Nation's mayors express frustration over gun control at Indianapolis conference

[Kutnupe14]

From justput.com

Something about this guy seems ... familiar ...

• 06-19-2016, 11:18 AM
  #1308​
  
  Kutnupe14
  
  
  
  Resident Black ManGreat Put
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Join DateDec 2008LocationCarmel, INPosts5,777
  
  
  
  

  

  Originally Posted by Mr. Raceboy
  So, because someone doesn't believe in having a gun put to his head and having his money stolen by collectivist masters to be distributed as they see fit, they are selfish? That's why I don't want a gun put to my head, because I'm Scrooge ****ing McDuck rolling around in my pile of gold? This is how you think?
  
  I'll tell you one stereotype you aren't helping dispel. It's the one that says police are chosen specifically for their inability to think on their own and instead their ability to blindly follow what they are told.
  
  
  
  I honestly thought my original charity post was pretty clear. I haven't the slightest as how this post of yours, relates to my having a difficult time seeing you donate to charity. Govt interference or theft at "gunpoint" was neither mentioned nor implied. It doesn't even have to be about money.​
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Reply With Quote​

• 06-19-2016, 04:05 PM
  #1310​
  
  Kutnupe14
  
  
  
  Resident Black ManGreat Put
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Join DateDec 2008LocationCarmel, INPosts5,777
  
  
  
  

  

  Originally Posted by Mr. Raceboy
  Well then what the **** are you talking about? What specifically, have I said that leads you to believe I'm not a charitable person? What stereotype were you referring to when admitting you think in stereotypes when talking about this issue?
  
  It's like if I said, "Dave, I may be wrong, but I think you're probably a pedophile and child rapist and there's also probably animals involved and you should probably apply to the Oakland PD." It's just completely random.
  
  Steve (wonder about our resident state enforcer)
  
  
  
  After seeing years of your posting habits, it's not a particularly huge leap for one to come to the conclusion that the welfare of others isn't one of your pet projects. In other words, I think your are more self-serving than anything else, and could care less about things that don't personally apply to you. I could be wrong, but you most assuredly can't find issue based on how you've presented yourself here.​
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Reply With Quote​
  
  
  

Harassment aside, I stand by any comment I've made anywhere on the net. I'm also going to ask if Bug's trailblazing post is within bounds, as I will certainly make future use of the tactic if it is.

 

[BugI02]

.

 

[1911ly]

06-19-2016, 07:13 AM

#1306​

Kutnupe14

Resident Black ManGreat Put

Join DateDec 2008LocationCarmel, INPosts5,777

Originally Posted by Mr. Raceboy
Huh? So you only thing in stereotypes that you've been taught? How are you better than the most racist ******* that learned to be racist from his parents? The answer is, you aren't.

This is the problem with America and democracy. Very few people know how to think and reason on their own, and while they will never admit it, they are quite content with having the heavy mental lifting done for them.



Nope, I'm not. I admit freely that, in a great variety instances, I think in stereotypes. If you say don't do the same, while seemly attempting to point out how bad it is, you'd be a hypocrite and a liar.

Don't be mad that it's difficult to imagine you giving to charity. You have a well crafted persona, and the thought of you doing anything "out of the goodness of your heart," seems quite alien. You seem like a guy who is more likely to trip an old lady, than walk her across the street.



That would never fly with our mods. ​

Nice find!

 

[BugI02]

.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I myself, have said as much. They did that horrible thing, and compromised. That doesn't make them evil, that does not make any less enlightened, it makes them practical. If they were members of INGO, they would've been run off a long time ago.

You skipped over the most critical element of this issue. What our founders did was honest to god compromise, not this horsesh*t that passes for 'compromise' today in which one side is demanded to give up much of actual value that is already possessed in exchange for the other side giving up nothing aside from accepting less than everything on their bucket list right now.

 

[bwframe]

 

[Kutnupe14]

You skipped over the most critical element of this issue. What our founders did was honest to god compromise, not this horsesh*t that passes for 'compromise' today in which one side is demanded to give up much of actual value that is already possessed in exchange for the other side giving up nothing aside from accepting less than everything on their bucket list right now.

These compromises, of the founders, only delayed the inevitable, was paid for in oceans of blood from untold numbers, and very nearly ended the Union.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Gee, Kut, I was just using them as an example of how some people will post an ambiguous quote with plenty of wiggle room. Then if someone posts in reply the OP will harsh them because they weren't better mind-readers when it came to parsing the original vague posting.

If they make you uncomfortable I'll gladly take them down

Just 'say' (type) the word

Ha, not even an issue. If you haven't learned already, I'm not intimidated by harassment. And will stand by my words. And my thinking has changed, ill admit the faults of previously held beliefs.

Kut (is "made of sterner stuff")

 

[churchmouse]

Taking a break from people watching poolside to check up on you guys.
Are we playing nice or do I have to go back and read all this.

 

[IndyDave1776]

These compromises, of the founders, only delayed the inevitable, was paid for in oceans of blood from untold numbers, and very nearly ended the Union.

You are also failing to account for the fact that slavery was not the immediate cause of the war, but rather the South getting raped with a tariff engineered to benefit the North's factory owners at the expense of the South's planters. The other side of this same coin is the frequently overlooked motive behind the Emancipation Proclamation of persuading the British citizen on the street to support the North, contrasted with the business interests and government which supported the long time economic partnership found in the Southern states--while the average Briton on the street was an abolitionist, so Lincoln officially made the North abolitionist midway through the war.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Taking a break from people watching poolside to check up on you guys.
Are we playing nice or do I have to go back and read all this.

You might have to trade for .

 

[Bill of Rights]

Harassment aside, I stand by any comment I've made anywhere on the net. I'm also going to ask if Bug's trailblazing post is within bounds, as I will certainly make future use of the tactic if it is.

I do not believe that this is "fair game", personally, and would not have done it myself. I'm not personally fond even of taking posts from other threads on THIS board, let alone grabbing from elsewhere on the 'net. Those are, again, my personal opinions. I'm not aware of it being against any rule at this time, but we'll be discussing it in the mod forum. If I was to guess, there still won't be a rule against it, but in discussion, it will be as frowned upon as is invoking Kellerman in talking gun safety.

Taking a break from people watching poolside to check up on you guys.
Are we playing nice or do I have to go back and read all this.

Mouse, I'm involved in the discussion. I'm not moderating it. Please don't let the fact that another mod is in here affect your choices. That said, you're on vacation...what the blazes are you doing in here working???

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Your chronology is off. I hope it is because you didn't remember correctly, rather than it being a purposeful attempt to support your narrative. I said, before anyone mention a single group,

Ok, no, I hadn't mentioned any group, but the mere fact that I had referenced slavery was the reason you said, "I wasn't going to specify who I referring" (sic). No, my "chronology" wasn't exact. I was recalling what had been said, and while the order is significant, it wasn't what I was getting at right then. And no, this is not me posting ambiguously and later clarifying differently.

Post #35

At post #41 you say:


So, I'll harken back to my original statement that started this whole thing:

Post #31

It would appear that my original words are not only valid, but supported by your own. Tell me where I am wrong in this?

That you are a Black man has not a bloody thing to do with what *I* said, I can't speak for anyone else. When most people I know discuss who was disenfranchised at the time of the Founding, (admittedly, that doesn't happen often) the first group most think of is the then-slaves. Next, women. Running a distant third are the NAs. I can't even think of a fourth, offhand.

I am being condescending. And purposefully so, as a result of the same behavior being directed originally towards me. I offered the possibility that there were other groups that rights did not wholly apply to upon the creation of our govt. You, eventually name several of those groups I was referring.... but is that where you started?

No, it's not. You, Bug, and Blue Falcon immediately seized upon one subject, the enslavement of blacks, and attempt to cite this as my intent when bringing up the subject about those who did not fully have recognized rights. S

o, I feel fully justified I calling out your blatantly obvious short-sightedness, and I believe it is a fair question to wonder if you and the others came to your original assumption solely because I am black? Had I been white, and made the same statement, would you have just as easily jumped to the same conclusion?... even with you knowing (as you have already proven) that there ARE other groups to which my original statement It could be legitimately argued that there was 'except for' clause inferred in those words. And that those "unalienable rights," were alienable depending on who... that applied.

You'll have a hard time convincing to me that there isn't a bias in the words chosen. So if you felt as if I have been condescending or talked down to, I am only reciprocating.

The merits of my original argument ARE sound... and the ironic part, is the people who have contested it the most have provided the examples.

I honestly don't give a fig whether you are convinced or not. This is not the first time you've accused me of being untruthful, and I'm not very happy that it even happened once. You can either stow your condescension, or shove it somewhere dark and smelly, I don't care which, but please stop directing it at me.

Thank you.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[BugI02]

79, 80, 82 and 84 have been taken down by me out of respect for the opinions of Bill of Rights

respect

Kut (can look it up)

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ok, no, I hadn't mentioned any group, but the mere fact that I had referenced slavery was the reason you said, "I wasn't going to specify who I referring" (sic). No, my "chronology" wasn't exact. I was recalling what had been said, and while the order is significant, it wasn't what I was getting at right then. And no, this is not me posting ambiguously and later clarifying differently.That you are a Black man has not a bloody thing to do with what *I* said, I can't speak for anyone else. When most people I know discuss who was disenfranchised at the time of the Founding, (admittedly, that doesn't happen often) the first group most think of is the then-slaves. Next, women. Running a distant third are the NAs. I can't even think of a fourth, offhand.

I honestly don't give a fig whether you are convinced or not. This is not the first time you've accused me of being untruthful, and I'm not very happy that it even happened once. You can either stow your condescension, or shove it somewhere dark and smelly, I don't care which, but please stop directing it at me.

Thank you.

Blessings,
Bill

White unlanded men. The last of which were finally franchised in the 1830s. So keeping count, we have, slaves, free blacks, native Americans women, and unlanded white men. All groups not fully extended rights at the founding of the of the nation. Bill, I made a statement, 100%, completely, without a doubt factual. And I'm given grief for it. That doesn't sit right with me. You brought up the issue of property, comparing computers to people, which undoubtedly is a reference to slavery, and then two more people make references to slavery. Despite, the other groups I mentioned applying, only ONE was focused upon. I don't think think it's beyond the scope of reason to ask "why," that is. My contention is either you didn't know which other groups apply or you made an assumption based on nothing I referenced, and seized upon the thing most obvious, my particular demographic, and extrapolated. So which is it? Did you know or not?

 

[Kutnupe14]

79, 80, 82 and 84 have been taken down by me out of respect for the opinions of Bill of Rights

respect

Kut (can look it up)

Perhaps it is you that should look it up. As I am apparently a dancing victim, mensa applicant, with a chip on his shoulder, trying to expose white guilt. My posts are factual, and the words I used, dictionary-correct. I've extended nothing but respect to posters within this thread, as I always do....but there always comes a point where somebody wants to test me because I've called them out, on what they know.... or in this case, don't know. If that's disrespect, pointing out ignorance, then I'll be that guy.... especially when I believe I have the right of it.

 

[BugI02]

I wasnt going to specify who I referring, because it encompassed a much larger group, than just slaves. But to address that one facet Bill, simply put, that the slaves weren't human, excuse, is chalked full of intellectual dishonesty. Unlike a computer, no one created men held in bondage from nothing into something. To believe that the Founders honestly held that slaves weren't "real" men, seriously undermines their intelligence and subsequent thought. Do you think they were honestly that stupid? And if they weren't stupid, then most assuredly they were ignorant on a massive scale. And even if you deny either, it is clear that their concept of "rights," was severely flawed. However, they weren't stupid nor ignorant. They knew exactly what they were doing, and that is denying people their God given rights.

I would remind you that beginning fourscore and five years later (using the latest estimates) some 365000 men fought and died and a further 282000 were wounded in a fight to rectify that omission, the lion's share of them having no other stake in the fight than belief in the Union and the ideals enshrined in the preamble

Those sins were redeemed in blood. Give it a rest

You didnt die for it, nor anybody you knew, so it's fair game. And I didn't even bring it up.

Hubristic assertion

My direct forbear fought with the 2nd Pennsylvania and was killed at Gettysburg

Proven wrong

Did you know him? I doubt it. So I'm not exactly sure why looking to how the Founders applied the Constitution, during their time, and comparing it to how our leaders apply it now, is something we need to give a "rest." Or does that specific subject, again the one I did not even bring up, bother you for some reason?

Admit nothing. Double down

Your the one crying about the sacrifices of your ancestors, not me. Hey, if you want me to tip my hat, and say a prayer for them and their service, no problem.

How silly of me not to realize that that is respect. Should be 'You're' not 'your', by the way

Perhaps it is you that should look it up. As I am apparently a dancing victim, mensa applicant, with a chip on his shoulder, trying to expose white guilt. My posts are factual, and the words I used, dictionary-correct. I've extended nothing but respect to posters within this thread, as I always do....but there always comes a point where somebody wants to test me because I've called them out, on what they know.... or in this case, don't know. If that's disrespect, pointing out ignorance, then I'll be that guy.... especially when I believe I have the right of it.

You might want to try looking up 'chalked full' in the dictionary. I think you mean 'chock full'

I can only speak for myself, K14. I don't want to 'test' you in any way. Not that much of a challenge

I try to keep Indiucky's opinion of you in mind and look for redeeming qualities, but quite often you just come across as a pedantic PIA.

 

[Bennettjh]

I'll have some as well.

 

[churchmouse]

OK guys......now I have to look up pedantic.
Lousy public school education.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Hubristic assertion



Proven wrong



Admit nothing. Double down



How silly of me not to realize that that is respect. Should be 'You're' not 'your', by the way



You might want to try looking up 'chalked full' in the dictionary. I think you mean 'chock full'

I can only speak for myself, K14. I don't want to 'test' you in any way. Not that much of a challenge

I try to keep Indiucky's opinion of you in mind and look for redeeming qualities, but quite often you just come across as a pedantic PIA.

I didn't contest the validity of your Civil War forbear. I have no idea if he was soldier killed fighting or a mule skinner that got kicked in the head by an unruly beast. And while I can somewhat appreciate unproven service, I'm not completely sure why it is hubris to point out you didn't know said relative of unproven service, nor has your life been personally affected by said person's sacrifice. But hey, ill raise a beer to him, and re-watch "The Postman"....starring Kevin Costner, in his honor.

I also can appreciate the corrections in my grammatical and spelling mistakes, that that may make my posts difficult to understand. I also appreciate that you don't want to "test" ​me. It's a relief actually, as I am not sure I could match your noteworthy lineage, wit, grammatical, and punctuation perfection.

As far as redeeming qualities go. Don't even look for them. There's not much there, other than calling out people who apparently need Scobby and whole gang.... complete with Mystery Machine, to have a clue.

Kut (will know when you have figured it out when he hears "zoinks" or "jinkies")