Speaking of "class"...

I always choose freedom, once all hope has been exhausted.


Do I look back and wonder/regret? Nah. I always make the best decision given the information available at the time and after careful consideration,

so playing Monday morning quarterback with the events of my life isn't ever a part of the equation.









Question for you, OP: are you bound by some sort of literary license to insert slavery/unfair treatment to blacks in EVERY single thread you start, regardless of where you place it? Like, will you lose sponsorship if you DON'T insert those topics into EVERY discussion no matter how unrelated they, in fact, are to the subject at hand?

*gigglesnort*

Factual writing - and that which presents itself to be factual - needs to be just that.





Which part(s) of your un-attributed plagiarized post was/were factual?

* That President Obama, like 31% of our presidents didn't serve in the military?

* That President Obama, like 81% of our presidents didn't run a business?

* That President Obama, like 100% of our presidents isn't a CPA/accountant?

* That President Obama, like 100% of our presidents hasn't been a doctor, nurse, or in any other way affiliated with health care?

* That President Obama, like 50% of our presidents found his way to the office of the Presidency via State legislature, or that like 100% of our presidents he, too, has never been a mayor?




Ummmm...the meat of your presentation, which was really some other misinformed soul's presentation, is factually incorrect.

The only truth in what you both presented as fact is that he is, indeed, a man, as evidenced by the repeated "he" referenced throughout. And, he is a man that pisses a LOT of people off.


Welcome to being the President of the United States. This time - and so far - he has a singularly unique *reason* as to WHY he's so able to do so.

Thank you for the citation. There is a reason I ask for citations...and a reason I ask for citations to legitimate sources.

Assuming Wikipedia IS a "legitimate" source, I was interested to see how the numbers would be interpreted; I was also curious how the deaths 'caused by Lincoln' vs. the deaths 'caused by Hitler/Tojo' were going to be defined.

I see they weren't.



(Per your own chosen-to-provide citation) 214,938 "Americans" (presumably you mean those people residing in the US and not those in Canada, Mexico, and South American countries) were killed via combat in the Civil War. 291,557 "Americans" were killed via combat in WWII.

291,557 is a greater number than 214,938. Ergo, you've proven yourself to be factually incorrect when making your presented-as-fact statement that "...Lincoln killed more Americans than Hitler and Tojo combined........
Plenty more......"


To boot, nowhere in the citations does it clarify how many "Americans" were killed by/because of Hitler's/Tojo's rule; it's simply a number of "American" casualties during the whole of WWII.


Furthermore, the Civil War was fought strictly on U.S. soil; save Pearl Harbor (which occurred before U.S. declared-war involvement), WWII was fought on foreign soil. Casualties (i.e., those not directly attributed to combat) of any homegrown, home-fought war will be higher than wars in which the home team participates in someone else's backyard to ensure higher casualties/higher (and ongoing and residual) costs of war remain elsewhere.



Thanks for the citation; it proved all I needed to know about the veracity of the entire post.

We posters and onlookers enjoyed it, too.


It helped to even more clearly define the lines between those who are capable of thinking and those who simply regurgitate - and run with - what sounds *right*.

I would like an exact number of Americans killed (by/under) Lincoln's rule AND the exact number of Americans killed (by/under) Hitler's and Tojo's rule,

before I accept as fact this presented-as-fact statement.


Oh, and I would also like to see the citation to legitimate sources for these numbers.


Thanks, in advance!

Glad you did. I suspect you're one a handful who did, though.

Which is probably only a slightly smaller number than those who actually read it...

...which is a slightly smaller number than those who actually understood it.


It's obvious the majority took OP's OP as gospel, since it *sounds* good and and reads *right*.

A "mew user", i.e. "a user of kitties"?!?




Well, at least OP's honest and upfront about it.


Best of luck to you!!!

That's one of the wonderful things about the internet...when used correctly, one doesn't necessarily have to have ANY legal training to gain access to factual information on which to base their opinions; it's available to anyone and everyone who chooses to use it [correctly].


Oh, and when I say "...who chooses to use it [correctly]", I don't just mean one's own brain when on the internet.

No doubt you're not...

no doubt you don't...

...and there is abSOluteLY no doubt that is no "Lady", kind sir.



Best of luck to you. May the next year bring you everything you are looking for and deserve.

Then you don't know the meaning of the word "racism".


Dick Cheney is not black and he, too, deplores homosexuality and fights against it...


...all the while HIS daughter is openly gay, too.


"H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y". Akin to Sarah Palin campaigning on a platform calling for abstinence-only education in schools


with her pregnant, unwed teenage daughter applauds her, while sharing the stage and limelight.


*Kinda like* that.

Just like OP, I, too, am proud of my successful stats while on online *dating* sites,


though, personally, I wouldn't start a thread bragging about them.

Nahhhh...we "libtards" probably didn't endorse him because we don't agree with this political leanings and hypocrisy which are deeply influenced by his Christian *right* views, which make him always *right* while being a hypocrite:

"...In 2005, when Maya Keyes was 20 years old, she came out as a lesbian. There were reports her family threw her out of the house and stopped talking to her. In an interview with Metro Weekly, a Washington, D.C., LGBT newspaper, Maya confirmed that her father "cut off all financial support." In the same report Maya said, "It doesn't make much sense for him to be [financially] supporting someone who is working against what he believes in." Alan Keyes contradicted reports about his having disowned his daughter in October 2007. Keyes said that he loves his daughter and that she knows she has a home with him. He asserted that he never cut her off and never would, because it would be "wrong in the eyes of God." He also said he would not be coerced into "approving of that which destroys the soul" of his daughter. He contended that he must "stand for the truth [Jesus Christ] represents" even if it breaks his heart..."


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/alan-keyes-daughter-coming-out/

http://www.metroweekly.com/2005/02/maya-keyes/

https://web.archive.org/web/20080109193619/http://archives.alankeyes.com/play.php?mp3=123

Since you've now mentioned this at least twice

so it appears to be a rather important factor in all of this


why are you two still seeing one another? Is one of you (or both of you) so desperate to get laid / form some sort of 'relationship' - ANYthing that will pass as A Relationship -


AND this other person is The Last Member of the Opposite Sex on the Planet?

You're welcome.

It was my pleasure to do your research FOR you, thus saving yourself the time and trouble to base your opinions on legitimate and factual information, rather than knee-jerking, emotional reactionism.

Sure...why not say that? So, EVERY single [at least partially] black person in America (including those not even old enough to vote) voted for President Obama ONLY because he's [1/2] black.

That would then account for 14.2% of the popular vote. Where'd the other 36.8% of the majority vote come from that elected President Obama TWICE?


I do not believe that the majority of President Obama's detractors do so and ignore the facts of the matters (as OP did when making his OP) simply because President Obama is [1/2] black; I'm sure the fact that he is a Democratic president has at least something to do with deliberately ignoring the facts of the matters, too.

You keep mentioning "the Fuhrer". I explained to you ages ago how there is no "Fuhrer", as the last "Fuhrer" served in Germany and was defeated during WW2, when Germany lost to the Allied forces.

Since you, too, are incapable of having intelligent, factual exchanges with others, you, too, will get no more assistance from me when partaking in these discussion boards with your emotional, knee-jerking posts that attempt to pass for intellectual discourse.