Jeez, another day, another of your crazy temper tantrum screeds.
If you do not understand that calling someone a “niggah”, (your word, not mine,) is racist, then what little possible hope I had for you is now long gone.
And that is after you have African Americans sharing your home? Well, I guess whatever you charge them does help pay the rent on the double wide.
By the way, in your attempts to dodge questions, you remind be of the time I deposed Jesse Jackson. “The Rev.” was a master of speaking endlessly and saying nothing. His answer to one question took 26 minutes, and contained no factual information.
You type for time endless, and say nothing and display nothing but increasingly deranged fits of mental masturbation.
Additionally, if you were anything other than the internet version of the Village Idiot, I’d worry about your delusional accusations, such as “You’re some Federal Secret Agent.” but don’t worry, everyone here understands what they... and you... are.
Like I said, get some professional help... and stop chewing up Jim’s bandwidth with your lunacy.
And just what are you inferring that I and "everyone" else here is? Can't wait for this answer.
Temper tantrum, eh? You call me a racist, and even worse --and what should be expected? I'm supposed to thank you?
Yet isn't it true that you kept up with hurling any kind of abuse my way that you could (calling me "crazy" and "a druggie" etc. etc.,) in part because you were wanting something you could label as such? We've seen you use this method before. In the past I identified it as demonic. Remember that? You never seem to remember anything -- if it's not small, and short, and one dimensional, it seems beyond your ability to recall.
You refuse to respond to reason, and keep coming up with new excuses for your rank hypocrisy. I wasn't willing to allow you to get away with it. So sue me? I'm doing you favors here -- but you don't realize it.
It's amazing to me just how oblivious to your own self you seem to be -- which is part of why I considered that it must be "an act" for you to be so stinking dense.
But you've got me wondering -- are you truly as stupid as it seems like you're play-acting (for effect -- to keep this conversation going, to help distance us from where in the conversation a crucial point was touched on)?
Eh -- some of your "stupid" could be chalked up to intellectual laziness, I suppose. That too could fit the conversational evidences, thus be rational hypothesis. You think you already know all the right answers, and so do not need to reconsider any of what you think are the legal "points" your overall approach and assertions rely on.
Does that sound about right? Notice here I did not ask you for your own "opinions" of what my own understanding of aspects of Texas laws may be -- do us all a favor and do not offer those opinions (I've already heard those dozens of times) at least not until after having addressed questions put to you as those are written. Is that too much to ask?
Are you truly so dense? I mean, really --- are you -- or is this just an act?
Did you ever check the context of the other 'magic' word, which word is dawg? Certainly you could answer that last question?
You asked for a magic word. Or should I say, told me that because I "didn't say the magic word" that was reason why you would not answer questions, even just prior to myself having provided link to 'dem 'magic' words reasons for introduction into this thread, and "the phrase "muy niggah" entered first into the conversation here, dawg.
After toying around with the idea of magic words (you were making a game out of "magic words" were you not?) -- I brought that magic dawg into the equation.
A black man had been denied his constitutional rights to not be subjected to interrogation outside presence of legal council. The black man had spoken in vernacular, and had included the word "dog" when making request for a lawyer. Because he had included that word -- seemingly by "magic" that rendered his appeal to Constitutional protections void, according to LE agencies, and the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
That is from where, and was the motivation for myself speaking that strain of vernacular to you, dawg. I was talking "magic words". Don't you 'get' it? As I'd suggested, ask Ben Carson to explain it to if still do not understand it. You say that you would forward an apology (which you demand that I make) to Carson for his perusal, or else-- you would continue to refuse to answer any questions -- much as you had been refusing for to do so for quite some time, even prior to yourself raising accusation that I said "racist" things. Who in the hell wouldn't see yourself making that kind of conditional demand as game-playing?
Those 'magic' words sure did put a spell on you -- that is, if it's not either of the below, or some combination;
2) you were too lazy to have gone and looked to see what it was I was talking about -- even after the first time I sketched a schematic flow chart sort of thing for how those other "magic words" entered into the conversation (this is the second time) -- with it needing be remembered here that is was yourself who gave me the smart-ass excuse that is was because I didn't "say the magic word" you would not need to answer any questions so therefor not need to publicly acknowledge your blatant hypocrisy.
3) you are now pretending to still not understand because it fits in with the "game" you're playing
4) this game of yours is sure to infuriate, to give you something to bitch about (you deceitful, lying sack of crap!)
Are you a black man? If not, how could myself having referred to you as 'mah niggah' -- within the context I did so -- immediately following having supplied link to an Above The Law article which was obviously critical of racist LE and State of Louisiana courts who played along with the LE game-playing (gaming the legal system) be "racism", and not only that, but be personally insulting to Ben Carson (of all people!)?
Should "white people" who say the wrong 'magic words' be forced to bow down and apologize to "black" persons for having used words (in particular setting, and for effect, not for "racist" reasons) that are on a list of words prohibited to be pronounced by "white" people but can be said (and sung) by people who just so happen to be black (but no one else)?
The young man is mixed race and is provided free room and board, with any other necessary expenses put on one of the cards in my own wallet. And no...not a 'manufactured housing' unit, though speaking of double-wides one comes to mind that was rather pleasant. A couple of old biddies I was once acquainted with lived there (now since long passed on).
Shouldn't it be getting to you by now -- NOTHING you say against me in justification for yourself being such an asshole as you've been on these pages -- ever turns out to be true?
You make up lies, then post them with no qualifying notice of "this is a possibility" (while providing reason for why) and if not that, then; this other reason could be possibility, etc. But then again I tell you plainly and truly what the deal is with myself, but you never accept it since it does not fit with the false accusation narratives you're pimping here on FR.
It's fully like -- you KNOW that YOU are a LIAR so ASSUME everyone else is TOO (or something). You're such a damageable liar I'm left to fish around for what's the real truth about you. You won't even tell us what your previous freepname was, for crying out loud.
I've not dodged a single question, not any legitimate ones (rare as those have been coming from you) -- I've even addressed (and unloaded) many "loaded" questions. For that, I'm said to have "ranted". It takes time and effort to unpack the garbage you spew -- to show it for what it is, then flush it.
What does that have to do with me? I say things. It is yourself who is avoiding answering questions -- by any means possible.
Yet with myself here, when you are not dodging questions, or just being an all around jackass about things, you attempt to introduce "facts" that are not factual. Even after those have been examined and found to be unsure footing for some new angle you'd trying out to keep yourself from needing admit you've been wrong about a LOT of things that I've been pointing out...you come back to repeat the same nonsense, over and over.
It's taken myself much more than 25 minutes to show that you state virtually "no" facts, yourself. Here again, you tried to form a weapon to be used against this little black duck, and the charges ended up on the topsides of your own feet. When are you going to learn? How many times must you keep knotting the very noose that ends up around your own neck?
Others than your own self would need be the judges of that.
I've been trying for months to get you to focus upon a single crucial precept. You fight me every step of the way...leading me to believe --it must be deliberate effort on your part for the information be misunderstood as you would prefer it to be misunderstood. It has to be that, or else you do not understand the laws (and the case law pertaining to them) preferring them to be fuzzily stretched towards possibility for criminal conviction for persons belonging to groups you do not approve of. But no, this is not a place where you can simple say "drug dealing biker scum!" and be done with it. But you wanted to, didn't you?
And here we are, getting further and further away from the posted comment that isolated that crucial point (precept) I'd mentioned, framed in simple to read and understand manner. It's in the top portion of #86
As I had said a bit further down within that same comment (#86), in hopes of dragging the conversation into more useful realms;
If you dispute this -- then tell me now, and make whatever difference of opinion you may have plain."
There, right there was opportunity for yourself to do something other than the lazy-ass masturbatory approach that has been your own stock in trade on each and every Waco Twin Peaks thread that you've posted comment on.
Answer questions that are posed to you (for a change) and I would not need to hound you. All of this could be much, much shorter, simpler, and easier. But that's obviously not the way you to want things to be -- not unless you should be allowed to come to this forum and crap all over numerous members with impunity. That's not the way things work around here. So, ah -- don't talk to me about "bandwidth". You have no standing to raise complaint.
I've had more than one freeper thank me for my efforts, and one on this thread referred to you as "slime".
So yeah, people here understand more than you give them credit for. They can see through you as much as I can. If you're not in employ of Federal agency -- (which could help explain your own forum discussion methodologies) then you must be some combination of "dense" (that means -- lacking capability for understanding) and an all-around jerk.
I've given you plenty of opportunities to be reasonable -- but you've sailed right by every one of those, yourself reliably alighting upon only something that really gets your goat, or else some small snippet among what I write to you that you can be an asshole about, giving an asshole's response to it.
So be man for a change, instead of a butthurt intellectual coward who refuses to grasp the subject matter, and the ramifications of the various aspects of the subject matter, so in the future I at least can speak about those things myself instead of needing to be always trying to drag you to doing so.
You spew phrases like "drug dealing murderers" as intellectual shortcut, then try to link myself to those persons -- including at least *some* of whom are not drug dealers, or is a murderer, such as Matthew Clendennen.
It is from there also (my own mentions of men such as Clendennen) that reason arises for myself to have attempted to point out to you, and to every and anyone who has interest in Waco Twin Peaks discussions, aspects of legal considerations discussed in my own comment at #86.
If you're going to argue further with me --please begin from there -- quoting from there specifically what you have disagreement with. None of this editorializing strawman conversion of what I have said to make it easier for you to bat away as if it were nothing. That way of doing things is your usual, and it truly sucks.
So, -- if you're going to keep on like you have, and say things that are in reality saying nothing (except that your all butthurt and don't like me, so make stuff up to insult me, trying to "get even" with me) -- why not just shut up, and save us the misery of needing deal with your nothingness, and wall-to-wall lying about everything?
Send that email to Dr. Carson. Provide to him link to this thread, so that he could see the context. You invoked that man's name, saying you would be the go-between. There's no excuse for not inquiring of himself if he thought that I do owe himself some form of apology. Let's settle that part -- first. Is there, or is there not 'cause of action' and allow the good Mr. Carson himself be judge of that.