Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
FTR, IB Hankering avoided the simple, clear direct question once again. I'm done here, unless you want to drop the disingenuousness and actually address the point.
Both on topic and hilarious:
The point has been thoroughly addressed: there is no question that you are relying on incomplete and biased samples to support your POV; hence, it is your POV that is hilarious as it has no substantive basis.
there is no question that you are relying on incomplete and biased samples to support your POV; hence, it is your POV that is hilarious as it has no substantive basis.
I'll keep this in mind for our next debate. It's great that we can just dismiss any source we want for being biased, because every source is going to be biased. This means we can simply believe anything we want because all sources are useless.
But, no, the point was not "thoroughly addressed," it was outright ignored because you can't seem to handle the cognitive dissonance created by your conflicting positions.
I'll keep this in mind for our next debate. It's great that we can just dismiss any source we want for being biased, because every source is going to be biased. This means we can simply believe anything we want because all sources are useless.
But, no, the point was not "thoroughly addressed," it was outright ignored because you can't seem to handle the cognitive dissonance created by your conflicting positions.
Your "belief" that using Politifact's biased and incomplete analyses is substantive proof of anything, as you are doing, is all that needs to be dismissed as wholly useless.
It's obvious that Politifact cannot bring itself to state that Hildabeast lied -- not just once but -- several times when she made "statements that left a particular impression that might have been misleading" about Benghazi. Furthermore, Politifact has yet to analyze Hildabeast's statement that she has never lied. Hence, Politifact's "Truthmeter" analyses are demonstrably incomplete and wholly useless for the purpose of making the comparisons that you insist on making. Regrettably, you are either too unintelligent to realize that there is no substance to your comparison using Politifact's analyses, or you consciously wish to perpetuate a lie by insisting such a comparison is valid.
What, no mention of KKK enthusiast Senator Robert Byrd? Is the Hildabeast so starved for affection that she even gets kissy-face with an outspoken, iconic white-hooded racist?
This ex-Klansman wasn’t just a passive member of the nation’s most notorious hate group. According to news accounts and biographical information, Sen. Byrd was a “Kleagle” — an official recruiter who signed up members for $10 a head. He said he joined because it “offered excitement” and because the Klan was an “effective force” in “promoting traditional American values.” Nothing like the thrill of gathering ’round a midnight bonfire, roasting s’mores, tying nooses, and promoting white supremacy with a bunch of your hooded friends.
The ex-Klansman allegedly ended his ties with the group in 1943. He may have stopped paying dues, but he continued to pay homage to the KKK. Republicans in West Virginia discovered a letter Sen. Byrd had written to the Imperial Wizard of the KKK three years after he says he abandoned the group. He wrote: “The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia” and “in every state in the Union.”
The ex-Klansman later filibustered the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act — supported by a majority of those “mean-spirited” Republicans — for more than 14 hours. He also opposed the nominations of the Supreme Court’s two black justices, liberal Thurgood Marshall and conservative Clarence Thomas. In fact, the ex-Klansman had the gall to accuse Justice Thomas of “injecting racism” into the Senate hearings. Meanwhile, author Graham Smith recently discovered another letter Sen. Byrd wrote after he quit the KKK, this time attacking desegregation of the armed forces.
The ex-Klansman vowed never to fight “with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”
Byrd disavowed the the KKK back in the 50s. He has referred to it as his "biggest mistake." He even has earned a 100% from NAACP during one congress. He is a story of someone who turned it around and saw the light.
Duke, however, openly started one of the most notorious online racist groups, stormfront. He was actually a leader of the KKK, never disavowed it and left to start his own white nationalist group. He continues, to this day, to lead and espouse his white nationalist ideals and even endorsed Trump by saying it was "treason to your heritage" for white people to vote against him.
So, on one hand, we have someone, in the 2000s, embracing a person abandoned their racist affiliations 50 years earlier, in the 50s, who also did a complete 180 when it comes to issues of race. On the other hand, we have someone is currently espousing their (using Trump's own description of it) racist beliefs saying that you need to vote for Trump for racist reasons.
Byrd disavowed the the KKK back in the 50s. He has referred to it as his "biggest mistake." He even has earned a 100% from NAACP during one congress. He is a story of someone who turned it around and saw the light.
I'm confused. The Washington Post just went back 89 years trying to smear Trump with unsubstantiated insinuations that his father was a KKK sympathizer, if not a member. You're cool with that. Yet you want to impose a stutute of limitations on Sen. Byrd, even though he was an ardent recruiter and outspoken advocate for the Klan over a span of several decades?
When did he "see the light"? What exactly triggered his Saul-to-Damascus conversion? Was it deep personal conviction or raw political opportunism? Pardon me for being skeptical, but if you read the link I provided you would have noticed Byrd was using the term "ni**er" on national TV as recently as 2001.
Byrd disavowed the the KKK back in the 50s. He has referred to it as his "biggest mistake." He even has earned a 100% from NAACP during one congress. He is a story of someone who turned it around and saw the light.
Duke, however, openly started one of the most notorious online racist groups, stormfront. He was actually a leader of the KKK, never disavowed it and left to start his own white nationalist group. He continues, to this day, to lead and espouse his white nationalist ideals and even endorsed Trump by saying it was "treason to your heritage" for white people to vote against him.
So, on one hand, we have someone, in the 2000s, embracing a person abandoned their racist affiliations 50 years earlier, in the 50s, who also did a complete 180 when it comes to issues of race. On the other hand, we have someone is currently espousing their (using Trump's own description of it) racist beliefs saying that you need to vote for Trump for racist reasons.
And people are trying to equate these two things.
Just like Duke, Byrd was actually a leader of the KKK as he was elected to be "Exalted Cyclops". Byrd also established a KKK chapter in West Virginia. Furthermore, Byrd's late-life regrets about his affiliation with the KKK were less moral than they were political. His remorse tends to focus on how his association with the KKK may have hindered more than advanced his political aspirations as he originally hoped.
Quote:
"Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."
Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision — a jejune and immature outlook — seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions." (wiki)
The Washington Post just went back 89 years trying to smear Trump with unsubstantiated insinuations that his father was a KKK sympathizer, if not a member. You're cool with that. Yet you want to impose a stutute of limitations on Sen. Byrd, even though he was an ardent recruiter and outspoken advocate for the Klan over a span of several decades?
Please try to remember that EatFido is "debating"!
Just like Duke, Byrd was actually a leader of the KKK as he was elected to be "Exalted Cyclops". Byrd also established a KKK chapter in West Virginia.
Yes, in the 1940s. Before he disavowed them in the 1950s. No one is denying his involvement with the Klan.
Quote:
Furthermore, Byrd's late-life regrets about his affiliation with the KKK were less moral than they were political. His remorse tends to focus on how his association with the KKK may have hindered more than advanced his political aspirations as he originally hoped.
Basically, your point is that Byrd was able to fool people into believing he changed and supported equal rights. You know how he accomplished that? He "fooled" everyone by achieving a 100% rating by the NAACP and speaking out against the past. Basically, he "fooled" everyone by talking to talk and walking the walk.
So, a senator who died with a reputation as a fighter for equal rights is equivalent to a guy who is unabashedly racist.
Yes, in the 1940s. Before he disavowed them in the 1950s. No one is denying his involvement with the Klan.
Basically, your point is that Byrd was able to fool people into believing he changed and supported equal rights. You know how he accomplished that? He "fooled" everyone by achieving a 100% rating by the NAACP and speaking out against the past. Basically, he "fooled" everyone by talking to talk and walking the walk.
So, a senator who died with a reputation as a fighter for equal rights is equivalent to a guy who is unabashedly racist.
Care to cite any such "disavowal" dated before 1997? Even Byrd didn't make that claim: you are. Byrd's remarks in his 2005 book indicate he became "disinterested" in the Klan. "Disinterested" and "disavowal" are two different words with significantly different definitions, and 2005 is not 1950 as you are so willing to confuse to suit your purpose.
Care to cite any such "disavowal" dated before 1997? Even Byrd didn't make that claim: you are. Byrd's remarks in his 2005 book indicate he became "disinterested" in the Klan. "Disinterested" and "disavowal" are two different words with significantly different definitions, and 2005 is not 1950 as you are so willing to confuse to suit your purpose.
disavow - deny any responsibility or support for
The quote
"After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan."
I think it is pretty clear that, by stopping paying his dues and not working with them anymore, he stopped supporting them.
