NAACP leader outed as white
- Thread starter GFR7
- Start date
Alright ... well, it's done and over with. Hopefully she has learned to be more honest and with any luck, she will gain some self-esteem.
Frankly, I don't understand all the press this is getting. It's not like this flaky woman drowned a basket of kittens or anything.
Frankly, I don't understand all the press this is getting. It's not like this flaky woman drowned a basket of kittens or anything.
musterion
Well-known member
She's exemplary of how the entire edifice of leftist causes are largely built on and perpetuated by lies. That's my only interest in it.
I don't see any connection whatsoever to her being a leftist.
musterion
Well-known member
Same here. Her credibility's shot and she's been reduced to a laughingstock...can't wait to see her second act.:jawdrop:
lain: Yeah, Al Jolson did the same thing and he was pretty lain:
Last edited:
:doh:
Is it possible for a single thread on TOL to exist that doesn't use either "conservative" or "liberal" or any other variation of these two completely meaningless and or often misapplied words?
Would it make you happy if I changed it to "right wing"...or "rightist?".
It'd make me happy if this nonsense stopped coming up. Seriously, if we turned this lib-conservative bunk into a drinking game most of TOL would be wasted in two shakes.
HisServant
New member
Because to the left, the ends always justify the means... they don't care what they have to do to get there as long as they do. As Debbie Wasserman Schultz has said many times.... it admits she lies all the time but it doesn't matter because of the cause.
In this case, it was quite obvious that her cause would have been defended by the left (as is evidenced by many of the leftists in this thread that has defended her).. the end came when she claimed discrimination for being white a while ago... a no no to the left.
lain: Now, you and I both know that the whole thing is not only a false dichotomy but also flat out in error regarding many of the classical positions for both but......For the purposes of discussion, do you have a better way for Statists to align themselves in a restricted two party system? :idunno:
Not hardly. These are the types of lazy generalization that bring nothing whatsoever to these discussions.
...For the purposes of discussion, do you have a better way for Statists to align themselves in a restricted two party system? :idunno:
Statists are statists and any other party or tribal labels are window dressing. Same team, slightly different jerseys. I'm just fed up with this lazy half-baked kneejerk nonsense.
musterion
Well-known member
Grow up, child man. If these topics don't appeal to you or *gasp* offend your delicate sensibilities, avoid them and go talk about something else.
Nothing to do with what I said, dipstick. I was having an intelligent conversation with Tom (and hope to continue). Maybe you could learn something.:juggle:
P.S. You are really, really bad at talking tough and trying to insult people. Like, terrible at it.
I agree!
HisServant
New member
I find it to be a well deserved generalization as its an idiom that almost always plays out to be true.