Racists for Trump

 Racists? Like the black panthers and every other black organization in the country? What a joke you lefty hypocrites are. Have YOU hugged a *****osexual today? Of course not!! Bawahahahahahahahahaha!!

Both KKK and CPUSA members voted for FDR. Did that make him  racist commie?   Actors supported Benito and FDR. Was FDR a crypto fascist?  

direstraits posted:

Both KKK and CPUSA members voted for FDR. Did that make him  racist commie?   Actors supported Benito and FDR. Was FDR a crypto fascist?  

___

No to both your questions, which fail to address the topical question I posted.
I offered no opinion about Trump's own position on race.  I merely pointed out that there are racists who have professed support for him and questioned whether he would reject that support.  Predictably, in your desperation to make some kind--ANY kind--of rebuttal, you slid off into an irrelevant tangential discourse that you probably believe  makes you look like something other than the disordered polemicist you show yourself to be.

Bestworking posted:

 Racists? Like the black panthers and every other black organization in the country? What a joke you lefty hypocrites are. Have YOU hugged a *****osexual today? Of course not!! Bawahahahahahahahahaha!!

___

So "every other black organization in the country" is "racist"? Once again, your irrational, adamantine, absolutist mindset is showing through, Best.  Take a little advice:  Try using such terms as "all" and "every" with some discretion, so that you will not appear to responsibly thinking people to be some kind of ideologically deranged fanatic.

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Both KKK and CPUSA members voted for FDR. Did that make him  racist commie?   Actors supported Benito and FDR. Was FDR a crypto fascist?  

___

No to both your questions, which fail to address the topical question I posted.
I offered no opinion about Trump's own position on race.  I merely pointed out that there are racists who have professed support for him and questioned whether he would reject that support.  Predictably, in your desperation to make some kind--ANY kind--of rebuttal, you slid off into an irrelevant tangential discourse that you probably believe  makes you look like something other than the disordered polemicist you show yourself to be.

I merely applied reduction ad absurdum to Condie's twisted logic to show where it could lead.  He doesn't like the results.

I wonder if Hillary would reject their votes?

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Both KKK and CPUSA members voted for FDR. Did that make him  racist commie?   Actors supported Benito and FDR. Was FDR a crypto fascist?  

___

No to both your questions, which fail to address the topical question I posted.
I offered no opinion about Trump's own position on race.  I merely pointed out that there are racists who have professed support for him and questioned whether he would reject that support.  Predictably, in your desperation to make some kind--ANY kind--of rebuttal, you slid off into an irrelevant tangential discourse that you probably believe  makes you look like something other than the disordered polemicist you show yourself to be.

I merely applied reduction ad absurdum to Condie's twisted logic to show where it could lead.  He doesn't like the results.

___

If you are going to cite Latin terminology, try to do it correctly.  It is "reductio ad absurdum."

http://www.logicallyfallacious...reductio-ad-absurdum

It is your questions that are absurd, not my reply. There was no "twisted logic." I never said or in any way implied that support of a candidate by deranged ideologists, racists or otherwise, was some kind of index of the political character of said candidate.

Your attempt at reductio ad absurdum fails, since it is not based upon any true functional premise.

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Both KKK and CPUSA members voted for FDR. Did that make him  racist commie?   Actors supported Benito and FDR. Was FDR a crypto fascist?  

___

No to both your questions, which fail to address the topical question I posted.
I offered no opinion about Trump's own position on race.  I merely pointed out that there are racists who have professed support for him and questioned whether he would reject that support.  Predictably, in your desperation to make some kind--ANY kind--of rebuttal, you slid off into an irrelevant tangential discourse that you probably believe  makes you look like something other than the disordered polemicist you show yourself to be.

I merely applied reduction ad absurdum to Condie's twisted logic to show where it could lead.  He doesn't like the results.

___

If you are going to cite Latin terminology, try to do it correctly.  It is "reductio ad absurdum."

http://www.logicallyfallacious...reductio-ad-absurdum

It is your questions that are absurd, not my reply. There was no "twisted logic." I never said or in any way implied that support of a candidate by deranged ideologists, racists or otherwise, was some kind of index of the political character of said candidate.

Your attempt at reductio ad absurdum fails, since it is not based upon any true functional premise.

I've used it many times before to point out a false premise.  Works well, here as always, despite your protestations.

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Both KKK and CPUSA members voted for FDR. Did that make him  racist commie?   Actors supported Benito and FDR. Was FDR a crypto fascist?  

___

No to both your questions, which fail to address the topical question I posted.
I offered no opinion about Trump's own position on race.  I merely pointed out that there are racists who have professed support for him and questioned whether he would reject that support.  Predictably, in your desperation to make some kind--ANY kind--of rebuttal, you slid off into an irrelevant tangential discourse that you probably believe  makes you look like something other than the disordered polemicist you show yourself to be.

I merely applied reduction ad absurdum to Condie's twisted logic to show where it could lead.  He doesn't like the results.

___

If you are going to cite Latin terminology, try to do it correctly.  It is "reductio ad absurdum."

http://www.logicallyfallacious...reductio-ad-absurdum

It is your questions that are absurd, not my reply. There was no "twisted logic." I never said or in any way implied that support of a candidate by deranged ideologists, racists or otherwise, was some kind of index of the political character of said candidate.

Your attempt at reductio ad absurdum fails, since it is not based upon any true functional premise.

I've used it many times before to point out a false premise.  Works well, here as always, despite your protestations.

___

It most assuredly does NOT work well in this case.  In my "protestations," I explained precisely why your attempted--and failed--rebuttal does not qualify under the rubric of reductio ad absurdum.  Ignoring that, you provided nothing substantive in reply, choosing only to claim that your flawed application "works well."  That claim is not so, dire, solely on your say-so.  Once more, you desperately seek to vindicate yourself from a pseudo-intellectual fumble.

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Both KKK and CPUSA members voted for FDR. Did that make him  racist commie?   Actors supported Benito and FDR. Was FDR a crypto fascist?  

___

No to both your questions, which fail to address the topical question I posted.
I offered no opinion about Trump's own position on race.  I merely pointed out that there are racists who have professed support for him and questioned whether he would reject that support.  Predictably, in your desperation to make some kind--ANY kind--of rebuttal, you slid off into an irrelevant tangential discourse that you probably believe  makes you look like something other than the disordered polemicist you show yourself to be.

I merely applied reduction ad absurdum to Condie's twisted logic to show where it could lead.  He doesn't like the results.

___

If you are going to cite Latin terminology, try to do it correctly.  It is "reductio ad absurdum."

http://www.logicallyfallacious...reductio-ad-absurdum

It is your questions that are absurd, not my reply. There was no "twisted logic." I never said or in any way implied that support of a candidate by deranged ideologists, racists or otherwise, was some kind of index of the political character of said candidate.

Your attempt at reductio ad absurdum fails, since it is not based upon any true functional premise.

I've used it many times before to point out a false premise.  Works well, here as always, despite your protestations.

___

It most assuredly does NOT work well in this case.  In my "protestations," I explained precisely why your attempted--and failed--rebuttal does not qualify under the rubric of reductio ad absurdum.  Ignoring that, you provided nothing substantive in reply, choosing only to claim that your flawed application "works well."  That claim is not so, dire, solely on your say-so.  Once more, you desperately seek to vindicate yourself from a pseudo-intellectual fumble.

No intellectual fumble, whatsoever.  You attempted to use a supposed association of racists supporting Trump to state he shares the same beliefs.  I used the same association of supporters of a former president to prove such was not the case.  Thus, revealing the absurdity of your argument.

direstraits posted:

No intellectual fumble, whatsoever.  You attempted to use a supposed association of racists supporting Trump to state he shares the same beliefs.  I used the same association of supporters of a former president to prove such was not the case.  Thus, revealing the absurdity of your argument.

____

And just WHERE did I "state he shares the same beliefs"? NOWHERE, dire, as any sentient person should see from reading precisely what I posted.  I merely posed a question, namely: "Will The Donald repudiate support from the white nationalist/KKK, etc. sector?"  I never said or implied that Trump shared the odious beliefs of the KKK. etc. My question goes to the matter of whether Trump will let those affirmations of support from avowed racists go unanswered out of concern that he would lose  support (i.e.votes)  from that sector should he publicly reject that support.  You are still struggling not to appear absurd with your reductio ad absurdum that simply does not compute.

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

No intellectual fumble, whatsoever.  You attempted to use a supposed association of racists supporting Trump to state he shares the same beliefs.  I used the same association of supporters of a former president to prove such was not the case.  Thus, revealing the absurdity of your argument.

____

And just WHERE did I "state he shares the same beliefs"? NOWHERE, dire, as any sentient person should see from reading precisely what I posted.  I merely posed a question, namely: "Will The Donald repudiate support from the white nationalist/KKK, etc. sector?"  I never said or implied that Trump shared the odious beliefs of the KKK. etc. My question goes to the matter of whether Trump will let those affirmations of support from avowed racists go unanswered out of concern that he would lose  support (i.e.votes)  from that sector should he publicly reject that support.  You are still struggling not to appear absurd with your reductio ad absurdum that simply does not compute.

You just demanded that Trump perform an action, else he proves he does not dare disavow their support. Exactly the same may be said of the late FDR. Did he disavow support of KKK, Will Rogers or CPUSA?  Otherwise, the same applies.  Plus, once more you prove a lack of knowledge of argumentation.

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

No intellectual fumble, whatsoever.  You attempted to use a supposed association of racists supporting Trump to state he shares the same beliefs.  I used the same association of supporters of a former president to prove such was not the case.  Thus, revealing the absurdity of your argument.

____

And just WHERE did I "state he shares the same beliefs"? NOWHERE, dire, as any sentient person should see from reading precisely what I posted.  I merely posed a question, namely: "Will The Donald repudiate support from the white nationalist/KKK, etc. sector?"  I never said or implied that Trump shared the odious beliefs of the KKK. etc. My question goes to the matter of whether Trump will let those affirmations of support from avowed racists go unanswered out of concern that he would lose  support (i.e.votes)  from that sector should he publicly reject that support.  You are still struggling not to appear absurd with your reductio ad absurdum that simply does not compute.

You just demanded that Trump perform an action, else he proves he does not dare disavow their support. Exactly the same may be said of the late FDR. Did he disavow support of KKK, Will Rogers or CPUSA?  Otherwise, the same applies.  Plus, once more you prove a lack of knowledge of argumentation.

___

You are having SO much trouble with reading comprehension, dire.  I made no demand; I merely asked a question.  Your extremist and self-serving torquing of that question into an alleged "demand" is proof positive of YOUR "lack of knowledge of argumentation"!

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

No intellectual fumble, whatsoever.  You attempted to use a supposed association of racists supporting Trump to state he shares the same beliefs.  I used the same association of supporters of a former president to prove such was not the case.  Thus, revealing the absurdity of your argument.

____

And just WHERE did I "state he shares the same beliefs"? NOWHERE, dire, as any sentient person should see from reading precisely what I posted.  I merely posed a question, namely: "Will The Donald repudiate support from the white nationalist/KKK, etc. sector?"  I never said or implied that Trump shared the odious beliefs of the KKK. etc. My question goes to the matter of whether Trump will let those affirmations of support from avowed racists go unanswered out of concern that he would lose  support (i.e.votes)  from that sector should he publicly reject that support.  You are still struggling not to appear absurd with your reductio ad absurdum that simply does not compute.

You just demanded that Trump perform an action, else he proves he does not dare disavow their support. Exactly the same may be said of the late FDR. Did he disavow support of KKK, Will Rogers or CPUSA?  Otherwise, the same applies.  Plus, once more you prove a lack of knowledge of argumentation.

___

You are having SO much trouble with reading comprehension, dire.  I made no demand; I merely asked a question.  Your extremist and self-serving torquing of that question into an alleged "demand" is proof positive of YOUR "lack of knowledge of argumentation"!

No, Contenduhh, you can't stand that someone simply extended your real reason for the thread to its ultimate meaning and end.  Now, like a dog with an old bone, it neither wishes to keep or let go, keep attempting to explain away what you did not wish discussed.  Get over it!

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

No intellectual fumble, whatsoever.  You attempted to use a supposed association of racists supporting Trump to state he shares the same beliefs.  I used the same association of supporters of a former president to prove such was not the case.  Thus, revealing the absurdity of your argument.

____

And just WHERE did I "state he shares the same beliefs"? NOWHERE, dire, as any sentient person should see from reading precisely what I posted.  I merely posed a question, namely: "Will The Donald repudiate support from the white nationalist/KKK, etc. sector?"  I never said or implied that Trump shared the odious beliefs of the KKK. etc. My question goes to the matter of whether Trump will let those affirmations of support from avowed racists go unanswered out of concern that he would lose  support (i.e.votes)  from that sector should he publicly reject that support.  You are still struggling not to appear absurd with your reductio ad absurdum that simply does not compute.

You just demanded that Trump perform an action, else he proves he does not dare disavow their support. Exactly the same may be said of the late FDR. Did he disavow support of KKK, Will Rogers or CPUSA?  Otherwise, the same applies.  Plus, once more you prove a lack of knowledge of argumentation.

___

You are having SO much trouble with reading comprehension, dire.  I made no demand; I merely asked a question.  Your extremist and self-serving torquing of that question into an alleged "demand" is proof positive of YOUR "lack of knowledge of argumentation"!

No, Contenduhh, you can't stand that someone simply extended your real reason for the thread to its ultimate meaning and end.  Now, like a dog with an old bone, it neither wishes to keep or let go, keep attempting to explain away what you did not wish discussed.  Get over it!

___

The only thing extended was imagination and presumptousness on your part, dire. Your reductio ad absurdam argument having utterly flopped for want of a functional premise, you now turn to (very) amateur psychology in assigning me an intent that serves only your flawed take on the matter.

It is quite obvious Condie attempted to paint Trump as a racist by association.  Wozzie did the same thing in another thread.  Called on it, Condie twists and turns to deny his objective.  Knowing his recent problems, I’ve humored him on this tempest in a teapot  Sorry, but a child would recognize his true objective, despite his protestations to the contrary. 

direstraits posted:

It is quite obvious Condie attempted to paint Trump as a racist by association.  Wozzie did the same thing in another thread.  Called on it, Condie twists and turns to deny his objective.  Knowing his recent problems, I’ve humored him on this tempest in a teapot  Sorry, but a child would recognize his true objective, despite his protestations to the contrary. 

_____

"[O]bvious" only to someone struggling to rescue his miscues on this topic.   You have become infected with an acute case of the "It's so because I say so" virus.

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

It is quite obvious Condie attempted to paint Trump as a racist by association.  Wozzie did the same thing in another thread.  Called on it, Condie twists and turns to deny his objective.  Knowing his recent problems, I’ve humored him on this tempest in a teapot  Sorry, but a child would recognize his true objective, despite his protestations to the contrary. 

_____

"[O]bvious" only to someone struggling to rescue his miscues on this topic.   You have become infected with an acute case of the "It's so because I say so" virus.

Then, what was your point at posting this?

Harald Weissberg posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

It is quite obvious Condie attempted to paint Trump as a racist by association.  Wozzie did the same thing in another thread.  Called on it, Condie twists and turns to deny his objective.  Knowing his recent problems, I’ve humored him on this tempest in a teapot  Sorry, but a child would recognize his true objective, despite his protestations to the contrary. 

_____

"[O]bvious" only to someone struggling to rescue his miscues on this topic.   You have become infected with an acute case of the "It's so because I say so" virus.

Then, what was your point at posting this?

____

Res ipsa loquitur

Old Contenduhh is now in Ouroboros mode, forming a circle back to his original post.  He attempts to dentify someone by a few who are attracted to a portion of that person's message.  Implying that failure to deny such support would mean that Trump was a racist, as well.  He didn't like my comparison of the same type of support for Democrats -- going full bore crank. 

direstraits posted:

Old Contenduhh is now in Ouroboros mode, forming a circle back to his original post.  He attempts to dentify someone by a few who are attracted to a portion of that person's message.  Implying that failure to deny such support would mean that Trump was a racist, as well.  He didn't like my comparison of the same type of support for Democrats -- going full bore crank. 

+++++

My question was NOT an attempt to "identify" Trump with any persons or groups. I merely wondered what Trump's response would be, leaving open, obviously, the possibility that he would repudiate he support of the two named racist groups. Another possibility is that he would remain silent,which he seems to have done.  That in itself does not mean that he is a racist.  He might simply not wish to acknowledge the proffered support, lest he give those morons more recognition than they are entitled to.  Of course you, with your tunnel-visioned narrow mindedness, have continued to play (very) amateur psychologist, leaving you with insufficient perspective to contemplate anything other than a scenario that vilifies me.  Time to give up the charade, dire.

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Old Contenduhh is now in Ouroboros mode, forming a circle back to his original post.  He attempts to dentify someone by a few who are attracted to a portion of that person's message.  Implying that failure to deny such support would mean that Trump was a racist, as well.  He didn't like my comparison of the same type of support for Democrats -- going full bore crank. 

+++++

My question was NOT an attempt to "identify" Trump with any persons or groups. I merely wondered what Trump's response would be, leaving open, obviously, the possibility that he would repudiate he support of the two named racist groups. Another possibility is that he would remain silent,which he seems to have done.  That in itself does not mean that he is a racist.  He might simply not wish to acknowledge the proffered support, lest he give those morons more recognition than they are entitled to.  Of course you, with your tunnel-visioned narrow mindedness, have continued to play (very) amateur psychologist, leaving you with insufficient perspective to contemplate anything other than a scenario that vilifies me.  Time to give up the charade, dire.

Pitiful response, from an transparent foe of Trump and Republicans, in general, from our priggish, old Dem.

this is so funny, after all racist are going to vote for someone. how many votes did Obama get because he is black? how many will Clinton get because she is female? to try and blame someone because of who votes for them is plain crazy. both sides need to state real facts.  I believe the real story  is both parties try to keep us fighting rather than find some middle ground rather than blindly defend our party.

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Old Contenduhh is now in Ouroboros mode, forming a circle back to his original post.  He attempts to dentify someone by a few who are attracted to a portion of that person's message.  Implying that failure to deny such support would mean that Trump was a racist, as well.  He didn't like my comparison of the same type of support for Democrats -- going full bore crank. 

+++++

My question was NOT an attempt to "identify" Trump with any persons or groups. I merely wondered what Trump's response would be, leaving open, obviously, the possibility that he would repudiate he support of the two named racist groups. Another possibility is that he would remain silent,which he seems to have done.  That in itself does not mean that he is a racist.  He might simply not wish to acknowledge the proffered support, lest he give those morons more recognition than they are entitled to.  Of course you, with your tunnel-visioned narrow mindedness, have continued to play (very) amateur psychologist, leaving you with insufficient perspective to contemplate anything other than a scenario that vilifies me.  Time to give up the charade, dire.

Pitiful response, from an transparent foe of Trump and Republicans, in general, from our priggish, old Dem.

_____

And it is so-o-o-o easy to blurt out a pile of unexplicated criticism, isn't it, dire?

A lot easier that posting something that actually responds in substance.  But you already know about that, don't you?

Condie needs to go back and review what others have said. No one agrees with him and sees thru his poor excuses.   

direstraits posted:

Condie needs to go back and review what others have said. No one agrees with him and sees thru his poor excuses.   

___

As though the lame contributions by Bestworking, Harald, and uandurinehad any substantive import in the discussion. Another stretch by you , dire. Finding people who agree with you does not make their opinions valid, let alone yours.

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Condie needs to go back and review what others have said. No one agrees with him and sees thru his poor excuses.   

___

As though the lame contributions by Bestworking, Harald, and uandurinehad any substantive import in the discussion. Another stretch by you , dire. Finding people who agree with you does not make their opinions valid, let alone yours.

Whereas, finding anyone who agreed with you is like hunting polar bears in Tennessee -- one may hunt all one wishes.,  Its bagging one that's the rub.

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Condie needs to go back and review what others have said. No one agrees with him and sees thru his poor excuses.   

___

As though the lame contributions by Bestworking, Harald, and uandurinehad any substantive import in the discussion. Another stretch by you , dire. Finding people who agree with you does not make their opinions valid, let alone yours.

Whereas, finding anyone who agreed with you is like hunting polar bears in Tennessee -- one may hunt all one wishes.,  Its bagging one that's the rub.

+++++++

Your only argument thus far, which is meaningless, is that among the very small number of users of this very predominantly conservative forum,  you find none who express their agreement with me.  Even more meaningless is the straw polar bear scenario you ridiculously assert in failed support of your irrational argument. I never looked for any such support, nor does my question re Trump rely in any way upon it. Thus the artificiality of your silly contention is glaringly obvious.

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Condie needs to go back and review what others have said. No one agrees with him and sees thru his poor excuses.   

___

As though the lame contributions by Bestworking, Harald, and uandurinehad any substantive import in the discussion. Another stretch by you , dire. Finding people who agree with you does not make their opinions valid, let alone yours.

Whereas, finding anyone who agreed with you is like hunting polar bears in Tennessee -- one may hunt all one wishes.,  Its bagging one that's the rub.

+++++++

Your only argument thus far, which is meaningless, is that among the very small number of users of this very predominantly conservative forum,  you find none who express their agreement with me.  Even more meaningless is the straw polar bear scenario you ridiculously assert in failed support of your irrational argument. I never looked for any such support, nor does my question re Trump rely in any way upon it. Thus the artificiality of your silly contention is glaringly obvious.

I love the smell of desperation in the morning.

Bestworking posted:

 Racists? Like the black panthers and every other black organization in the country? What a joke you lefty hypocrites are. Have YOU hugged a *****osexual today? Of course not!! Bawahahahahahahahahaha!!

I see he won't answer your question, and it is a great question.

Jack Flash posted:

condung is the common socialist hypocrite to ask a stupid

question and then call "knuckles down" before you answer.

I wonder if condumb ever apologized to a crushed down torn

apart aborted human baby thrown into a trash can on the way

to the dump...??? 

___

I wonder if you ever asked yourself why you stretch so absurdly to implant the issue of abortion into a string about racism.

giftedamateur posted:

Bestworking posted:

 Racists? Like the black panthers and every other black organization in the country? What a joke you lefty hypocrites are. Have YOU hugged a *****osexual today? Of course not!! Bawahahahahahahahahaha!!

I see he won't answer your question, and it is a great question.

___

I have no obligation to respond to "so's yer old man" drivel posted by the Queen of "so's yer old man," especially the one Best blurted above, which has nothing to do with the topic, namely Mr. Trump and his potential response to his racist admirers.

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Condie needs to go back and review what others have said. No one agrees with him and sees thru his poor excuses.   

___

As though the lame contributions by Bestworking, Harald, and uandurinehad any substantive import in the discussion. Another stretch by you , dire. Finding people who agree with you does not make their opinions valid, let alone yours.

Whereas, finding anyone who agreed with you is like hunting polar bears in Tennessee -- one may hunt all one wishes.,  Its bagging one that's the rub.

+++++++

Your only argument thus far, which is meaningless, is that among the very small number of users of this very predominantly conservative forum,  you find none who express their agreement with me.  Even more meaningless is the straw polar bear scenario you ridiculously assert in failed support of your irrational argument. I never looked for any such support, nor does my question re Trump rely in any way upon it. Thus the artificiality of your silly contention is glaringly obvious.

I love the smell of desperation in the morning.

___

I have lost count of the number of posts you have placed on this topic that have no relevance other than to YOUR OWN desperate non-substantive verbal maneuvering to avoid owning up to the silliness of the  unwarranted interpretation you placed on my initial post. 

There you have it, beternnun's standard answer of "so's yer old man" when he has no answer for his hypocritical ways, which is never. Why isn't he worried about the racists that support obama and the rest of the demoslops? Well golly gee, "so's yer old man". What that really means is, he thinks he's allowed to say anything he wants, even if the left is much more guilty, which they always are, of far worse things, in this case, racism. Beternnun, your repetitious use of "so's yer old man" means nothing. You are still shown for the hypocrite that you are.

Bestworking posted:

There you have it, beternnun's standard answer of "so's yer old man" when he has no answer for his hypocritical ways, which is never. Why isn't he worried about the racists that support obama and the rest of the demoslops? Well golly gee, "so's yer old man". What that really means is, he thinks he's allowed to say anything he wants, even if the left is much more guilty, which they always are, of far worse things, in this case, racism. Beternnun, your repetitious use of "so's yer old man" means nothing. You are still shown for the hypocrite that you are.

I made no "so's yer old man" standard answer. If you had read my post for MEANING, you would have concluded correctly that I was criticizing the use of that odious strategy by YOU.  But since you at times show yourself to be as dense as quark-gluon plasma, it comes as no surprise that in your inordinate haste to achieve a cheap shot one-up, you fumbled the ball again.