fair nuff
I'll be happy when rangel goes down
I'll be happy when rangel goes down
I edited, in fairness you might wanna re-read in case you wish to edit your answer.Pug wrote:
fair nuff
I'll be happy when rangel goes down
Your question at the end is nothing but pure conjecture.lowing wrote:
Only difference between MLK and Rangel is MLK didn't have enough time to be the cock sucker Rangel is. there is nothing in MLK's unscrupulous behavior to suggest he would have stopped there. I mean hell if will cheat on his loved ones as well as steal the works of others, do you really think he was incapable of more?
behavior pattern and it renders legitmate questions.SenorToenails wrote:
Your question at the end is nothing but pure conjecture.lowing wrote:
Only difference between MLK and Rangel is MLK didn't have enough time to be the cock sucker Rangel is. there is nothing in MLK's unscrupulous behavior to suggest he would have stopped there. I mean hell if will cheat on his loved ones as well as steal the works of others, do you really think he was incapable of more?
They are not legitimate questions at all. You are basically accusing MLK of unspecified crimes under the guise that 'he did this, so he must've done that'. Surely you see the huge holes in logic there.lowing wrote:
behavior pattern and it renders legitmate questions.SenorToenails wrote:
Your question at the end is nothing but pure conjecture.lowing wrote:
Only difference between MLK and Rangel is MLK didn't have enough time to be the cock sucker Rangel is. there is nothing in MLK's unscrupulous behavior to suggest he would have stopped there. I mean hell if will cheat on his loved ones as well as steal the works of others, do you really think he was incapable of more?
lol no I didn't, I said based on his behavior he did this, so he was quite capable of DOING that! and that htere was no reason, again based on his past actions, that he would not have "done that".SenorToenails wrote:
They are not legitimate questions at all. You are basically accusing MLK of unspecified crimes under the guise that 'he did this, so he must've done that'. Surely you see the huge holes in logic there.lowing wrote:
behavior pattern and it renders legitmate questions.SenorToenails wrote:
Your question at the end is nothing but pure conjecture.
Last edited by lowing (2010-08-05 10:20:09)
you have the right to your opinion lowing.
if you feel that mlk was a cocksucker, go for it, albeit it's just going to be you siding with the same argument the KKK makes.
but rangel certainly is a cocksucker but the situations are different.
if you feel that mlk was a cocksucker, go for it, albeit it's just going to be you siding with the same argument the KKK makes.
but rangel certainly is a cocksucker but the situations are different.
We already established he was a bad leader based on his character...what else is left for MLK?Pug wrote:
you have the right to your opinion lowing.
if you feel that mlk was a cocksucker, go for it, albeit it's just going to be you siding with the same argument the KKK makes.
but rangel certainly is a cocksucker but the situations are different.
for one, the small issue of whether their situations are the same in terms of accomplishments, the indiscretions, laws broken, etc...you know...the argument you continue to ignore.lowing wrote:
We already established he was a bad leader based on his character...what else is left for MLK?Pug wrote:
you have the right to your opinion lowing.
if you feel that mlk was a cocksucker, go for it, albeit it's just going to be you siding with the same argument the KKK makes.
but rangel certainly is a cocksucker but the situations are different.
Hey tell ya what, you have bowed to the fact that MLK WAS a piece of shit, and that Rangel IS a piece of shit. I don't give a fuck about any other side arguement.Pug wrote:
for one, the small issue of whether their situations are the same in terms of accomplishments, the indiscretions, laws broken, etc...you know...the argument you continue to ignore.lowing wrote:
We already established he was a bad leader based on his character...what else is left for MLK?Pug wrote:
you have the right to your opinion lowing.
if you feel that mlk was a cocksucker, go for it, albeit it's just going to be you siding with the same argument the KKK makes.
but rangel certainly is a cocksucker but the situations are different.
I don't give a shit about their compared accomplishments. You win whatever argument that was.
If lowing is capable of driving a car, clearly that means he can drive it through a crowded market. Based on his past actions of driving, there is no reason to believe that he would not 'do that'.lowing wrote:
lol no I didn't, I said based on his behavior he did this, so he was quite capable of DOING that! and that htere was no reason, again based on his past actions, that he would not have "done that".SenorToenails wrote:
They are not legitimate questions at all. You are basically accusing MLK of unspecified crimes under the guise that 'he did this, so he must've done that'. Surely you see the huge holes in logic there.lowing wrote:
behavior pattern and it renders legitmate questions.
Do you see the obvious holes in that logic?
Wrong, based on my past actions of driving through a crowded market, it could then be assumed that I am capable of doing it again...Your analogy is flawed.SenorToenails wrote:
If lowing is capable of driving a car, clearly that means he can drive it through a crowded market. Based on his past actions of driving, there is no reason to believe that he would not 'do that'.lowing wrote:
lol no I didn't, I said based on his behavior he did this, so he was quite capable of DOING that! and that htere was no reason, again based on his past actions, that he would not have "done that".SenorToenails wrote:
They are not legitimate questions at all. You are basically accusing MLK of unspecified crimes under the guise that 'he did this, so he must've done that'. Surely you see the huge holes in logic there.
Do you see the obvious holes in that logic?
By the way, you wanted proof that people were saying rangel was being railroaded because he was black..I provided it, any comments on that?
Last edited by lowing (2010-08-05 11:57:22)
Uhhh, not really. Both are assumptions based on previous behavior. Neither are rooted in reality, so if your supposition is valid, so is mine.lowing wrote:
Wrong, based on my past actions of driving through a crowded market, it could then be assumed that I am capable of doing it again...Your analogy is flawed.
I asked who was saying he should get a free pass. You showed me who--Al Sharpton. Thanks? I probably should have said who in this thread, but I didn't. Oh well. I can't comment on the rationale of people I disagree with, and it's foolish for you think that I can.lowing wrote:
By the way, you wanted proof that people were saying rangel was being railroaded because he was black..I provided it, any comments on that?
When did I say MLK was a piece of shit?lowing wrote:
Hey tell ya what, you have bowed to the fact that MLK WAS a piece of shit, and that Rangel IS a piece of shit. I don't give a fuck about any other side arguement.Pug wrote:
for one, the small issue of whether their situations are the same in terms of accomplishments, the indiscretions, laws broken, etc...you know...the argument you continue to ignore.lowing wrote:
We already established he was a bad leader based on his character...what else is left for MLK?
I don't give a shit about their compared accomplishments. You win whatever argument that was.
But I guess you are right because every American is agreeing with you.
In fact, right now I see protesters picking on MLK Avenue in front of the MLK Building.
lol, only if you do not want to parallel what the discussion has been, but hey it is your analogy not mine so go for it.SenorToenails wrote:
Uhhh, not really. Both are assumptions based on previous behavior. Neither are rooted in reality, so if your supposition is valid, so is mine.lowing wrote:
Wrong, based on my past actions of driving through a crowded market, it could then be assumed that I am capable of doing it again...Your analogy is flawed.I asked who was saying he should get a free pass. You showed me who--Al Sharpton. Thanks? I probably should have said who in this thread, but I didn't. Oh well. I can't comment on the rationale of people I disagree with, and it's foolish for you think that I can.lowing wrote:
By the way, you wanted proof that people were saying rangel was being railroaded because he was black..I provided it, any comments on that?
yeah I give you another leader and champion of civil rights...Sorry he does not count apparently.
Oh my mistake, I guess you can be a good leader, WITHOUT actually possessing good leadership qualities, OR you can be a good leader as long as no one finds out what kind of dirt bag you really are, OR you are so good at lying that no one finds out that you are a liar....I guess all of these makes you a good leader. Atta Boy MLK. You successfully lied your why to a leadership roll in the civil rights movement and no one found out your true nature until after you died....Now that is an accomplishment you are obviously proud of. Yer right Palin has nothing on MLK.Pug wrote:
When did I say MLK was a piece of shit?lowing wrote:
Hey tell ya what, you have bowed to the fact that MLK WAS a piece of shit, and that Rangel IS a piece of shit. I don't give a fuck about any other side arguement.Pug wrote:
for one, the small issue of whether their situations are the same in terms of accomplishments, the indiscretions, laws broken, etc...you know...the argument you continue to ignore.
I don't give a shit about their compared accomplishments. You win whatever argument that was.
But I guess you are right because every American is agreeing with you.
In fact, right now I see protesters picking on MLK Avenue in front of the MLK Building.
I got confused...did you just say Palin did more for the US than mlk?lowing wrote:
Oh my mistake, I guess you can be a good leader, WITHOUT actually possessing good leadership qualities, OR you can be a good leader as long as no one finds out what kind of dirt bag you really are, OR you are so good at lying that no one finds out that you are a liar....I guess all of these makes you a good leader. Atta Boy MLK. You successfully lied your why to a leadership roll in the civil rights movement and no one found out your true nature until after you died....Now that is an accomplishment you are obviously proud of. Yer right Palin has nothing on MLK.Pug wrote:
When did I say MLK was a piece of shit?lowing wrote:
Hey tell ya what, you have bowed to the fact that MLK WAS a piece of shit, and that Rangel IS a piece of shit. I don't give a fuck about any other side arguement.
I don't give a shit about their compared accomplishments. You win whatever argument that was.
But I guess you are right because every American is agreeing with you.
In fact, right now I see protesters picking on MLK Avenue in front of the MLK Building.
Again?
Address the post.Pug wrote:
I got confused...did you just say Palin did more for the US than mlk?lowing wrote:
Oh my mistake, I guess you can be a good leader, WITHOUT actually possessing good leadership qualities, OR you can be a good leader as long as no one finds out what kind of dirt bag you really are, OR you are so good at lying that no one finds out that you are a liar....I guess all of these makes you a good leader. Atta Boy MLK. You successfully lied your why to a leadership roll in the civil rights movement and no one found out your true nature until after you died....Now that is an accomplishment you are obviously proud of. Yer right Palin has nothing on MLK.Pug wrote:
When did I say MLK was a piece of shit?
But I guess you are right because every American is agreeing with you.
In fact, right now I see protesters picking on MLK Avenue in front of the MLK Building.
Again?
I believe I've asked you to answer Palin > MLK a few days ago, and you haven't.
But since you want to drive the point home, go into the other thread where this argument belongs.
In the meantime, if you are unable to adequately compare Rangel's situation to MLK's, would you mind leaving MLK's argument in that thread and Rangel's in this one?
But since you want to drive the point home, go into the other thread where this argument belongs.
In the meantime, if you are unable to adequately compare Rangel's situation to MLK's, would you mind leaving MLK's argument in that thread and Rangel's in this one?
Well, Palin was a public servant, a governor, a mayor, a speaker that has rallied a nation, and a leader in a movement. these are what she is know forPug wrote:
I believe I've asked you to answer Palin > MLK a few days ago, and you haven't.
But since you want to drive the point home, go into the other thread where this argument belongs.
In the meantime, if you are unable to adequately compare Rangel's situation to MLK's, would you mind leaving MLK's argument in that thread and Rangel's in this one?
MLK was a protester, a speaker that rallied a nation and a leader in a movement. these are what he is known for.
Cancel out their same accomplishments and you will see Palin still has some left. She accomplished MORE. Not to even mention that Palin's accomplishments were aquired without the added benefit of lying and cheating and stealing.
I compare Rangel a civl rights activist with a lack of integrity and honesty, with MLK a civil rights activist with a lack of integrity and honesty.
And you don't see the difference between laws being broken and minor offenses. Plus you wish to re-write history because of an issue of timing. Yet you don't feel strongly enough about poor parenting or abandoning a public office in a middle of a term as worth mentioning. Plus you are going to right off a whole person's legacy as a fraud, like some conspiracy theory that went wrong. Interesting.
You understand that there are people who wield political pull in the US without holding office right? Is MLK holding a public office important? Wouldn't being in office be limiting? And how many opportunities were there out there to be a black governor during MLK's reign of terror anyway?
Lets see, he may have been a protestor...but look what was accomplished. Whether you like it or not, the world does not suscribe to your point of view of these matters. I've explained why. Now, the neo-nazis and the KKK subscibe to that point of view. You might not be either, or might be both. That point of view is very narrow and pathetic in nature, and has no benefit to ANY party involved...white or black. It only separates people in camps more.
I wonder if we'd have a black president right now if MLK didn't do what he did?
I'm not losing any sleep over it.
You understand that there are people who wield political pull in the US without holding office right? Is MLK holding a public office important? Wouldn't being in office be limiting? And how many opportunities were there out there to be a black governor during MLK's reign of terror anyway?
Lets see, he may have been a protestor...but look what was accomplished. Whether you like it or not, the world does not suscribe to your point of view of these matters. I've explained why. Now, the neo-nazis and the KKK subscibe to that point of view. You might not be either, or might be both. That point of view is very narrow and pathetic in nature, and has no benefit to ANY party involved...white or black. It only separates people in camps more.
I wonder if we'd have a black president right now if MLK didn't do what he did?
I'm not losing any sleep over it.
I see, so you need to break laws in order to be an asshole with no integrity or honesty and lack any leadership qualities that matter. See I thought, a person could lack leadership qualities and be immoral and dishonest without breaking any serious laws. According to you he can not.Pug wrote:
And you don't see the difference between laws being broken and minor offenses. Plus you wish to re-write history because of an issue of timing. Yet you don't feel strongly enough about poor parenting or abandoning a public office in a middle of a term as worth mentioning. Plus you are going to right off a whole person's legacy as a fraud, like some conspiracy theory that went wrong. Interesting.
You understand that there are people who wield political pull in the US without holding office right? Is MLK holding a public office important? Wouldn't being in office be limiting? And how many opportunities were there out there to be a black governor during MLK's reign of terror anyway?
Lets see, he may have been a protestor...but look what was accomplished. Whether you like it or not, the world does not suscribe to your point of view of these matters. I've explained why. Now, the neo-nazis and the KKK subscibe to that point of view. You might not be either, or might be both. That point of view is very narrow and pathetic in nature, and has no benefit to ANY party involved...white or black. It only separates people in camps more.
I wonder if we'd have a black president right now if MLK didn't do what he did?
I'm not losing any sleep over it.
I am acknowledging the truth about the persons character. I am acknowledging that what he SAID is a far cry from what he DID. this leaves him with no credibility. Since you want to compare MLK to Lincoln, what do you think should be said if it were discovered that Lincoln, "the man that freed the slaves" was a slave owner, and a ruthless one at that. What if it came out that he routinely beat his slaves and raped them? what if it were discovered that he secretly sold off his slave stock in order to secure the Republican nomination? According to you no big deal because the end result was, the civil war was won. I doubt you would dismiss this. The truth about MLK is equally as disappointing as that would be. Sorry, a mans legacy is only as good as the truth behind that legacy, not what you want to make up and believe.
I don't give a shit, you're argument was "accomplishment" and you would not let it go. So I didn't. I showed what you asked for, Palin DID accomplish more than MLK. Do not start bringing in "opportunity" now.
They do not subscribe to my POV because they have no problem celebrating his lie. I can live with that. No one wants to know the truth unless it is against the white lady, and even then, making shit up will do just fine.
As far as Palins daughters pregnancy, I am not sure how you can view this as shitty parenting or shitty leadership. Ya see, owning up to mistakes and taking responsibility for them is also the mark of a good leader. Palin and her daughter did this....OOPS, yet another quality MLK LACKED!!
Last edited by lowing (2010-08-06 15:55:47)