You people are cheap.

      prej·u·dice noun \ˈpre-jə-dəs\
      : an unfair feeling of dislike for a person or group because of race, sex, religion, etc.
      : a feeling of like or dislike for someone or something especially when it is not reasonable or logical

      So, there must be no prejudice if my descriptions and feelings are fair, reasonable and logical.

      Delete
    131. "Thanks for reminding me what a punk-ass religion you follow. Come to think of it, you never have denied thats how it is in your religion."

      Of course, I've explained to you how atheism is not a religion, which most people over the age of eight years old know already.

      "So, you're right, I didn't need the sarcasm statement."

      Then you lied, apparently. Or you forgot what your viewpoint is, which suggests you might need a CAT scan.

      "So, there must be no prejudice if my descriptions and feelings are fair, reasonable and logical."

      As if any bigot admits that their feelings are anything other than "fair, reasonable and logical". Obviously, you're not the judge of that, and you haven't ever tried to justify your views with anything other than yet more prejudice.

      You forgot to explain your assertion that I live in New Jersey, among other things. Running away from your claims of fact, yet again?

      Delete
    132. "Obviously, you're not the judge of that, and you haven't ever tried to justify your views with anything other than yet more prejudice."

      I haven't seen you explain your prejudicial views for shopping in inner city areas.

      Delete
    133. "As if any bigot admits that their feelings are anything other than "fair, reasonable and logical". "

      Do you think your feelings on not going to areas of social and economic disadvantages are "fair, reasonable and logical"?

      Delete
    134. "I haven't seen you explain your prejudicial views for shopping in inner city areas."

      Now it's prejudicial to shop in inner city areas? Make up your mind. More seriously, I don't live anywhere near any inner city area. You keep forgetting that.

      "Do you think your feelings on not going to areas of social and economic disadvantages are "fair, reasonable and logical"?"

      Since I would have to travel well over an hour to do so, yes. I also don't shop much in general. If I had millions of dollars, then I could spend enough money to make some discernible difference in such an area. Otherwise, spending extra money on gas in order to spend twenty bucks makes zero sense.

      Your mind slipped again; you didn't explain your claim of fact that I live in New Jersey. Isn't that acting "like an atheist", according to you?

      Delete
    135. "Since I would have to travel well over an hour to do so, yes."

      If you feel that is "fair, reasonable and logical" then according to you, you are a bigot.

      Delete
    136. "If you feel that is "fair, reasonable and logical" then according to you, you are a bigot."

      How so? Try fleshing out an actual thought for a change, instead of making bald assertions.

      Also, why did you claim that I live in "the Jersey area"?

      Delete
    137. "How so?"

      You're the one who said: "As if any bigot admits that their feelings are anything other than "fair, reasonable and logical". Unless your feelings are unfair, unreasonable and illogical, then you fit your own statement.

      Delete
    138. "If you feel that is "fair, reasonable and logical" then according to you, you are a bigot."

      No, saying that bigots like you don't admit to being unfair, unreasonable and illogical doesn't mean that other people don't rightfully claim to being fair, reasonable and logical. Thanks for proving that you're illogical.

      Why did you claim that I live in "the Jersey area"?

      Delete
    139. I've already claimed my feelings are fair, reasonable and logical, so I must fit within the "other people" category.

      Delete
    140. "I've already claimed my feelings are fair, reasonable and logical, so I must fit within the "other people" category."

      No, there's no "must" about it, because bigots don't admit to being bigots. Again, you prove that you have no concept of logic, which doesn't help your claim.

      Why did you claim that I live in "the Jersey area"?

      Delete
    141. "No, there's no "must" about it, because bigots don't admit to being bigots."

      Do I need to remind you so quick: "Since I would have to travel well over an hour to do so, yes." when asked: "Do you think your feelings on not going to areas of social and economic disadvantages are "fair, reasonable and logical"?"
      You answered "yes".

      Just sayin'



      Delete
    142. "You answered "yes"."

      And you haven't even tried to explain how that's anything other than "fair, reasonable and logical". You say a lot of things, but you don't make compelling arguments.

      Why did you claim that I live in "the Jersey area"?

      Delete
    143. "And you haven't even tried to explain how that's anything other than "fair, reasonable and logical"."

      I just wanted to get your interpretation of "bigot". Since you fit the same criteria as you think I do, then you must be one also.

      "You say a lot of things, but you don't make compelling arguments."

      I thought I was participating in a blog. When did "compelling arguments" become a requirement? I've made my "arguments" whether they are "compelling" or not is of little concern to me. I've proven my points and brought my evidence ... you can make your own decision on what is said.

      Delete
    144. "I just wanted to get your interpretation of "bigot". Since you fit the same criteria as you think I do, then you must be one also."

      Not all opinions are equal. You've established yourself as a bigot through your comments, while you have to make wild assumptions in order to assert the same for me. In short, I win.

      "I thought I was participating in a blog. When did "compelling arguments" become a requirement?"

      Did you think that simply making assertions counted for something? That's amusing, considering how you whine about people supposedly not backing up what they're saying or providing facts. That would seem to be a blatant double standard, again reeking of hypocrisy.

      "I've proven my points and brought my evidence ... you can make your own decision on what is said."

      If you had done those things, that would be a compelling argument. You haven't, though.

      Why did you claim that I live in "the Jersey area"? If you can bring evidence to support what you said, you should do so. Otherwise, your assertion that you do bring evidence or make any effort to prove your points can be evaluated in the light of your refusal to answer a straightforward and completely justified question.

      Delete
    145. "Not all opinions are equal."

      Sure they are. You have yours, I have mine, Eddie has his, others have their own. All equal. Opinions are just that ... opinions.

      "Did you think that simply making assertions counted for something?"

      Yes, they count as opinions. It took you THIS long to figure that out?

      " If you can bring evidence to support what you said, you should do so."

      My opinion is you live in the Jersey area. You have something to show otherwise, bring it. It isn't up to me to prove anything. I simply have my opinion ... just like you have yours. If my opinion is wrong, then you can go right ahead and prove it. My evidence stands on it's own, if you can show something (anything) different go right ahead and do it. Otherwise STFU

      Delete
    146. "Opinions are just that ... opinions."

      No, again, I can justify my opinion of your bigotry. You can't say the same for me.

      "Yes, they count as opinions."

      Opinions don't justify themselves, though. If you want to show how distance isn't a relevant factor when you're judging people for not patronizing inner-city businesses, then you have to explain that. Otherwise, your opinion of "bigotry" is completely worthless.

      "My opinion is you live in the Jersey area."

      You stated it as fact.

      "You have something to show otherwise, bring it. It isn't up to me to prove anything."

      No, the burden of proof is on you. You made the claim of fact, so it's up to you to substantiate it. Feel free to explain how you think otherwise.

      "I simply have my opinion ... just like you have yours."

      Wait, so we both have an opinion about where I live? And opinions are equal? Fascinating.

      "If my opinion is wrong, then you can go right ahead and prove it."

      My opinion is that you're a child molester. That's equal to your opinion that you're not, unless you prove otherwise.

      "My evidence stands on it's own, if you can show something (anything) different go right ahead and do it."

      Your "opinion" is "evidence"? You can't even explain what your "opinion" is based on.

      Sorry, as a child molester, you have no credibility. Thanks for playing.

      Delete
    147. By the way, I love how you occasionally claim that I'm a "toy", while I'm so easily able to force you into making psychotic arguments. You can't admit to wrongdoing, so it takes very little effort to get you into a position where you're claiming that your assertion of where I live is an "opinion" and it's supposedly up to me to prove your "opinion" wrong. Especially when I already quoted you whining about atheists not backing up what they say.

      Keep going, if you feel the need to keep digging. I won't complain about having too much material to laugh at you about.

      Delete
    148. "You can't say the same for me."

      I can and I did, using your standards. Thanks for playing

      "Opinions don't justify themselves, though."

      Sure they do. Why do you think they're called "opinions"?

      "You stated it as fact."

      That's your opinion.

      "No, the burden of proof is on you."

      Sorry, I'm not burdened by anything. If you have a problem with my opinion then feel free to set the record straight. I'm not going to do anything you tell me to do just because you tell me to do it. Unlike you, who jumps at every command of mine.

      "Wait, so we both have an opinion about where I live? And opinions are equal? Fascinating."

      That's right, it is fascinating that you have to have an "opinion" as to where you live.

      "That's equal to your opinion that you're not, unless you prove otherwise."

      That's right. The problem is that I give so little weight to your opinion, I really don't care what you think and it makes no difference to me what you think. Do you know how little credence I give to opinions from racist atheists? That's right, very little.

      "Sorry, as a child molester, you have no credibility. Thanks for playing."

      And as a transvestite mass murderer, you have less credibility.

      Delete
    149. "I can and I did, using your standards."

      What "standards"? You can't even use simple words correctly. There was no "standard" in the way you tried to use it.

      "Sure they do. Why do you think they're called "opinions"?"

      They have to be called something, but the name doesn't suggest that they justify themselves.

      "If you have a problem with my opinion then feel free to set the record straight."

      I don't live in the Jersey area, obviously. So, you no longer have any reason to argue that I don't have justification for not traveling all the way to an inner city to go shopping. Your racism claim just evaporated, as if it had any substance to begin with.

      "Unlike you, who jumps at every command of mine."

      That's hilarious, considering your frustration when I wouldn't answer your irrelevant question about the race of local nationals in Afghanistan. How easily you forget.

      "That's right, it is fascinating that you have to have an "opinion" as to where you live."

      Meaning what, that it's not actually a matter of opinion? And as if I don't already know that?

      "Do you know how little credence I give to opinions from racist atheists?"

      You never justified any charges of atheism. Your opinion, by itself, is worthless.

      "And as a transvestite mass murderer, you have less credibility."

      Aw, are your little feelings hurt? You can't escape the point; if you get to assert your opinions as if they're fact, so does everyone else. I'm just glad for the sake your daughters that they're out of your house.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    150. Here's something you probably didn't realize as well; if opinions are supposedly self-justifying, then anyone could say that African-Americans are inherently inferior, violent, etc, and that would be "equal" to any countering viewpoint. Which means that neither of us would even be able to criticize racism. So what, exactly, do you imagine you've been going on about?

      Really, to play into your false claims for a minute, let's suppose that I actually did live in the Jersey area and refused to go into the inner city because of fear. So what? If my opinions justify themselves, there's nothing for you to say against them. You must just have been whining for no genuine reason.

      I guess you're done, then.

      Delete
    151. "I don't live in the Jersey area, obviously."

      Sure you don't. Like anyone (someone) is going to believe a proven habitual unrepentant liar.

      "You never justified any charges of atheism. "

      Why would I need to do that? This conversation was (till you showed up) about social/economic disadvantages faced by blacks in America. But, what would you care about blacks in America. After all, it is you who says: "then anyone could say that African-Americans are inherently inferior, violent, etc,". I don't need to keep proving your racism, you do it enough yourself.

      "If my opinions justify themselves, there's nothing for you to say against them."

      Whether they justify themselves or not, you are a racist when you have those opinions about blacks in America.

      "You must just have been whining for no genuine reason."

      Is making you look like a fool a "genuine reason"? If not, then I haven't had one. If so, then I've been having a very successful time of it.

      "I wouldn't answer your irrelevant question about the race of local nationals in Afghanistan. "

      You can't answer what you don't know. Knowledge is important, just because you don't have any I shouldn't just assume you know things. I guess this is one of the many things you just plain don't know, so you won't answer.

      Delete
    152. "Like anyone (someone) is going to believe a proven habitual unrepentant liar."

      That's just your opinion. Besides, if you can justify your claim of fact that I live in the Jersey area as an "opinion", then anything you can possibly point to to support your claim of "liar" could also be brushed off as being merely my "opinion".

      "But, what would you care about blacks in America. After all, it is you who says: "then anyone could say that African-Americans are inherently inferior, violent, etc,"."

      No, that's not my view, as the context makes clear. But you can't judge that viewpoint even if it was, because you believe that all opinions justify themselves.

      "Whether they justify themselves or not, you are a racist when you have those opinions about blacks in America."

      If all opinions are equal, then there wouldn't be anything wrong with racism. So, again, what are you whining about? Also, you saying that I "have those opinions" is just your opinion, not a fact.

      "Is making you look like a fool a "genuine reason"?"

      I thought you said that the topic was racism before I showed up. How would you be thinking of me before I even showed up here? Sounds like something to discuss with your psychologist.

      "I guess this is one of the many things you just plain don't know, so you won't answer."

      Is that why you kept asking, because you wanted to see if there was something I didn't know? That seems like an odd reason. More likely, and consistent with your previous comments, you thought it was supposed to prove something about my attitude towards a race. Either way, it destroys your claim that I do whatever you tell me to do.

      And again, anyone who says that it's dangerous for white people in Oakland has no grounds on which to criticize anyone else.

      Delete
    153. "No, that's not my view,"

      It's what you wrote. There is nothing that would change the meaning of what you said by using different context. You've been talking continuously about how your "survival instincts" kick in when near black people. You stating that they are "inherently inferior, violent, etc," would seems to prove my stance that you are such a racist. You obviously DO feel that way about blacks, or you wouldn't avoid areas where they live. And you DO avoid those areas, you've admitted it many times.

      "If all opinions are equal, then there wouldn't be anything wrong with racism."

      Obviously, a racist will not think there is anything wrong with racism.

      "And again, anyone who says that it's dangerous for white people in Oakland has no grounds on which to criticize anyone else."

      I've never said it was dangerous for white people. If lying is your only recourse you should think of better lies than one that doesn't even fit within your continual crying about how you can be a racist if you want to.

      Delete
    154. "There is nothing that would change the meaning of what you said by using different context."

      Actually, the fact that the cropped quote begins with "then" suggests that it's a hypothetical scenario. Let's check and see: "if opinions are supposedly self-justifying, then anyone could say that African-Americans are inherently inferior, violent, etc, and that would be "equal" to any countering viewpoint." Amazingly, that is a hypothetical, as proven by the words "if" and "supposedly". So, considering that context, obviously you're misrepresenting my viewpoint. I'd say "nice try", but it wasn't.

      "You obviously DO feel that way about blacks, or you wouldn't avoid areas where they live."

      Or, it could be that I simply don't live anywhere near those areas, which is true for many people.

      "Obviously, a racist will not think there is anything wrong with racism."

      Since you're the one claiming that opinions justify themselves, that would make you the racist. You can't claim that there's anything wrong with racism, because you believe that all opinions are equal.

      "I've never said it was dangerous for white people."

      That's your opinion. If I have the opinion that contradicts that, it's just as valid as anything you want to say.

      "If lying is your only recourse you should think of better lies than one that doesn't even fit within your continual crying about how you can be a racist if you want to."

      Here's a clue: if you can have the "opinion" that I live in the Jersey area, then you can't whine about me using the phrase "white people". That would be hypocritical of you.

      Delete
    155. " So, considering that context, obviously you're misrepresenting my viewpoint."

      Now you're crying about "context"??? Just a little while ago you were proudly using out of context statements (of mine) to whine about something else. What the hell do YOU care about context?

      "That's your opinion. "

      No, that is fact. The good thing about your current line of excuses is that I EXPECT liberals to lie and not take responsibility for their comments. You keep the liberal stereotype a reality. Thanks

      "Here's a clue: if you can have the "opinion" that I live in the Jersey area, then you can't whine about me using the phrase "white people". "

      Here's another clue: you're comparing apples and oranges. Me saying you live in Jersey is an opinion, you saying I've used the phrase "white people" is simply a lie. You can continue lying as much as you want, but every time you claim I used that phrase, you are adding on to the list of your many lies.

      Delete
    156. "Just a little while ago you were proudly using out of context statements (of mine) to whine about something else."

      You never explained how the context changed those quotes. In contrast, I very clearly showed how you cropping my quote changed the meaning. See how that works? Maybe you could learn something today.

      "No, that is fact."

      No, that's your opinion. It's a fact that citing a statistic such as "1 out of 50" or whatever else means that you're referring to people besides yourself. Hence, you were talking about white people, not a single white person.

      "The good thing about your current line of excuses is that I EXPECT liberals to lie and not take responsibility for their comments."

      Like saying that falsely asserting where I live is your "opinion" as if that makes it appropriate? Good job, liberal.

      "Me saying you live in Jersey is an opinion, you saying I've used the phrase "white people" is simply a lie."

      If anything, it's the other way around. I've justified my assessment that you're talking about white people, while you have no excuse for your lie about where I live. Feel free to pursue this, but it won't help your case.

      "You can continue lying as much as you want, but every time you claim I used that phrase, you are adding on to the list of your many lies."

      I never claimed you used "that phrase". You were talking about white people whether you used those words or not. At worst, that's my opinion, and you said that opinions justify themselves.

      Would you like to admit that opinions don't justify themselves? If not, there's nothing you can say about my opinion. Sorry.

      Delete
    157. "It's a fact that citing a statistic such as "1 out of 50" or whatever else means that you're referring to people besides yourself. Hence, you were talking about white people, not a single white person."

      So all odds that are ever produced are ONLY referring to "white people"? You are one crazy liberal. I wasn't talking about white people, I was talking about me. Only me. Your glaring misinterpretation of what is said is a giant failure on your part.

      "I've justified my assessment that you're talking about white people, while you have no excuse for your lie about where I live. "

      I, factually, was talking about ME only. You, mistakenly, claim I was referring to ALL white people.
      I do not know where you live so any statement by me saying where you live is strictly opinion. Until I know where you live all I have is opinion.

      "You were talking about white people whether you used those words or not."

      No, I wasn't. I was talking about one white guy ... me. Your continued lying only makes you look like an idiot.

      "If not, there's nothing you can say about my opinion. Sorry."

      Yes, there is plenty I can say about your "opinion". In fact, I can say what ever I want to say about your opinion. I can say your opinions are wrong. I can say you declare your opinions based on tweaked thought processes. I can say you lie and manufacture statements while stating your opinion. I can say all of that and that is my opinion of your opinions.

      Delete
    158. "So all odds that are ever produced are ONLY referring to "white people"? You are one crazy liberal. I wasn't talking about white people, I was talking about me."

      So you answer the phone with "hi, this is a white guy"? Your claim is that you just refer to yourself as "a white guy" randomly, when you could have simply described Oakland as "dangerous" in general? Oh, no, because other races gang up against white people, according to you. I nearly forgot.

      "I do not know where you live so any statement by me saying where you live is strictly opinion."

      No, pulling facts out of thin air is not "opinion", it's making things up. By your new standard, anything that you've ever said that I've made up can be justified as "opinion".

      "Until I know where you live all I have is opinion."

      There's nothing subjective about saying where I live. It's either true or it's not, there's no arguing about it as if you're talking about the greatest football team of all time. At best you made a baseless guess which suits your argument.

      "Yes, there is plenty I can say about your "opinion". In fact, I can say what ever I want to say about your opinion."

      No, because your "opinion" of where I live is supposedly beyond criticism. As if it's acceptable simply because it's "opinion". By the same standard, you can't criticize anything I deem "opinion". If you want to make up rules to a game, then you'll abide by them.

      "I can say your opinions are wrong. I can say you declare your opinions based on tweaked thought processes."

      Like the "opinion" that I live in the Jersey area? That's wrong. So, that being established, you have no basis for suggesting that I'm in any way obligated to travel a significant distance to go shopping in urban areas.

      You're back where you started. Now what?

      Delete
    159. "I nearly forgot."

      How could you forget the shit you keep making up?

      "Like the "opinion" that I live in the Jersey area? That's wrong. So, that being established, you have no basis for suggesting that I'm in any way obligated to travel a significant distance to go shopping in urban areas."

      How do I know it's wrong? There has never been anything said to prove that I am wrong about that. So, I don't know how you can say anything has been "established". That does bring us back where we started: you being a racist for your use of improper stereotyping of the inner city population and using "survival instincts" to justify your racist stereotyping. Which, as I correctly pointed out before you started taking this discussion off topic, is one of the many reasons that African/Americans are socially and economically disadvantaged in America, including the very areas that you are scared to enter because of your racist attitude towards them.

      Delete
    160. "How could you forget the shit you keep making up?"

      You don't think that people of other races gang up against white people? Let's review:
      You: "There are minority races within the city. Mine is one of them."
      Me: "If there's no majority to contrast that with, then your comment doesn't make any sense. That would rely on other minorities teaming up against you, obviously."
      You: "Obviously."

      "How do I know it's wrong? There has never been anything said to prove that I am wrong about that."

      Because you never had any reason to think that it was right, for one thing. Further, I'm the authority on where I live, so my assertion establishes the fact of the matter; you have no authority to assert otherwise. Unless you can find something where I said that I live in "the Jersey area" or within reach of any urban area, my word stands. Sorry.

      "That does bring us back where we started: you being a racist for your use of improper stereotyping of the inner city population and using "survival instincts" to justify your racist stereotyping."

      You've never explained your use of "stereotyping". You think that other races are ganging up against white people, so please explain what "racist stereotyping" you're claiming exists and is different from what you believe.

      Delete
    161. "You don't think that people of other races gang up against white people?"

      I've never said it, though, have I? How can you say I believe something that I've never said?

      "You think that other races are ganging up against white people, so please explain what "racist stereotyping" you're claiming exists and is different from what you believe."

      Again, I've never said that. You, on the other hand, have admitted to stereotyping blacks and where they live as so dangerous that you admitted to using "survival instincts" as an excuse to avoid going into the areas they live. Which, BTW, fully supports my stance that "people like you" are the reason that blacks, in America, are socially and economically disadvantaged.

      Delete
    162. "I've never said it, though, have I? How can you say I believe something that I've never said?"

      You admitted to it when you said "obviously". If I ask you a question and you say "yes", is that not equivalent to you saying it?

      "Again, I've never said that. You, on the other hand, have admitted to stereotyping blacks and where they live as so dangerous that you admitted to using "survival instincts" as an excuse to avoid going into the areas they live."

      You said that Oakland was dangerous for white people. Even if I ignore the last part of that, you still described Oakland as dangerous. So, even in your wildest dreams, you can't criticize anyone else for saying that "where they live" is "dangerous".

      Even besides that, I never said that I used "survival instincts", and you haven't even explained what "stereotyping" you're talking about. Further, I don't live anywhere near any urban area, so that's a valid reason not to go into an urban area. By your logic, it's "people like you" who are responsible for the poor economy in Michigan, because you don't spend any money there.

      By the way, I love how your magical notion of "opinion" disappears when you want to say "I've never said it". You go from claiming that any facts that you can't possibly know are grounds for you to spout "opinion" to asserting that nothing can be attributed to you unless you type the exact words. You can tell me where I live, but your admission to believing that other races are conspiring against you doesn't count for anything.

      Again, that's extremely hypocritical of you. Have you noticed a pattern with that?

      Delete
    163. "You admitted to it when you said "obviously". If I ask you a question and you say "yes", is that not equivalent to you saying it?"

      You never asked a question, though. You said something didn't make sense and I said obviously.

      "You said that Oakland was dangerous for white people."

      No I have not. Where have I said that it was dangerous for white PEOPLE?

      "Even if I ignore the last part of that, "

      Which you have over and over. It's tough for you to discuss on-topic, so I will expect you to continue to ignore it.

      "Further, I don't live anywhere near any urban area, so that's a valid reason not to go into an urban area."

      Given your habit and propensity for lying, I cannot be expected to believe that.

      "By your logic, it's "people like you" who are responsible for the poor economy in Michigan, because you don't spend any money there."

      Not true. My logic includes all of America (I live in America). Your assumption is that I adversely affected an economy of somewhere I do not live. When you make shit up, like that, you really expose your lack of knowledge on any given subject. No wonder you keep ignoring the topic.

      "You go from claiming that any facts that you can't possibly know are grounds for you to spout "opinion" to asserting that nothing can be attributed to you unless you type the exact words."

      You mean I am becoming like you? Oh God no, I don't want that. But then, I have called you a hypocrite several times. For some reason you keep denying it, but you say I do things the way you do them and you say I am a hypocrite for that. That is not very logical.

      Delete
    164. "You never asked a question, though. You said something didn't make sense and I said obviously."

      I didn't say that I asked a question. The word "if" leads to a hypothetical scenario. Also, "obviously" didn't apply to "didn't make sense", it applied to the way that what you said could make sense, so you admitted to it. Otherwise, you would simply be saying that what you had said was nonsensical. Is that your claim, now?

      "Where have I said that it was dangerous for white PEOPLE?"

      Feel free to explain how it's dangerous for only you, and what that has to do with you being "a white guy". You haven't yet tried to do so, and in the meantime you must be referring to white people. Especially since you cited statistics which apply to everyone and not just yourself.

      "Given your habit and propensity for lying, I cannot be expected to believe that."

      Your assertion of lying has no weight. By the same token, you don't travel through Oakland to get to work, so you can't use that as a contrast by which to chastise anyone else. See how that works? If you expect your claims to be accepted, then you need some objective basis for disputing my statements about my own personal circumstances.

      "My logic includes all of America (I live in America). Your assumption is that I adversely affected an economy of somewhere I do not live."

      I don't live anywhere near an urban area. Your assumption is that I adversely affect an economy of somewhere I do not live.

      "But then, I have called you a hypocrite several times."

      While I justify my claims. That's a major difference which doesn't suit your abilities, obviously.

      "For some reason you keep denying it, but you say I do things the way you do them and you say I am a hypocrite for that."

      I deny it because you never have a sensible basis for the charge. You simply saying something is meaningless; you actually have to make arguments to support what you say. This has always been a problem for you, as anyone familiar with your behavior can see.

      Notice, for example, that you don't actually address what I say about your hypocrisy; you merely assert the opposite. If you actually weren't a hypocrite, you'd be able to make an argument in your defense instead of vomiting up the equivalent of "I'm rubber and you're glue".

      Delete
    165. "By the same token, you don't travel through Oakland to get to work, so you can't use that as a contrast by which to chastise anyone else."

      Yes, I do. 6 days a week. So I can use that as contrast to chastise anyone (someone) else. And, since you've already said you don't go to poorer neighborhoods of cities, then you are one I get to chastise because of your racist stereotyping and using "survival instincts" to justify that racism. Just because you don't live "near" an area doesn't release you from blame, because any time you are near one you will avoid it because of your stated racist stereotyping.

      Delete
    166. "Yes, I do."

      Sorry, I have no reason to believe you. So, you're obviously scared to go into urban areas, just as you say others are.

      "And, since you've already said you don't go to poorer neighborhoods of cities, then you are one I get to chastise because of your racist stereotyping and using "survival instincts" to justify that racism."

      You've never explained any "stereotyping". I also didn't say that anything about "survival instincts" when talking about the distance between my house and any inner city area.

      "Just because you don't live "near" an area doesn't release you from blame, because any time you are near one you will avoid it because of your stated racist stereotyping."

      Who said that I do that? Did you misinterpret something, or did you just make that up because can no longer claim that distance is an "excuse"?

      Delete
    167. "Sorry, I have no reason to believe you."

      You're belief is irrelevant.
      You're an irrational liberal, I don't expect you to accept anything from a right-winger. BTW, you also have no reason to not believe me. That would be irrelevant also, though. Because you can have your own opinion.

      " I also didn't say that anything about "survival instincts" when talking about the distance between my house and any inner city area."

      Maybe not, but you sure did about entering that kind of an area.

      Delete
    168. "You're belief is irrelevant."

      Your belief is irrelevant, which is why you can't use my supposed location of "the Jersey area" as part of your argument against me. I'm glad you finally caught up on that.

      "BTW, you also have no reason to not believe me."

      No, by your logic, I can point to quotes that you made up out of thin air and attributed to me, cropped quotes, bald-faced lies and any number of intellectually dishonest statements on your part. If you want to claim that you can tell me where I live based on your assertion of "liar", then I can do the same for you with actual justification. And your refusal to accept your responsibility for your behavior doesn't help you, since I've proven every accusation you've ever made against me as being false, and you still try to discredit me with them.

      "That would be irrelevant also, though. Because you can have your own opinion."

      That makes no sense. If I'm allowed to have an opinion and use it as evidence, as you did, then how can it be "irrelevant"?

      "Maybe not, but you sure did about entering that kind of an area."

      Look, another lie. And right after you avoid a question about you asserting "any time you are near one you will avoid it because of your stated racist stereotyping".

      Do you have anything else, or can I expect you to continue to stomp your feet like a child and insist that I said something just because you wish that I had?

      Delete
    169. "Your belief is irrelevant, which is why you can't use my supposed location of "the Jersey area" as part of your argument against me."

      You can live anywhere you want and my claim remains true: you avoid poorer areas based on a racist stereotyping of the area and use "survival instincts" as your reason without even going to the area. Just as I said at the beginning of you entering this conversation .... that "people like you" help cause/promote social/economic disadvantages to black Americans because of that action.

      "That makes no sense."

      That's because you aren't very smart.

      Delete
    170. "You can live anywhere you want and my claim remains true: you avoid poorer areas based on a racist stereotyping of the area and use "survival instincts" as your reason without even going to the area."

      You keep asserting that, but you haven't substantiated it. Who, besides you, said that I don't go into any inner city areas if I happen to be near them? And if that was really your point, why did you feel the need to invent a location for me?

      "That's because you aren't very smart."

      Ad hominem. Notice that you weren't able to explain yourself, which suggests that either you're being dishonest or you're not very smart.

      Delete
    171. Again, you: "Maybe not, but you sure did about entering that kind of an area."

      You need to back up what you say. I didn't say anything about "survival instincts" and entering "that kind of an area" or any similar phrasing. As it stands, you lied about my position, and you don't have the moral fiber to own up to it.

      What a surprise.

      Delete
    172. "You need to back up what you say."

      I've backed up everything I've said. If you have a problem with that it isn't my fault or responsibility to teach you how to comprehend what you haven't been able to so far.

      Delete
    173. "I've backed up everything I've said."

      Repetition isn't substantiation. You never showed where I even suggested that I wouldn't enter an urban area when nearby. You never explained what "stereotyping" that you insist I'm doing.

      Back it up, or admit that you made it up the same way that you invented a location for me. Those are your options.

      Delete
    174. "Repetition isn't substantiation."

      Perhaps you shouldn't enter into a discussion where you don't understand the topic.

      Delete
    175. "Perhaps you shouldn't enter into a discussion where you don't understand the topic."

      Non sequitur.

      Show the quote that you based your comments on, if there is one.

      Delete
    176. "Show the quote that you based your comments on, "

      You can always try this one: "Racism Part 2: What they don't teach you in school"

      Delete
    177. "You can always try this one: "Racism Part 2: What they don't teach you in school""

      That didn't come from me, and it doesn't have anything to do with avoiding urban areas. Try again.

      Delete
    178. You didn't ask for a quote of yours. You asked what I based my comments on. Try to follow along.

      Delete
    179. "You didn't ask for a quote of yours."

      Me:"Repetition isn't substantiation. You never showed where I even suggested that I wouldn't enter an urban area when nearby. You never explained what "stereotyping" that you insist I'm doing."

      Also, the phrase that you cropped, "if there is one", clearly doesn't lend itself to the title of the article. It's a reference to the comment above, since I was again telling you to back up what you said.

      If you really can't keep track of the last few comments, then you should probably be in a controlled environment.

      Delete
    180. "Also, the phrase that you cropped, "if there is one", clearly doesn't lend itself to the title of the article."

      Obviously, you're missing a few cards from your deck. Either that, or you think you're all important and this article that I've been commenting on (of Eddie's) is irrelevant. Do you really think that once you've posted then all comments are directed at you? I've asked you to get on topic several times. Try to follow along.

      Delete
    181. "Obviously, you're missing a few cards from your deck. Either that, or you think you're all important and this article that I've been commenting on (of Eddie's) is irrelevant."

      When you claim that I say something, then your previous comments on the article are irrelevant.

      You have no evidence to support your assertions. Thanks for playing.

      Delete
    182. What did I claim you said that make my previous comments irrelevant?

      Delete
    183. "What did I claim you said that make my previous comments irrelevant?"

      Your previous comments are irrelevant to your claim. Do you have any more stupid questions, or are you finally done?

      Delete
    184. In other words, I didn't make the claim you say I did and you're trying to worm your way out of it? Real good tactic.

      I guess, if that's all you got, then I am done. Unless you actually want to discuss the social and economic disadvantages of blacks in America and who contributes to it being that way (something that isn't taught in school ... the topic)..

      Delete
    185. "In other words, I didn't make the claim you say I did and you're trying to worm your way out of it?"

      No, you claimed that I said something about not going into urban areas due to "survival instincts".
      You: "Maybe not, but you sure did about entering that kind of an area."
      And, you: "You can live anywhere you want and my claim remains true: you avoid poorer areas based on a racist stereotyping of the area and use "survival instincts" as your reason without even going to the area."

      Your previous comments on this thread are irrelevant to those claims. What actually seems to be true is that I didn't make the claim that you say that I did and you're trying to worm your way out of it.

      Run along, now.

      Delete
    186. "Your previous comments on this thread are irrelevant to those claims."

      If, for a second, you had known what the thread is about you'd know that my comments toward you directly relate to my claims before you showed up changing the subject.

      Sorry, I win ... you lose

      Delete
    187. "If, for a second, you had known what the thread is about you'd know that my comments toward you directly relate to my claims before you showed up changing the subject."

      Unless you want to show what I said before I showed up, then nothing that happened before that point can support your claim as to what I said.

      In other words, you made it up. You lose.

      Delete
    188. "Unless you want to show what I said before I showed up, then nothing that happened before that point can support your claim as to what I said."

      So, you are now admitting you said it. Good for you, that should make your conscience feel better. Perhaps now, after all your deflecting and crying, you'll be willing to get back on topic?

      Delete
    189. http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_27340657/oakland-one-dead-five-wounded-friday-night-shootings

      Notice there are no races given for the people involved?

      Delete
    190. "So, you are now admitting you said it."

      How do you figure that? This should be amusing.

      Delete
    191. "Notice there are no races given for the people involved?"

      And?

      Delete
    192. "And?"

      Obviously, your insistence that I am referring to all white people when I said "a white guy" (while describing me) is incorrect. Oakland is dangerous for anyone (someone) other than just me. I brought the stats to prove it, you didn't seem to read those stats because you continued your incorrect claim that I'm talking about all white people. You, OTOH, have brought nothing to prove what you say

      You lose again.

      Delete
    193. "Obviously, your insistence that I am referring to all white people when I said "a white guy" (while describing me) is incorrect."

      Your link doesn't alter what you said. If anything, showing that a source didn't specify race when you did only highlights how racist your "white guy" comment was.

      "I brought the stats to prove it, you didn't seem to read those stats because you continued your incorrect claim that I'm talking about all white people."

      If Oakland is dangerous for "anyone", that would include any white person. And I noted your statistics, because your claim was that you were referring to only yourself, and citing statistics proves that you have to be referring to other white people as well.

      Delete
    194. "And I noted your statistics, because your claim was that you were referring to only yourself, and citing statistics proves that you have to be referring to other white people as well."

      I cited statistics that show "I" have a 1 in 50 chance of being a victim of a crime. Not a 1 in 50 chance of being a white guy victim. So, your continued misinterpretation and use of factual stats makes all your arguments null and void. And your claims of racism are debunked.

      Sorry, you lose once again.

      Delete
    195. "I cited statistics that show "I" have a 1 in 50 chance of being a victim of a crime. Not a 1 in 50 chance of being a white guy victim."

      Yes, and the "50" in "1 in 50" refers to a group of people. Ergo, you weren't talking just about you, contrary to your previous claim. You provided what group you were referring to by mentioning your race, because there's no other possible purpose for doing so.

      Also, since you seem to have missed it:
      You:"So, you are now admitting you said it."
      Me:"How do you figure that? This should be amusing."

      Delete
    196. "You provided what group you were referring to by mentioning your race, because there's no other possible purpose for doing so."

      Factually, the stats don't differentiate based on race. You are incorrect in your misinterpretation and use of those stats.

      "Also, since you seem to have missed it:"

      I haven't missed it.

      Delete
    197. "Factually, the stats don't differentiate based on race."

      But you do. That's why your comment was racist.

      "You are incorrect in your misinterpretation and use of those stats."

      All I've said about the stats is that they disprove your previous claim that you were referring only to yourself. They don't change the nature of what you said. You haven't even tried to explain how that would work.

      "I haven't missed it."

      Are you still struggling to find a response? Otherwise, I'll take it that your claim of an "admission" on my part was a lie.

      Delete