Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What we have here ... [View all]1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)203. Do you normally smile ...
rather than admit your error?
Let's recap ...
I said:
I remember a time when DUers used to laugh after those types of people. Times change, huh?
(No mention of race)
You responded:
Since you have ... only been here and posting since 2011 according to your profile.....your memory is relatively new and not to be relied on.
(Questioning my longevity/tenure on this site)
I responded:
I, first found and posted on DU ... long before your profile has you here.
I left, when I could no longer abide having white people telling Black people what is, and is not, racist conduct. I came back because I moved to a different place ... I decided to ignore such condescending posts.
BTW, your attempt at a slap down should, directly inform your thoughts on this discussion ... information is almost always incomplete; so with that knowledge, it is wise to temper our certainty.
I left, when I could no longer abide having white people telling Black people what is, and is not, racist conduct. I came back because I moved to a different place ... I decided to ignore such condescending posts.
BTW, your attempt at a slap down should, directly inform your thoughts on this discussion ... information is almost always incomplete; so with that knowledge, it is wise to temper our certainty.
(Yes. I mentioned race; but note ... I indicated why I left and that I came back ... thereby explaining my registration date and relatively low post count; but clearly not injecting race into the discussion.)
You responded (even on edit ... that didn't help you):
you are so sure of my race ...
Last edited Thu Jun 20, 2013, 02:13 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
perhaps you need to rethink some of your own paradigms
just saying
edited to add the following:
btw, I'm not sure why race has anything to do with anything about this topic, perhaps you could clue me in - you see...I only see peoples, maybe you see just colors of peoples.
Last edited Thu Jun 20, 2013, 02:13 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
perhaps you need to rethink some of your own paradigms
just saying
edited to add the following:
btw, I'm not sure why race has anything to do with anything about this topic, perhaps you could clue me in - you see...I only see peoples, maybe you see just colors of peoples.
(Race didn't have anything to do with my post, except to explain my registration date and low post count ... it was you, having that having not read/ignored/unable to comprehend, what I wrote that focused like a wayward laser on it ... )
I responded:
Based on this comment ... I have an idea ... But puzzle me this: where did your race, whatever it might be, enter into this discussion?
You continued the crazy by posting:
correct me if I'm wrong ... but you are the one who brought up race
(Well, No ... I didn't.)
I attempted to give you an out by responding:
Yes ... you are wrong ... context is important.
My "bring up race" was to explain why I left DU ... and had NOTHING to to with my longevity here or my subsequent comment.
Understand?
My "bring up race" was to explain why I left DU ... and had NOTHING to to with my longevity here or my subsequent comment.
Understand?
Then you went all the way to the crazy by posting the above.
So I ask again ... do you normally smile (and give "debate warnings" , rather than simply say, "Oops, I jumped the shark"?
{Edited to add: But that's Okay ... this is par for the new DU course. }
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
211 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
not at all. not when you have folks on your side who surely have their hair flaming
cali
Jun 2013
#11
My hair used to be calm...because I mistakenly believed we had a government that would
dkf
Jun 2013
#98
What about those of us without any hair? Okay, I guess that's a discussion for
SlimJimmy
Jun 2013
#151
What is this 'metadata' you are speaking of? I was told by the President that my
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#138
It seems more like a 'trust' vs. a 'dis-trust' divide to me. There are those who
HardTimes99
Jun 2013
#124
The lesser of two evils is catching up fast. Cuts to food snaps (Senate Dems voted for it),
forestpath
Jun 2013
#9
Straw men, labeling, other ad hominem tactics, thats the order of the day if you dont completely buy
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#176
I'm also prior service and also took an oath. Why do you feel the need to keep bringing it up?
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#204
You are correct. Once I researched the facts and put them out there both on my show and via
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#152
Thanks for kicking this thread, I almost missed it and it is a very excellent OP.
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#79
Those who disagree with you PREFER to live under an authoritarian state
BeyondGeography
Jun 2013
#38
And here we are discussing it freely on technology that was handed down by the military
BeyondGeography
Jun 2013
#63
You're not missing anything, same old same old yawn inducting 'rah rah' I'm so funny and it is it
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#81
Weak attempts, yes. Considering the sources though your credibiity is being hugely enhanced
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#87
It is not what they believe. Just another distraction technique, best to ignore it. Did you see the
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#84
Consider the sources. I never get upset by anything said by these people, although accusing DUers
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#99
Lol, I went to political bootcamp when Bush was installed in the WH. I used to go to sites
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#103
And those "liberals" who desperately search for any sign of imperfection in the President?
baldguy
Jun 2013
#51
Yeah, but they didn't seem to really care until these allegations were leveled against Obama.
baldguy
Jun 2013
#56
The allegations, what allegations? Leaks is what the President called them. That means they are
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#89
That is NOT what people are upset about. They are upset, try to read this carefully, about
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#97
their abuse is not entertaining, but it is a testimony to your irrefutability
carolinayellowdog
Jun 2013
#119
Then those things should stand up to an examination of the facts, right? nt
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#177
lol Well true, there is that! The OP and another person seem to lovingly stroke their ignore lists
Number23
Jun 2013
#185
They will post 100 saying Obama is dog...that's good enough for the bashers
uponit7771
Jun 2013
#108
stick to the issues and avoid characterizing the motives of folks who bother to respond to you
bigtree
Jun 2013
#147
On this issue, they can't and they seem to know that the facts don't support them.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#170
Asking you questions is NOT BAITING YOU. Why start the damn OP if you're just going
Number23
Jun 2013
#184
The attacks started by those who attacked anyone who didnt think the sky was falling from the
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#155
Doesnt work Nadin. There are lots of articles like this one in 2006 in USA Today
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#165
The ACLU? I quote them. I know, you can't handle the facts here. Like all the rest on your side.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#168
I know the history already, it's in the transcript from my show. The facts are against you.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#171