Wake Up by Samuel Jackson

[habsheaven]

[/I]This statement pre-emptively links that thought to ensbergcollector, even though he did not say anything like it. Just so you can present an argument that he wasn't even opposing. It gives the appearance to someone not following along closely that ensberg thinks this. It also avoids the point ensberg was making. It's a classic ploy. Used so regularily by you that you don't even realize you are doing it. So yes, in a word: morphed.

Habs, read. Slowly.

"if you're going to say no one voted McCain because Obama is black I'm going to say you're a dreamer."

and if he does he is. Tell me, though, where I said he DOES think that? You see, my statement would require him to think that to be a dreamer. I didn't say he thinks that. I didn't even suggest he thinks that. I said "if he thinks that, he's a dreamer" and I'll stand by it.

The IMPLICATION is there. It's all in the phrasing. You may not see it. I saw it. Ensbergcollector saw it. So did a few others. Even now, you end the thought by arguing "I'll stand by it". As if it's in question at all.

I'll put it this way, if I said, "if you think the world is flat, you're a dreamer" did I just say you think the earth is flat? No.

You would have to know the context of why you brought up "the world was flat". If it was in the middle of a discussion about the world, you would be guilty of doing the same thing.

Not that what I actually said ever made one lick of difference to you. Judging from you history of responses to my posts, you're probably now going to tell me I somehow said you orchestrated 9/11.

Of course, I could be wrong about that. You could find some other thing that never happened to blame me for. Why stick to reality, right habs?

Not worthy of a response, except to say it's classic overkill to try and make your persecution look real. lol
[/QUOTE]

Keep up the denial. It suits you.

[Wickabee]

The IMPLICATION is there. It's all in the phrasing. You may not see it. I saw it. Ensbergcollector saw it. So did a few others. Even now, you end the thought by arguing "I'll stand by it". As if it's in question at all.

If that's what you want to read into it, I can't stop that. I can only write what I mean and defend it against wrongful accusations. If you placed that meaning on my words, that's on you not me.

You would have to know the context of why you brought up "the world was flat". If it was in the middle of a discussion about the world, you would be guilty of doing the same thing.

Oh, so now it's about context. First I outright said it, then I implied it and now it's about the context. Yet I'm the one manipulating the argument. Sure, ok.

And again, even in context, it's still your interpretation, not my meaning. Again, that's on you not me

Not worthy of a response, except to say it's classic overkill to try and make your persecution look real. lol

I can clearly recall you saying I thought ensberg was delusional. Oh, but that's a case of me adding my meaning on your words, isn't it. Funny how you jump all over me for that (when it didn't even happen) but when I call you on it, you just say "not worthy of response" and gloss over it. No hypocrisy there whatsoever. Nope, not an ounce.

Keep up the denial. It suits you.

The only denial I see is you denying facts and reality by putting words in my mouth. Good job, you've now done TWO things while wrongly accusing me of doing those very same things. Great strategy.

[habsheaven]

wick ... your words speak for themselves. If you don't like being called out on it, tough! Choose your words more clearly next time, or live with the criticism. I don't care which you choose. I am done discussing your poor debating skills. So I leave the last word to you. Make it good, so far all you have been able to do is convince yourself. lol

[Wickabee]

Habs, the poor debating skills are with the one who made things up (you) the one who lied (you) the one who displayed unparalleled hypocrisy (you) and the one who never actually made a point in the first place...you.

It would also lie with the one who started this idiocy in the first place. Again, that's you.

And let's not forget who claimed I was putting my own meaning to others' words...by putting his owning meaning on my words (you).
Oh, and who was it who called me "clairvoyant" before proceeding to tell me what my posts really meant, despite what they actually said. Once again, that would be you.

[mrveggieman]

let me clear things up since what i haven't said seems to be the only think some people want to talk about. I very openly admit that there is racism on both sides. I openly admit that there are numerous white people who are prejudiced. I have said so before. I comment when people imply that only whites are racist. Have I called veggie a racist? yes. i have done so because of his use of words like uncle tom which i consider to be very racist. Does me calling him a racist imply or mean that white people can't be racist or that white on black racism never occurs? of course not.

so, feel free to save that somewhere before you try and tell me what I think. Or try and tell others what I think.

now, congrats to wick who has managed to turn this entire thread (or most of it) into a thread about me, and not about jackson or the video posted. you, like others here, never want to address anything I actually write. You simply want to dwell in what I might be thinking or what I might feel.

as for this thread...I think jackson made statements regarding the last election that would lead me to not value his opinion on this one. apparently his open racism is something for others to be proud of and think that makes him a good person for being open about his opinions. do i want him to hide what he feels? nope. do i think his previous comments lead me to not take his advice in elections, absolutely.

I have been reading the threads that I missed over the weekend and I want to chime in. Although I was asked or better yet told to stop using the term uncle tom on here I do stand by everything that I post on here unless I am proven wrong. If that makes me a racist I would hate to see what you conservatives would call rush. Oh wait a minute poor example some of you view rush as your news source. Also I appreciate Samuel Jackson for keeping it real and admitting his biases in 2008. I also applaud him for researching the issues and doing a PSA to encourage people to get out to vote. Someone on here a while back made a comment suggesting that a large percentage of white people only voted for Obama to appear not to be racist. That was one of the most idiotic statements that I heard on here and I heard some pretty dumb things. If someone had any racial biases against President Obama they will not vote for him. They can simply say that the voted for him in public but when you vote it is private and no one knows who you voted for unless you tell them. No you conservatives will reach for any excuse to discredit President Obama and him being legally elected and are all ready looking for excuses for why romney will get his butt whipped this coming november.

[pghin08]

I think this thread has run its course.