Stumbled across this vid from the Young Turks. This took place not far from where I live and work. Let em just say that Cenk got it 100% correct. That guy's Black? He's DEAD. Immediately. End of story.
And,yeah: The open carry laws have gotten out of hand.
Who IS this guy?!
Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017, and has returned for 2021! Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"That guy's Black? He's DEAD. Immediately. End of story."
ReplyDeleteNothing racist about that statement. Note the sarcasm
How the hell is that racist?!
ReplyDeleteIf you notice racism you are the racist. Did you not get the memo, Eddie?
DeleteBut if you're concerned about racists suddenly being allowed to be fired, then you're not a racist, somehow. Opposing racism is racism, while empathizing with racists is supposedly something else. It's a funny little world that William lives in.
DeleteRacism, like homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. So if you can't get fired for one, you can't get fired for the other. Likewise, if you can get fired for one, then you can get fired for the other.
Delete"Racism, like homosexuality is a lifestyle choice."
DeleteSadly for you, most people no longer believe that.
"So if you can't get fired for one, you can't get fired for the other."
Religion is a choice, so you must be saying that you can get fired for that as well. If you don't believe that, then there obviously must be some other factor besides "choice" that is in effect here.
"Sadly for you, most people no longer believe that."
DeleteSadly for you, there is no proof that anyone is born gay/transgender. So, it remains a lifestyle choice.
"Sadly for you, there is no proof that anyone is born gay/transgender. So, it remains a lifestyle choice."
DeleteNo, your assumptions aren't true by default. Try again?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"No, your assumptions aren't true by default. Try again?"
DeleteBring the proof that shows otherwise.
"Bring the proof that shows otherwise."
DeleteBring the proof that your assumptions aren't true by default? What do you imagine that you're demanding, specifically? Your claim is not assumed to be true until people disprove it to your satisfaction. There's nothing to suggest that you are right and other people then have to prove that you're wrong.
More realistically, whichever side makes the more compelling argument wins. You claiming that you chose to be straight while never explaining how you made any such conscious decision is not even remotely compelling. You demanding "proof" over and over again isn't any better. Your argument is nonsense, which is why people are turning away from it in droves.
Do you need any further explanation?
"There's nothing to suggest that you are right and other people then have to prove that you're wrong."
DeleteYou're the one who said: "Sadly for you, most people no longer believe that.". Now prove that "most people no longer believe that". Of course you'll need to prove that they DID believe it first. Obviously you agreed with the statement I made, or you wouldn't have said what you said. However, what "most people" believe doesn't alter my statement. That's just another example of your misguided attempts at avoiding the issue.
"Your argument is nonsense, which is why people are turning away from it in droves."
People may be turning away from it in droves, but actual scientists still haven't been able to show being gay/transgender is anything other than choice. There was a time when "most people" thought the world was flat. Scientists proved them to be wrong. Where's the scientific proof that shows I am wrong?
"You're the one who said: "Sadly for you, most people no longer believe that.". Now prove that "most people no longer believe that"."
Deletehttp://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/06/americans-are-still-divided-on-why-people-are-gay/
Note, for extra fun, how the level of education makes a difference.
"Obviously you agreed with the statement I made, or you wouldn't have said what you said."
How do you figure that?
"However, what "most people" believe doesn't alter my statement."
It doesn't alter your belief. It is relevant to the concept of what people can get fired for, though, since popular opinion clearly has an effect on that. You can believe that left-handed people are pure evil, but that doesn't mean that people can get fired for being left-handed.
"People may be turning away from it in droves, but actual scientists still haven't been able to show being gay/transgender is anything other than choice."
They don't have to, obviously.
"There was a time when "most people" thought the world was flat. Scientists proved them to be wrong."
So, you're expecting some scientific breakthrough that proves that homosexuality is a choice? Or are you associating yourself with people who thought that the world was flat? You should clarify that.
" You can believe that left-handed people are pure evil, but that doesn't mean that people can get fired for being left-handed."
DeleteIf it makes their writing sloppy and unreadable it does.
"They don't have to, obviously."
What are you going to do .. fly with the pew research center as your guide for scientific evidence?
"So, you're expecting some scientific breakthrough that proves that homosexuality is a choice?"
Or not choice. What can you bring, which isn't opinion, that shows it isn't choice?
"If it makes their writing sloppy and unreadable it does."
DeleteThat doesn't seem likely even in itself, but then you're not talking about left-handedness. You couldn't discriminate against people for being left-handed without the supposed subsequent factor.
"What are you going to do .. fly with the pew research center as your guide for scientific evidence?"
You asked for specific evidence, and you got it. No scientific evidence is needed at all.
"Or not choice. What can you bring, which isn't opinion, that shows it isn't choice?"
Logic. You lose.
"No scientific evidence is needed at all."
DeleteYou fly with what makes you happy. The rest of us will wait for actual proof.
"Logic."
How logical is it to choose a lifestyle that will garner you ridicule and potential harm (both physical and mental)? Wait, I'm asking someone who has no logic to answer a question on logic. Never mind. Ignore everything I just wrote. You couldn't answer it anyhow ... logically.
"You fly with what makes you happy. The rest of us will wait for actual proof."
DeleteObviously not, since the tide of public opinion has turned violently against your type.
"How logical is it to choose a lifestyle that will garner you ridicule and potential harm (both physical and mental)?"
It wouldn't be, which is exactly why people don't believe that it's a choice. That logic works for my argument, obviously, not yours. Good job.
"It wouldn't be, which is exactly why people don't believe that it's a choice. That logic works for my argument, obviously, not yours. Good job."
DeleteWow, the logic behind that statement! LOL You're saying that people who rape, murder and steal are born that way? Yes, I can see where your logic "works for (your) argument".
"You're saying that people who rape, murder and steal are born that way?"
DeleteNo, I didn't say that at all. That's a straw man argument by you, which is a logical fallacy.
Yeah? Show how. Rapist feel ridicule and are exposed to possible harm (mental and physical), yet it is what they choose. Same can be said for murderers and thieves. So, in fact, you DID say that. How could they "logically" CHOOSE that lifestyle knowing the harm they would expose themselves to?
Delete"Yeah? Show how."
DeleteEasily; I didn't say anything about any of those people.
"Rapist feel ridicule and are exposed to possible harm (mental and physical), yet it is what they choose."
Rape is harmful in and of itself. Homosexuality is not. It's also a specific act, not a lifelong orientation.
"So, in fact, you DID say that."
That's a lie. "In fact", I said no such thing. Your lack of distinction between things that you disapprove of is not my problem.
"Rape is harmful in and of itself. Homosexuality is not."
DeleteNothing harmful about AIDS/HIV. Only the largest most feared deadly epidemic of current history. AND there is no cure. Let me ask you something ... how many deaths are attributed to AIDS/HIV since it's discovery?
"That's a lie. "In fact", I said no such thing."
Using your logic to defend gays does show that you said that.
"Nothing harmful about AIDS/HIV."
DeleteStraight people get AIDS as well. Try again?
"Using your logic to defend gays does show that you said that."
You're still lying. You're injecting your views into my statement, so I'm not responsible for what you attribute to me.
"Straight people get AIDS as well."
DeleteYes, I know that. I've said I would protect my customers from deadly diseases, not only from those most likely to have them. Your misinterpretation of what I said is not my problem or concern. It is something you need to work on.
"Yes, I know that."
DeleteThen your point about AIDS is invalid, obviously.
Obviously, my point flew right over your head. My point is that I can use sickness's and diseases as reasons to exclude anyone I feel like and there is nothing illegal about it.
Delete"My point is that I can use sickness's and diseases as reasons to exclude anyone I feel like and there is nothing illegal about it."
DeleteNo, it wasn't;
Me: "Rape is harmful in and of itself. Homosexuality is not."
You: "Nothing harmful about AIDS/HIV. Only the largest most feared deadly epidemic of current history. AND there is no cure. Let me ask you something ... how many deaths are attributed to AIDS/HIV since it's discovery?"
So, no, you were clearly thinking that you were on another thread. Your point here was that homosexuality was harmful in and of itself, while pointing to a disease that is also carried and spread by heterosexuals.
"Your point here was that homosexuality was harmful in and of itself, while pointing to a disease that is also carried and spread by heterosexuals."
DeleteIn the exchange you brought, I don't see ME mentioning homosexuals ... only the disease. Obviously, you still don't know what my point was even after I fully explained it to you. Try again.
"In the exchange you brought, I don't see ME mentioning homosexuals ... only the disease."
DeleteYou provided my quote about homosexuality not being harmful, so that's the context for your response. If you ignored what you copied and pasted and then went on to talk about something from another thread, then you were very confused. Is that your claim? It doesn't really help you, if you think about it.
Well, if you're going to take things out of context then I'm not required to respond to your lies. Perhaps you should have brought the entire context of what the hell you're talking about instead of paraphrasing out of context statements.
Delete"Well, if you're going to take things out of context then I'm not required to respond to your lies."
DeleteI provided the exact quote that you responded to, and your complete response. You're the one who's talking about something from another thread. If you can provide quotes from this thread that help you, do so. Otherwise, you lose.
"I provided the exact quote that you responded to, and your complete response."
DeleteWell, the facts are that I did not say homosexuals in my comment that YOU exactly quoted and brought. Even after your clarification you haven't brought the quote you say I said.
"Otherwise, you lose."
I don't think so. It isn't me taking things out of context then crying about it when called on it.
"Well, the facts are that I did not say homosexuals in my comment that YOU exactly quoted and brought."
DeleteThat's irrelevant, since you were responding to my comment. You established the context yourself.
"It isn't me taking things out of context then crying about it when called on it."
You haven't shown that I've taken anything out of context. I'm the one providing context that you forgot about when you made your idiotic assertion of meaning.
"You haven't shown that I've taken anything out of context. "
DeleteSure I have. You said I used "homosexual" in the quotes you brought. I did not. You then claim the "context" proves I did, you never brought that context, even after being asked for it.
So, if the best you can do is argue using out of context statements and then lying about the context, I take it you are finished. Thanks for playing. See you on the next thread where you'll take another beat down.
"You said I used "homosexual" in the quotes you brought."
DeleteNo, I didn't.
"You then claim the "context" proves I did, you never brought that context, even after being asked for it."
No, I said that you copied and pasted my quote, which proved that you were referring to homosexuality. I provided the quote that you explicitly responded to, and your full response. You have nothing to complain about.
"No, I didn't."
DeleteBring the context. Prove I am wrong.
"Bring the context."
DeleteI already did: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2015/03/what-if-he-was-black.html?showComment=1428249091567#c837233948668420317
You're the one who's making the assertion here, so it's your job to prove it. I proved that your point was about homosexuality supposedly being harmful in and of itself, not that you used the word "homosexual" in the quote. If you can't find somewhere that I "said" that you used a specific word, or paraphrased, or took you out of context, you were wrong on all three counts.