The conservative need to lie in order to be “right”

Posted: August 28, 2015 by watsonthethird in Conservative Hypocrisy, Conservative Idiocy, Current Events, Immigration, Politics
Tags: , , , ,

What is it with conservatives and their rampant propagation of chain emails, photos and Facebook posts that are outright lies? One would think that if their arguments and positions are sound, then they wouldn’t need to resort to such tactics. But sadly, the Internet age has brought them front and center.

I bring this up because a Facebook friend shared this Facebook post the other day:

Robert Rosie Rosenkranz' Facebook post, in which he falsely claims that a photograph of the wall along the United States / Mexico border in Arizona is actually a wall that Mexico built on its border with Guatemala.

Robert Rosie Rosenkranz’ Facebook post, in which he falsely claims that a photograph of the wall along the United States / Mexico border in Arizona is actually a wall that Mexico built on its border with Guatemala.

The Facebook user who posted the photo, Robert Rosie Rosenkranz, claims “This is the gigantic WALL that Mexico built on the Guatemalan border. Hummmm. Imagine that? I guess it is not racist for Mexico to build a wall to keep Guatemalans out.”

Some other Facebook users pointed out that the photograph does not depict the Mexico / Guatmala border, but is actually a photograph of the wall along the United States / Mexico border in Arizona. That didn’t stop Robert Rosie Rosenkranz and his duped conservative friends from posting more fake photos of the Mexico / Guatemala border.

Notice that the photo has been shared over 23,000 times. Even after it was pointed out by several commenters that the photograph was a fake, other users continued to comment as though it is legit. Welcome to the Internet age of conservative misinformation. Apparently, critical thinking is not a strong suit among conservatives.

So what to make of Robert Rosie Rosenkranz’ motives? If he was sincere, he would have acknowledge the error of his post once it was brought to his attention. Instead, he has continued to post more false photos of the supposed Mexico / Guatemala border.

My first personal encounter with this conservative tactic was in January 2008, when I received an email entitled, “FOR ALL TO KNOW….WHO IS BARACK OBAMA,….READ THIS ONE!!!!!!” Now, I barely knew who Barack Obama was at the time. I read the email. It didn’t pass the smell test, but it did advise, “We checked this out on ‘snopes.com’. It is factual. Check for yourself.” So I did. It wasn’t.

Then there was the one about Obama’s draconian income tax plan. The email (intentionally) failed to take into account how marginal tax rates work, instead calculating taxes owed based on the using the highest marginal tax rate on an individual’s entire income. I corrected these as I got them, but I soon grew tired of it and realized that it didn’t really matter because no amount of correction would cause them to stop.

Things like this–especially the “FOR ALL WE KNOW” email–simply help drive me to the Obama campaign. Incidentally, I exchange email with dozens of former Obama volunteers, and I have never received lies like this from them. Rather, this seems to be a conservative thing to do.

Which brings me back to the beginning of this post. If conservative positions are as sound as they claim they are, then why do they need to persistently and repeatedly lie? Why do they need to dupe other people in order to bring them to their point of view?

Advertisements
Comments
  1. rustybrown2014 says:

    Hate to admit it, but I have to side with the right on this one. Seems like concern and outrage over racially charged murders is a decidedly one way street in this country. Apparently, white lives don’t matter:

    “Whereas the media spent weeks after the murders in Charleston discussing Dylann Roof’s racism and even drummed up an entire tangent against the Confederate flag–because in one photo Roof was seen with one–the race war that Flanagan wanted is of less interest to some in the media,” wrote Breitbart’s Warner Todd Huston in an editorial. “CNN, for instance, wrote an entire report focused on Flanagan’s mental state but mentioned his comments about race only once in a 1,500 word story. A CBS report never mentioned the shooter’s racial comments at all.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/28/in-coverage-of-roanoke-killings-the-right-sees-a-racial-media-bias/

  2. “Apparently, white lives don’t matter”? Such hyperbole.

    So okay, Dylann Roof kills nine black people in a church–a church–because he hates black people and is a white supremacist. Flanagan, a black, gets enraged that nine black people were killed solely because they were black and decides to kill white people in retaliation. Both acts were heinous, and both of them were obviously racially motivated. But I’d say the circumstances weren’t exactly the same and that is part of the reason for the difference in media coverage. Plus, if you ask me–not that you did, haha–the history of black persecution and essentially state-sanctioned violence against blacks, perpetrated by whites, plays into the present day perception of events. (We just observed the 60th anniversary of the killing of Emmett Till, a 14-year old black young man who was murdered for having the audacity to talk to the white woman who owned the grocery store where he was buying some candy; of course, the killers got off scot-free.)

    Meanwhile, there have been 243 pro-Confederate (white lives matter!) rallies since Charleston, with more planned. What do you make of them?

    • rustybrown2014 says:

      Hyperbole? Yes, it’s sarcastic hyperbole in response to the hyperbole of “black lives matter”, or perhaps even their charming protest chant: “Pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon!” Last Friday a black man took that message to heart and pumped 15 bullets into the back of a white police officer as he was filling his car with gas, killing him.

      Of course the circumstances in these murders aren’t the same, they never are, but in all honesty do you really believe the HUGE discrepancy in the mention of race in these stories is mostly because of body count and location? And BTW, Flanagan wasn’t just motivated by the Charlston shooting; he has a long history of maintaining a severe racist persecution complex. Like an increasing number of people these days, he was convinced that white devils are responsible for all harms.

      If there is to be hyperbole, perhaps it would be more fitting coming from whites, seeing that they are most often the victims of violence between blacks and whites by a large margin. That includes hate crimes. And whites wouldn’t have to go back 60 years to find something to be hyperbolic about–they could just look at the latest statistics from the FBI or DOJ. I’m quite sure these facts would come as a complete surprise to most Americans.

      What do I make of pro Confederate rallies? Not much.

      • Rusty, I didn’t need to go back 60 year to “find something to be hyperbolic about.” I mentioned it parenthetically because the 60th anniversary happened to pass a couple of days ago and therefore is a timely example of how past history might affect the present. Actually, we only need to go back a few weeks or months to find examples of racially motivated murder of black people.

        I think most of the discrepancy in coverage has to do with the history of black and white people in America. (Forgive me for thinking that things that happened years or decades ago may still resonate with some people.) The “white lives matter” meme is laughable because white people control (and always have) most of the wealth and most of the levers of power in the United States, and for much of American history, white lives have been the ONLY lives that matter. I guess in an ideal world you could look at each of these events in a vacuum, but this isn’t an ideal world and we don’t live in a vacuum.

      • According to the most recent FBI hate crime statistics (for 2013):

        In 2013, law enforcement agencies reported that 3,407 single-bias hate crime offenses were racially motivated. Of these offenses:

        66.4 percent were motivated by anti-Black or African American bias.
        21.4 percent stemmed from anti-White bias.
        4.6 percent resulted from anti-Asian bias.
        4.3 percent were motivated by anti-American Indian or Alaska Native bias.
        3.2 percent were a result of bias against groups of individuals consisting of more than one race (anti-multiple races, group).
        0.1 percent (3 offenses) were motivated by bias of anti-Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. (Based on Table 1.)

        Doesn’t sound like an epidemic of hate crime exclusively against white people to me. Black people suffer the most hate crime of any racial group–more than all other races combined, and well beyond their representation in the population as a whole.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Watson, you’re ignoring the elephant in the room–the fact that whites are far more likely to be the victims of black violence than the other way around. This being the case, why is it not reported in your opinion? Because history? I mean, If we need only look back weeks to find black victims of white attackers as you say, rest assured that there will be many more whites who suffered at the hands of black criminals, but they didn’t make the news because they don’t fit the narrative. There’s something more than history going on here.

        You may find “white lives matter” a “laughable” meme, but it’s really no laughing matter. What’s really not funny is blaming the innocent victims of rapes, maulings and murders for circumstances and history beyond their control. You do realize that the overwhelming majority of white people in this country have no ties to white “control”, “levers” and “wealth” whatsoever, don’t you? I think the divide you mean to emphasize is the one of wealth and class. Yes, white people have been the the beneficiaries here, but only a very small minority of them. Most white people have had to scrabble by in destitute conditions that rival black economics. What does your typical poor redneck woman have to do with power structures? If the answer is nothing then why does her rape and murder count less in your book? Is she disposable because she happened to have the same amount of melatonin as Rockefeller?

        Regarding your second post about hate crimes, you’re not looking hard enough into the stats. You must take population into account to draw any conclusions:

        “In 2013 24.3% of all hate crime offenders were black. According to the last census, blacks make up 12.6% of the population. That means that blacks commit hate crimes at nearly double the rate of their population percentage.

        Now let’s compare that to whites: The FBI reports that 52.4% of hate crime offenders were white. Keep in mind that the FBI considers Hispanics as whites so the percentage of actual white hate crime offenders is likely much lower. In any case, non-Hispanic whites make up 63.7% of the US population. Throw in the Hispanics and it’s 72.4%. Either way, whites commit hates crimes at a rate lower than their population percentage.”

        http://downtrend.com/71superb/new-fbi-stats-blacks-more-likely-to-commit-hate-crimes-than-any-other-race

        And keep in mind these numbers are just for hate crimes, which are designated very subjectively. I think it’s much more likely for whites to be charged with hate crimes than a blacks. Flanagan’s murders, for example, have not been designated hate crimes to my knowledge despite the mountain of evidence that he was motivated by race. When you look at crime stats for general violent interracial crime the picture is much more damning against blacks.

      • That’s a lot to unpack.

        Yes, I know that blacks commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes. I haven’t made excuses for that. I suggested a reason for why there might be a difference in the coverage of hate crimes in the media.

        I think the FBI hate crime statistics I quoted above (from the FBI website) speak for themselves. Maybe I’m missing something, but the FBI says that two-thirds of racially motivated hate crimes were were motivated by anti-Black or African American bias. Granted that was 2013, but I don’t see that there is some anti-white hate crime epidemic occurring now.

        You do realize that the overwhelming majority of white people in this country have no ties to white “control”, “levers” and “wealth” whatsoever, don’t you?

        They don’t need to be “in control” or “wealthy” to benefit. White people as a group have benefited from the other white people in control, with levers, and with wealth. A practice like redlining, for example, benefited white people as a group and disadvantaged black people as a group. Or discriminatory hiring practices that favored whites at the exclusion or near exclusion of blacks. Sorry, but when my dad got his city government job out of high school, he wouldn’t have gotten it if he was black. I guess I really don’t know how you can deny that black people have been historically and systematically disenfranchised in this country up until at least recent times, if not still today.

        Most white people have had to scrabble by in destitute conditions that rival black economics

        Really? Most white people? I don’t think that’s true, but I welcome evidence to your point if you’d like to present it. I think white people have generally had a huge advantage over black people for most of the history of this country.

        What does your typical poor redneck woman have to do with power structures?

        I guess by “redneck” you are picturing some poor, destitute woman in Appalachia, as opposed to a “redneck” woman married to a “redneck” man whose family has a history of benefiting from Jim Crow. Come on, Rusty. Are there white Americans living in abject poverty? Yes. Does that take away from the point that black people have been systematically disenfranchised in this country? No.

        If the answer is nothing then why does her rape and murder count less in your book?

        I never said her rape and murder count less in my book. Where did I say that?

        Is she disposable because she happened to have the same amount of melatonin as Rockefeller?

        I never said or even implied that such a person, or any person, was disposable.

        This being the case, why is it not reported in your opinion? Because history?

        Yes, I think the historical circumstances of black people in this country has a lot to do with it. The case of Emmett Till, though 60 years old, is still remembered by the black community as an example of the kind of injustice that occurred too frequently. One juror claimed that they would have acquitted the killers more quickly except they stopped to get something to drink. Charming. So yeah, when the police kill an unarmed black man and there are no repercussions for the police, then I can understand where the roots of the rage might come from, even if the police had justification in the killing.

        It’s just my theory, Rusty. If you don’t like it, you’re welcome to offer your own.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Maybe I’m missing something, but the FBI says that two-thirds of racially motivated hate crimes were were motivated by anti-Black or African American bias. Granted that was 2013, but I don’t see that there is some anti-white hate crime epidemic occurring now.

        Nobody claimed there’s an epidemic of anti-white hate crime going on now. Personally, I think the hate crime moniker is a distraction, but if you want to debate it I feel what I’ve already presented is clear: blacks commit far more hate crimes against whites based on their population than the other way around. I’m sorry to sound condescending but you do understand the concept of statistics based on representative populations, right? I’ll let the (FBI) stats speak for themselves in context to this point.

        To your second point, I’m not denying that black people have suffered historical discrimination, I’m just pointing out that the most egregious forms of disenfranchisement have happened quite a while ago and are no excuse for the current crop of black criminality and sense of aggrievement, particularly in light of decades of entitlements and programs meant to balance the scales. Look, scales like this can never be precisely balanced, but there comes a time when we have to move on and something like bootstraps and self-sufficiency should be taken into account, no?

        Really? Most white people? I don’t think that’s true, but I welcome evidence to your point if you’d like to present it.

        Yes, most white people. This country didn’t even have a middle class throughout most of it’s history. It was mostly the have and have nots, with blacks and the majority of whites on the shit end of the stick. At the peak of slavery in America, only a fraction over 1% owned slaves. 1 fucking percent. That left a whole lot of white people out of the fold to do the work. Ever hear or indentured servitude? Don’t even get me started. It was a huge industry and the white “servants” were often treated more miserably than slaves because they were rented property rather than owned. Many of their ancestors still live in the US and are, of course, white.

        I never said her rape and murder count less in my book. Where did I say that?

        You said worse. You said ‘white lives matter’, a meme which encompasses the plight of my hypothetical example is “laughable” because her skin is the wrong color. I’m just offering a real world example of what you call laughable. And you’re still ignoring the statistics.

        So yeah, when the police kill an unarmed black man and there are no repercussions for the police, then I can understand where the roots of the rage might come from, even if the police had justification in the killing.

        Yes, this is a point where we differ, by your example, If the police had justification in a killing I guess I don’t see a need for repercussions and rage. I suppose that’s the nut of what we’re talking about. I’m a rationalist. If there is one group that is reliably responsible for the majority of violent crime in this country it seems reasonable to me that a certain percentage of that group might just possibly be gunned down by law enforcement. That’s my theory.

      • Rusty, you came on here initially to make this point: “Hate to admit it, but I have to side with the right on this one. Seems like concern and outrage over racially charged murders is a decidedly one way street in this country. Apparently, white lives don’t matter.”

        You were talking about racially charged murders. Not violent crime in general.

        I gave you the FBI statistics about racially motivated hate crimes, in which two-thirds of racially motivated crimes are motivated by anti-black bias. Again, what am I missing about this statistic? Do you think that most anti-black racially motivated crimes are committed by blacks?

        Now you are talking about violent crime in general, pointing out that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime relative to their portion of the population as a whole. You are right. And it is a terrible tragedy for American society and the black community.

        You now also claim that because I called the “white lives matter” meme laughable, that therefore I think that white people are disposable. Sorry, but that is such a stretch as to also laughable. I mean, I know you like to “win” these arguments, but geez.

        Now you’re trying to claim that white people as a group have historically had it worse than blacks in this country. That white people “were often treated more miserably than slaves.” How often? I mean, slavery was bad enough, but the hundred years after slavery ended wasn’t particularly kind to black people as a whole, either. But according to you, white people are the ones I should really feel sorry for? Wow.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Watson, first of all, racially charged murders and violent crime are not different things; the former is a subset of the latter. They relate to one another in this discussion, so I am not trying to pull a switcheroo as you seem to be implying. In case I haven’t been clear, I’m talking about one group being disproportionately responsible for both categories. I’m also talking about about media coverage and liberal concern which emphasizes outliers of white violence while ignoring or downplaying the real problem: rampant criminality by blacks.

        What you’re missing with the hate crime statistics from 2013 is what I’ve already said. Please read this carefully this time:

        “blacks commit hate crimes at nearly double the rate of their population percentage…..(while) whites commit hates crimes at a rate lower than their population percentage.”

        This means that even though more hate crimes were reported against blacks, blacks are more likely to commit hate crimes than whites based on their population percentages. There is nothing tricky about this. One simply must take population into account (as you have not done) when analyzing these numbers. Furthermore, I’ll point out again that I strongly suspect hate crime designations are awarded more freely to crimes against blacks than crimes against whites. I’m loath to repeat myself, but you’re ignoring salient points in my argument.

        And yes Watson, I’m also talking about crime in general because it’s related to my initial point. Not only are the same group (blacks) overrepresented as perpetrators but the media ignores this side of the coin as well. Here are some facts from the DOJ:

        “…during the 2012/2013 period, blacks committed an average of 560,600 violent crimes against whites, whereas whites committed only 99,403 such crimes against blacks. This means blacks were the attackers in 84.9 percent of the violent crimes involving blacks and whites.”

        Again, with so much black on white violence one has to wonder why blacks aren’t charged with hate crimes more often.

        “Using figures for the 2013 racial mix of the population–62.2 percent white, 17.1 percent Hispanic, 13.2 percent black–we can calculate the average likelihood of a person of each race attacking the other. A black is 27 times more likely to attack a white and 8 times more likely to attack a Hispanic than the other way around. A Hispanic is eight times more likely to attack a white than vice versa.”

        http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/

        Watson, surely you must admit these alarming statistics fly in the face of the media narrative in this country, and that’s germane to my original point.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Watson, as for your derision of the phrase “white lives matter”, I still find your attitude grossly callus. It’s not just a “meme”; I’m talking about real victims of horrible crimes here, innocent people who should not be dismissed because of the color of their skin. In light of the overwhelming statistics of black on white crime, perhaps you could clarify why you think “black lives matter” is a noble meme while “white lives matter” is laughable.

        I never said “white people as a group have historically had it worse than blacks in this country.” I said that most whites in this country suffered poverty similar to that of blacks. I’ve pointed out that at the peak of slavery in America, only a fraction over 1% owned slaves. Think of the millions of dirt poor palefaces that came over from Europe through the centuries and you’ll start to get my point.

        I did mention that indentured servants often had it worse than blacks and stand by that. According to Wikipedia, “about half of the white immigrants to the American colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries were indentured. During the late 17th and early 18th centuries poor children from England and France were kidnapped and sold into indentured labor in the Caribbean for a minimum of five years, but most times their contracts were bought and sold repeatedly and some laborers never attained their freedom.”

        These people often came to this country in chains and suffered horrible conditions. They were indeed often treated worse than slaves because slaves were a lifelong investment while servants were merely “rented”.

        “Indentured servants were no better than property. An indentured servant’s contract could be bought or sold like currency — which meant that masters could buy or sell servants as punishment or retribution.

        Many indentured servants did not live long enough to serve out their term, having died from what was called the “summer seasoning” — illnesses that were not found in Europe that killed many new arrivals to the Colonies.

        Indentured servants were frequently overworked, especially on the Southern plantations during planting and harvesting season. Corporal punishment of indentured servants was expected for rule infractions but some servants were beaten so severely they later died. Many servants were disfigured or disabled. Masters were rarely punished for killing or severely injuring their servants. Other indentured servants did not get enough to eat, subsisting on bread and water, which contributed to their overall poor health.”

        I can provide you with many more sources outlining the misery that most whites endured in our first centuries, but you should really read up on it yourself. I can tell it would be eye opening for you.

        http://education.seattlepi.com/were-indentured-servants-treated-english-5824.html

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Here’s some more to get you started (hey, you asked for it):

        “An estimate published in 1670 alleged that 10,000 British subjects had been kidnapped that year. A pamphlet issued ten years later reckoned that ten thousand Brits were still being captured per year, every year. If those stats are reliable, this would total 100,000 British kidnapping victims in the 1670s alone. In the history of slavery in America, fewer than 400,000 black slaves were imported. For all the bad rep Amerikkka gets about black slavery, it probably received no more than six percent of all African slaves shipped to the Western Hemisphere. (Psst—blame Brazil.) Making only mild extrapolations from these British kidnapping estimates, and surmising that roughly ten thousand whites were also abducted yearly for a forty-year run all told, the total of unwilling white immigrants brought to America would equal or surpass the number of Africans forced here against their will. And this estimate is probably low, as indentured servitude flourished for over two hundred years, not forty. And I’m not counting the fifty or sixty thousand convicts dragged over here in the 1700s.

        So even though the popular belief is that NO whites were shipped to America against their will, it’s highly possible that MORE whites were brought here unwillingly than blacks. It ain’t a competition, but it sure complicates the picture.

        White indentured servants frequently referred to themselves as slaves. In 1623, Virginia servant Thomas Best wrote that “Master Atkins hath sold me for a £150 sterling like a damn’d slave.” A white servant named Robert Perkins said that his bondage featured “all the Hardships that the Negro Slaves endured.”

        Modern historians would agree. Howard Zinn states that “white indentured servants were often treated as badly as black slaves.” Eugene Genovese claims that “In the South and in the Caribbean, the treatment meted out to white indentured servants had rivaled and often exceeded in brutality that meted out to black slaves….”

        The reason for this was nothing as retardedly ethereal as human hatred. It was the same reason that people beat the shit out of a rent-a-car more readily than a car they own en toto. “The Negro,” argues historian James Leyburn, “was a permanent piece of property and must be conserved; the servant was a temporary investment to be exploited to the full.” In 1770, Annapolis customs surveyor William Eddis reasoned that black slaves, as “property for life,” were “almost in every instance, under more comfortable circumstances than the miserable European, over whom the rigid planter exercises an inflexible severity.” Eddis observed that whites, as temp-slaves, were “strained to the utmost to perform their allotted labour….There are doubtless many exceptions to this observation, yet, generally speaking, they groan beneath a worse than Egyptian bondage.”

        Apparently, some black slaves saw it the same way. “I’d rather be a nigger,” ran a popular plantation song, “than a poor white man.” Elija Henry Hopkins, a black ex-slave from Arkansas, said that “in slavery times, a poor white man was worse off than a nigger.” Black slaves were known to tell anti-Irish jokes to amuse their owners, who often placed the Irish on a social tier below Africans. “My master is a great tyrant,” ran one of the barbs: “He treats me as badly as if I was a common Irishman.” In 1855, when travel writer Frederick Law Olmsted asked a steamboat shipmate in Alabama why the Irish were performing more dangerous work than black slaves, he received this verbal shrug: “Oh, the niggers are worth too much to be risked here; if the Paddies are knocked overboard or get their backs broke, nobody loses anything.”100 It recalls the line from Blazing Saddles: “Alright, we’ll give some land to the niggers and the Chinks, but we DON’T WANT THE IRISH!”

        Read the whole thing, it’s well-written and prodigiously sourced. Starting to feel a wee bit more sorry for them now, Watson?

        http://www.jimgoad.net/whiteslavery.html

  3. What you’re missing with the hate crime statistics from 2013 is what I’ve already said.

    Rusty, I’m going by the FBI hate crime statistics for 2013. According to their data, of the 3,407 racially motivated hate crimes, the race of the offender is known in 2,246 cases. (In 266 cases the race of the offender is unknown, and in 895 cases the offender is unknown.) In the known cases, the race of the offenders breaks down as:

    White: 1,667
    Black: 446
    Other: 56
    Group of multiple races: 77

    So of the racially motivated hate crimes in which the races of the offenders is known, whites committed 74% of the crimes, blacks committed 19% of the crimes. This is pretty close to the overall proportion of the races as a whole, though it is somewhat elevated for blacks relative to their percentage of 13.7% of the overall population.

    I realize that you switched to talking about violent crimes in general–and that’s fine–but your original comment (and the article you linked to) referred specifically to racially charged murders. That’s what I was responding to. Now you want to make this an issue of black crime in general. Fine. I don’t dispute that blacks commit violent crime at a higher rate than their proportion of the population. I think I said that already. I understand how the black proportion of the population plays into that. I gave you a theory as to why the racially motivated murders in Charleston and Virginia might be different. You didn’t like it. So move on.

    But the fact remains that, according to the FBI statistics, there were nearly three times as many racially motivated hate crimes against blacks as against whites in 2013. Since you correctly demand that we take into account the proportion of the races in the overall population, this means that a black person was about 16 times more likely to experience a racially motivated hate crime in 2013 than a white person. This tells me there is not an epidemic of racially motivated hate crimes against white people.

    • rustybrown2014 says:

      Watson, Your stats don’t match the official numbers from the FBI that I’m looking at and I’m providing a direct link below. Here you’ll see that of the offenders 52.4% were white while 24.3% were black. Blacks make up 12.6% of the population, whites 63.7%. For the third time:

      “blacks commit hate crimes at nearly double the rate of their population percentage…..(while) whites commit hates crimes at a rate lower than their population percentage.”

      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2013/topic-pages/offenders/offenders_final

      I see you continue to ignore my assertion that hate crimes are subjectively designated in favor of black victims. There’s a lot of anecdotal evidence to support this. Regardless, the official statistics I’ve presented on overall violent crime make it crystal clear who’s the predator and who’s the prey in our society. It’s also glaringly obvious that the media does not report this. White criminal outliers commonly make the national news while discussions of black criminality are relegated to far right websites. It’s this discrepancy between reality and reporting that is the thrust of my point, not a narrow focus on hate crime stats that are likely bogus anyway, although I still feel the two original shootings, both hate crimes, are likewise illustrative of biased news coverage.

      Thanks for clarifying your thoughts about “BLM”/“WLM”. Your explanation is pretty much what I expected and unsurprisingly, I disagree. You see, the problem is that many people, myself included, see BLM as an almost comically misdirected movement. There simply is no epidemic of police shooting unarmed black men without cause. Do these things happen? Sure. Is it an out of control trend? Not by a long shot. The real epidemic is black violence. If the BLM cared so much about BL, why are they focusing on a teensy minority of shooting victims (who are most often criminals BTW) while ignoring the virtual plague devastating their own community–violent black males? The BLM is idiotic and racist. They actually advocate for LESS policing in their communities. Try selling that to the people being victimized there. I’m sure you heard of the black women’s rat that went viral screaming about how cops were not the problem, the black thugs turning her neighborhood into the wild west were. I found your analogy ludicrous. To be more accurate to the BLM, the kid sitting at the table asking for his fair share already has a double serving.

      Many whites such as myself find the BLM to be hugely offensive in that they’re indicting us for their problems while ignoring or even sanctioning black violence perpetrated against us. Last year, a father had just picked up his parents from the airport and was stopped at a red light with them and his two young children in the car. His head was blown off right in front of them. How was it, Watson, that I knew the race of the shooter before it was reported? Because it’s almost ALWAYS a black guy, and it’s not racist to point out that fact. It pisses me off. Sure enough, it was a black gangbanger shooting at another black hood across the street, daddy was in the middle. I drive that intersection nearly every day, sometimes multiple times, often with my kids. That dad could’ve easily been me or one of my children. BLM? Give me a fucking break.

      As for indentured servants, I don’t know why you’re surprised I went back that far–you were the one who brought up American history. I was merely disabusing you of your quaint oversimplified fiction that “white people control (and always have) most of the wealth and most of the levers of power in the United States, and for much of American history, white lives have been the ONLY lives that matter.”

    • I used this table:

      https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2013/tables/5tabledatadecpdf/table_5_offenses_known_offenders_race_by_bias_motivation_2013.xls

      Yes, I ignored your assertion that hate crimes are subjectively designated in favor of black victims because you didn’t offer any evidence. You may be right, you may be wrong. You certainly don’t take anyone else’s word just because they “strongly suspect” something, which is how you expressed your theory of “awarding” hate crime designations.

      As for BLM/WLM, yes we disagree. We already knew that. Neither one of us is going to change the other’s mind. You think BLM is “idiotic and racist.” I think WLM/ALM is idiotic and racist. So there you go.

      As for disabusing me of my “quaint oversimplification,” sorry, but you did no such thing.

      In any event, good chatting with you, Rusty! No deleted posts. Imagine that.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Watson, I indicated more than just a “strong suspicion” for hate crime status favoring blacks, I also brought up compelling anecdotal evidence. There’s the vast amount of black on white crimes v. the relatively paltry charges of hate crimes for black perps. The fact that they’re tiptoeing around calling Flanagans murders hate crimes even though they clearly are. I’ve poked around a bit and I could present you reams of cases of black on white violence that look suspiciously like hate crimes but are not charged as such; I bet you would have trouble presenting me with one going the other direction. Doesn’t exactly take Sherlock Holmes to sort this one out.

        So in spite of learning that many if not most whites were brought here in chains and worked to death for two centuries you’re still sticking to your “levers of power” historical white privilege meme, even though the vast majority of whites wouldn’t know real power if it hit them in the crotch. Wow. I presented evidence showing that most whites suffered economic hardship (among other things) similar to blacks but you‘re sticking to your guns. That’s an aversion to the facts worthy of a BFVer!

        Nice kicking the ball around with you too!

      • So in spite of learning that many if not most whites were brought here in chains and worked to death for two centuries you’re still sticking to your “levers of power” historical white privilege meme, even though the vast majority of whites wouldn’t know real power if it hit them in the crotch.

        Yes, I am. I don’t find the fact that many Europeans were brought to the colonies as servants to be convincing regarding the plight of black and white people today. The twentieth century (and the nineteenth) are replete with institutional and systemic racism against blacks (and other non-whites) when it comes to hiring (civil service and private sector), housing, voting, education, the justice system… etc. White people, in general, directly or indirectly benefitted from these sorts of racist policies, even if some of them weren’t aware of it. Baseball players in the first half of the twentieth century weren’t known as the smartest group around, nor did they have wealth or power, and yet they most certainly did benefit from racism that prevented blacks from competing for their jobs. And that’s just a very minor example.

        So while it is interesting that white indentured servitude existed in Colonial times and to a certain extent into the early 19th century, I don’t find it reasonable to equate that with the systemic racism that existed institutionally well into the second half of the twentieth century, and to a certain extent still exists today.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Watson, I’m not interested in an historical victimhood competition. Maybe a Chinese person will take it up with you seeing as they were brought over here by the tens of thousands to be treated as sub-human replaceable machine parts for building our infrastructure, but probably not–they’re too busy emphasizing education and achievement to their children while out-earning white Americans in the marketplace. Strange the horrific institutional racism they suffered hasn’t transformed them into a violent underclass. Just lucky I guess.

        It’s a futile exercise to continually compare and contrast who had it worse when and by whom. In fact, I think that’s a big problem we’re facing today: the Professional Grievance Industry. Keep telling a group they’re helpless victims and they’ll start to believe it. We seem to have an endless supply of white liberals providing endless excuses for black violence and failure; why should blacks self-reflect as a community when they can merely blame someone else? I don’t fault them for this, it’s a very human instinct, but a destructive one as well.

        You mention systemic racism happening today. I’m assuming you mean the type of racism that would devastate a population and explain the severe disfunction of the black community. What would that be? Blacks have had decades of liberal policies to benefit from. Affirmative Action has and continues to give them a tangible advantage over whites (and other ethnicities). The court system has been reactive to charges of racial discrimination for some time. Black culture has flourished and penetrated the mainstream market. And blacks enjoy the highest standard of living in America than anywhere else in the world. Why the disfunction?

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Watson, reading this over I realized I missed making an important point: the WLM meme was not hatched solely as a response and provocation to the BLM meme, WLM refers to the problem of black on white violence IN GENERAL that I’ve been talking about, and in my opinion that complaint dwarfs the grievance of innocent blacks dying at the hands of the police. This is also why I started talking about black on white crime in general as opposed to just hate crimes; it wasn’t a misdirection as you seemed to imply but an essential component to the WLM meme which I referenced in my very first post.

  4. Watson, as for your derision of the phrase “white lives matter”, I still find your attitude grossly callus. It’s not just a “meme”; I’m talking about real victims of horrible crimes here, innocent people who should not be dismissed because of the color of their skin. In light of the overwhelming statistics of black on white crime, perhaps you could clarify why you think “black lives matter” is a noble meme while “white lives matter” is laughable.

    I’m sorry if “laughable” came off as callus. I should have spent time trying to express my thoughts better.

    Of course all lives matter. That is obvious, like the sky is blue. But I don’t think that’s what the “white lives matter” and its cousin “all lives matter” memes actually stand for. To me, the memes “white lives matter” or “all lives matter” are meant to dismiss the grievances of black people. Black Lives Matter started as a response to perceived injustices–specifically, police accountability in the shooting of unarmed black men. “White lives matter” started because… oh, because black people started that racist Black Lives Matter! Us poor persecuted white people… those blacks are trying to get something they don’t deserve!

    I think this post on Reddit states a pretty reasonable analogy:

    Imagine that you’re sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don’t get any. So you say “I should get my fair share.” And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, “everyone should get their fair share.” Now, that’s a wonderful sentiment — indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad’s smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn’t solve the problem that you still haven’t gotten any!

    The problem is that the statement “I should get my fair share” had an implicit “too” at the end: “I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else.” But your dad’s response treated your statement as though you meant “only I should get my fair share”, which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that “everyone should get their fair share,” while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.

    That’s the situation of the “black lives matter” movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society.

    The problem is that, in practice, the world doesn’t work the way. You see the film Nightcrawler? You know the part where Renee Russo tells Jake Gyllenhal that she doesn’t want footage of a black or latino person dying, she wants news stories about affluent white people being killed? That’s not made up out of whole cloth — there is a news bias toward stories that the majority of the audience (who are white) can identify with. So when a young black man gets killed (prior to the recent police shootings), it’s generally not considered “news”, while a middle-aged white woman being killed is treated as news. And to a large degree, that is accurate — young black men are killed in significantly disproportionate numbers, which is why we don’t treat it as anything new. But the result is that, societally, we don’t pay as much attention to certain people’s deaths as we do to others. So, currently, we don’t treat all lives as though they matter equally.

    Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase “black lives matter” also has an implicit “too” at the end: it’s saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying “all lives matter” is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It’s a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means “only black lives matter,” when that is obviously not the case. And so saying “all lives matter” as a direct response to “black lives matter” is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.

    As for indentured servants, I’m surprised that you are going back so far since you complained that I brought up a case from 60 years ago. But I’ll stand by the statement that black people have suffered far more systematic persecution in the United States than white people, and that to a certain extent they still do today.

    Anyway, thanks for the chat.

  5. casper says:

    Wow, a debate where both people use facts and no one gets kicked off. Nice job guys.

  6. Watson, I’m not interested in an historical victimhood competition.

    I wasn’t going to comment on this thread any longer, but since you bring this up again… I did do further reading about indentured servants in North America. After doing so, I still find the comparison of indentured servants to slaves to be lacking. They aren’t equatable, in my mind, and only a little comparable. An indentured servant would come to the colonies or states typically on a four to five year indenture. After they served their indenture, they were free citizens. Were there abuses? Of course. But I’ve read nothing to indicate that most indentured servants were routinely unable to end their indentures and thus were no better than slaves. In fact, one article stated that employers began to favor slaves over indentured servants in part because by the time indentured servants were fully trained in their jobs, they had to be released. Slaves, on the other hand, were truly owned property. They couldn’t become free men until their owner freed them or until they died. Not only that, their offspring were also the property of the owner.

    I did find this statement on the wiki page interesting: “An additional problem for employers was that, compared to African slaves, European indentured servants who ran away could not always be easily distinguished from the general white population, so they were more difficult to re-capture.” Indeed. And once a white indentured servant completed his service, he wasn’t “marked” for life, nor were his children. I would also note that although many groups have suffered from persecution and exploration during the history of the United States, it is interesting that the two groups that suffered the most–native Americans and African-Americans–seem to have the hardest time today.

    As for racism today, I would say that voter suppression laws are a form of systemic racism. I also think there is implicit systemic racism. An example would be college legacy admittance policies that favor children and relatives of previous graduates. If your parents and grandparents, etc., were denied admission in the past because of their race, then you surely cannot benefit from such admittance policies. That said, even if systemic racism is hard to find, I firmly believe that implicit racism remains common. I base this on my personal experience on the 2008 Obama campaign, when racism was regularly expressed to me directly. I realize that’s only anecdotal, so take it for what it’s worth, but it was eye opening.

    Watson, reading this over I realized I missed making an important point: the WLM meme was not hatched solely as a response and provocation to the BLM meme, WLM refers to the problem of black on white violence IN GENERAL that I’ve been talking about, and in my opinion that complaint dwarfs the grievance of innocent blacks dying at the hands of the police.

    I don’t recall the WLM meme existing until after the Black Lives Matter movement started. The history of the BLM movement is pretty well documented.

    As for “the problem of black on white violence IN GENERAL,” according to the FBI statistics, a white person is more than six times as likely to be murdered by a white person than a black person. Furthermore, the percent of black-on-white murder matches almost exactly the percent of blacks in the population.

    That said, I haven’t disputed that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime relative to their percent of the population, though they mostly commit these acts against themselves.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Watson, once again, I’m not interested in comparing historical grievances as I see it as an endlessly quixotic and caustic enterprise. Nevertheless, I find it amazing that you feel the need to recite the watered down version of indentured servitude we all were told in grade school (if we were told about it at all) right after I provided well sourced historical accounts that directly contradict the peachy-keen portrayal you favor. If you’re reassured by seeking out talking points which better fit your preconceptions, go bananas. I’ll stand by the historical citations I’ve presented and leave you to your own form of research.

        As far as your examples of current racism goes, I’ll see your legacy admissions and raise you affirmative action admissions. Not only that, college legacy admittance policies have much more to do with classism than racism. More whites admitted to Harvard? Yeah, which whites? Not the ones who’s daddy’s were working the coal mines. Classism, Watson, not racism. Stop seeing things in terms of skin color and start seeing them in terms of wealth and privilege.

        even if systemic racism is hard to find, I firmly believe that implicit racism remains common.

        Well, to quote a great man: “You may be right, you may be wrong. You certainly don’t take anyone else’s word just because they “strongly suspect” something”.

        I don’t recall the WLM meme existing until after the Black Lives Matter movement started. The history of the BLM movement is pretty well documented.

        So what? I said “the WLM meme was not hatched SOLEY as a response and provocation to the BLM meme”, that doesn’t mean it had nothing to do with it. Of course WLM was a response to BLM, but crucially, it was ALSO spawned as a protest against black violence. Get it?

        As far as a white person more likely to be killed by a white person? No shit. It’s called population statistics; I think we’ve been over this. As for your assertion:

        “the percent of black-on-white murder matches almost exactly the percent of blacks in the population.”

        That may be true but it’s also pretty meaningless. Blacks are still proportionately overrepresented in murders as the white-on-black murder rate is WAY below the percent of both the white AND black population. Besides, I’ve been talking about violence, not just murders. And when we talk about violence the statistics are clear: Blacks are far, far more likely to commit violence against whites than the other way around. Again:

        “…during the 2012/2013 period, blacks committed an average of 560,600 violent crimes against whites, whereas whites committed only 99,403 such crimes against blacks. This means blacks were the attackers in 84.9 percent of the violent crimes involving blacks and whites.”

        “Using figures for the 2013 racial mix of the population–62.2 percent white, 17.1 percent Hispanic, 13.2 percent black–we can calculate the average likelihood of a person of each race attacking the other. A black is 27 times more likely to attack a white and 8 times more likely to attack a Hispanic than the other way around. A Hispanic is eight times more likely to attack a white than vice versa.”

        http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/

        I must say Watson, I’m a bit surprised at your sugarcoating and dismissal of both the horrors of white slavery and the clear victimization of whites by blacks. I thought you were open minded to factual arguments.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Here’s a recent incident that is sure to outrage the BLM movement. Two “unarmed” blacks shot by a white cop, egads! But wait, they were thugs who were robbing, assaulting and attacking the officer who shot them in self defense. I’m sure the facts won’t matter because, black.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/olympia-cop-who-shot-unarmed-black-men-was-justified-court-finds_55e78c16e4b0c818f61aa37b

      • Watson, once again, I’m not interested in comparing historical grievances as I see it as an endlessly quixotic and caustic enterprise. Nevertheless, I find it amazing that you feel the need to recite the watered down version of indentured servitude we all were told in grade school (if we were told about it at all) right after I provided well sourced historical accounts that directly contradict the peachy-keen portrayal you favor.

        Rusty, I quoted from the same wikipedia pages that you did! Here’s another quote from wikipedia: “At the end of the indenture, the young person was given a new suit of clothes and was free to leave. Many immediately set out to begin their own farms, while others used their newly acquired skills to pursue a trade. A few became sufficiently prosperous that they were eventually able to acquire indentured servants of their own.” Sounds ghastly. No difference from slavery there, I tell ya.

        What we’re left with is that some indentured servants were abused. Some completed their indentures and went on to be successful and prosperous. How many of each? If you could provide actual data that the vast majority of indentured servants were treated like slaves and held against their will for the rest of their life, then I’d put more stock in your statements about this. But you haven’t.

        Regarding affirmative action: Yes, with respect to college admissions, one thing it does is to counterbalance the systemic advantage that accrues to descendants of previous graduates, nearly all of whom are white. I agree that it is an issue of class, but not only class because of the history of systemic racism in America, from slavery to Jim Crow.

        Regarding existing racism: I didn’t expect you to take my word. You never do. 🙂 All I can say is, there is no doubt in my mind that it exists–in places like Pennsylvania and Indiana, for instance–because I experienced it firsthand.

      • As far as black-on-white murder: You said earlier in this thread, “WLM refers to the problem of black on white violence IN GENERAL that I’ve been talking about.”

        Last night I gave you the FBI statistics that shows :

        a) blacks do not murder whites at a rate higher than would be expected by their proportion of the population.

        b) blacks do not murder whites at a higher rate per capita than whites murder whites per capita. In fact, it turns out that whites murder whites at a slightly higher rate per capita than blacks murder whites. These are the facts according to the FBI.

        You also previously said, “Again, with so much black on white violence one has to wonder why blacks aren’t charged with hate crimes more often.”

        Again, you seem to think the blacks are murdering whites at a rate that exceeds what would be expected from simple population metrics. They are not. There is no more black-on-white murder than there is white-on-white murder when you take into account the portion of the overall population of each. In fact, there is less.

        If WLM is a response to “so much black on white violence,” then based on the FBI statistics, it is a misguided response.

        The fact that whites do not murder blacks in the same proportion has nothing to do with black on white violence. I understand how the American Renessaince website uses statistics to make it sound like black-on-white violence is rampant even though it is not. This is why it is useful to look at the actual statistics. I have also refrained from disparaging American Renaissance, but let’s just say they hold some interesting views.

        https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Watson, Oh, well that just sounds glorious in principle. The terms as written or stated sound positively wonderful. How it was actually practiced is another matter, and there’s a lot of information about that. Did you read the part about how many never made it out of servitude? The part about how a large percentage were kidnapped children? How many died from thee brutal conditions? How children of servants were indentured for life?

        If you could provide actual data that the vast majority of indentured servants were treated like slaves and held against their will for the rest of their life, then I’d put more stock in your statements about this. But you haven’t.

        Yes I have. If you missed this well-sourced link I posted, here it is again. My original position was that many white servants had it just as bad or worse than black slaves. I proved my point. Deal with it. Now I have to prove that a “vast majority” did? Nice goalpost moving, dude.

        For the third time, I’m not interested in comparing historical grievances as I see it as an endlessly quixotic and caustic enterprise–Hey, you know what? A lot of slave owners were good people who treated their slaves nicely! Some blacks had it better in America than they did in the jungles of Africa! Some regarded the practice of working hard for peace, security, and steady meals for nice bosses just dandy! See how tedious this is, Watson?

        All I can say is, there is no doubt in my mind that (racism) exists–in places like Pennsylvania and Indiana, for instance–because I experienced it firsthand.

        Hey, we agree on something! Racism does indeed exist–in places like Chicago and Minneapolis, for instance–because I’ve experienced it firsthand. But the racists were a bit darker than me.

      • Deal with it? I have. And yes, this has become tedious.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        If WLM is a response to “so much black on white violence,” then based on the FBI statistics, it is a misguided response.

        Bullshit Watson. I just gave you the fucking official stats on black violence. And I see you’re still having a hard time distinguishing “murder” from “violence”. Are you being willfully obtuse or just having a bad day? Since you’ve not addressed the facts of BLACK VIOLENCE I’ve presented in any way (you know, little trifles like assault, battery, rapes, disfigurement), I’ll just post them again (btw, I stand by each statement of mine you quoted; what exactly was your problem with them? :

        “…during the 2012/2013 period, blacks committed an average of 560,600 violent crimes against whites, whereas whites committed only 99,403 such crimes against blacks. This means blacks were the attackers in 84.9 percent of the violent crimes involving blacks and whites.”

        “Using figures for the 2013 racial mix of the population–62.2 percent white, 17.1 percent Hispanic, 13.2 percent black–we can calculate the average likelihood of a person of each race attacking the other. A black is 27 times more likely to attack a white and 8 times more likely to attack a Hispanic than the other way around. A Hispanic is eight times more likely to attack a white than vice versa.”

        These numbers are derived from the DOJ. If you have a problem with them, disprove them. Don’t just sneer at the source. You’re better than that.

      • Sigh. Really, Rusty? We’re not done?

        Okay, let’s go back and look at the chart in the American Renaissance page that you cited. The chart is called “Distribution of violent victimizations.” See where blacks committed 13.7% of the victimizations against whites? That’s exactly the same number the FBI reports w.r.t. murder.

        What percent of the population is black? It varies from source to source, but it is 13.x%. According to census.gov, it’s 13.2%

        13.x% of the population committed 13.x% of the violent crimes against whites. If black people were going crazy attacking white people, then they would commit more than 13.x% of the violent crimes against whites. See how that works?

        No one disputes that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime–mainly against themselves. So the real problems are three-fold:

        1) Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime.
        2) Blacks are the victims of a disproportionate amount of violent crime.
        3) Whites are not the victims of a disproportionate amount of black crime.

        Now, have the last word. Anyone actually reading this can make up their own minds.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Okay, let’s go back and look at the chart in the American Renaissance page that you cited. The chart is called “Distribution of violent victimizations.” See where blacks committed 13.7% of the victimizations against whites? That’s exactly the same number the FBI reports w.r.t. murder.

        What percent of the population is black? It varies from source to source, but it is 13.x%. According to census.gov, it’s 13.2%

        13.x% of the population committed 13.x% of the violent crimes against whites. If black people were going crazy attacking white people, then they would commit more than 13.x% of the violent crimes against whites. See how that works?

        Yeah, I see how that works. I also see that while whites make up over 60% of the population while they only commit 10.4% of the violent crimes against blacks. See where that is on our chart? Do you know what that means, Watson? It means that blacks are far more likely to commit violent crimes against whites than the other way around, which was my original point. It also means that all of the calculations on that page which I posted above and that you seem to have a problem with are indeed correct. Dust off your calculator if you don’t believe me. The problem your having is you’re ignoring the huge disparity in the number of victimizations because, again, the disparity in respective populations. Whites were victimized 4,091,971 times compared to only 955,800 victimizations for blacks. So 13.7% (black offending rate) of 4,091,971 (white victimization rate) is WAY more than 10.4% (white offending rate) of 955,800 (white victimization rate). You have to look at all these factors RELATIVE TO ONE ANOTHER, not just relative to population. See how that works?

        So your argument boils down to “Well sure, a black is 27 times more likely to attack a white than the other way around, and yes, blacks were the attackers in 84.9 percent of the violent crimes involving blacks and whites, but at least it’s not more!”

        We agree on another thing: let’s let the readers make up their own minds!

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        That sentence in the fourth paragraph should read:

        So 13.7% (black offending rate) of 4,091,971 (white victimization rate) is WAY more than 10.4% (white offending rate) of 955,800 (BLACK victimization rate).

      • Haha. Thank you for boiling down my argument for me Rusty, as only you can. 🙂

        But seriously, it was a good chat, but I’m done.

        Honest.

        I mean it.

        I really do.

        I think.

      • rustybrown2014 says:

        Thanks Watson. No hard feelings. We obviously have different views on this but I can see where you’re coming from. I used to be more progressive on this issue. Cheers!

      • I can see where you’re coming from, too. No hard feelings here either.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s