What Have You Done?

[The Derp]

I quoted to you already, Warren was keynote speaker first day, Clinton was keynote speaker second day. Barry and Biden were keynote speakers for their days...

Warren was the only keynote speaker. The Wiki you claimed validated your argument turns out to not do so, and you didn't post anything from the DNC that supports your fake claim.

So why did you say the Wiki said there were multiple keynotes when it doesn't?

 

[The Derp]

PC was right, Clinton was also keynote speaker.

Not according to the sources you cited...the DNC and Wiki. Neither of those supports your claim.

So why are you saying that wiki said there were multiple keynote speakers when it doesn't say that? Because you are making this shit up as you go, obviously.

 

[The Derp]

PC was right, Clinton was also keynote speaker.

The thing about you people that is most disturbing is that you don't even believe half the shit you post, and the other half you just make up as you go. You simply cannot have an honest debate about everything because all your positions are steeped in dishonesty.

 

[Ame®icano]

Didn't know there are police brutality and racism at the football field.

There isn't, which is why the players are doing their jobs and playing.

I think you're just upset that these guys are kneeling to protest racist institutions you love. That's the only reason anyone would object to what those guys are doing. If you say protesting racism by kneeling also protests the flag and country, then you are admitting this country is racist and the flag represents racism. Is that what you're now saying?

Nope, that's what kneelers and you who support their kneeling are saying.

When I protest at work, I protest something I don't agree at work.

When I protest high taxes, I do it thru letters to my Congressman, or I protest at Michigan capitol in Lansing.

There is a time and place for protest. Kneeling during national anthem at the sideline of football field is not the time nor place to protest.

 

[Ame®icano]

Didn't know there are police brutality and racism at the football field.

Didn't know that God existed in cakes.

I wouldn't know, I am not religious.

But I do believe in 1st amendment and religious rights.

 

[The Derp]

Nope, that's what kneelers and you who support their kneeling are saying.

And why is their argument not valid? Do you just not think that there is such a thing as institutional racism? Let's get to the core of why you don't want to accept their message. Chances are, that reason is all about denial and self-preservation within the context of an internet debate.

When I protest at work, I protest something I don't agree at work.

Well, that's nice for you, but that's not what these guys are choosing to do. They have a platform where they can reach millions of TV viewers, so they're exercising their rights to use that platform to advance their cause. This bothers you, why? You're not employing them. You not watching the games doesn't matter to them. Your entitlement is of no one's concern. So that's what this is really about, isn't it? These guys are expressing their ability to have power and that exercising of power upsets you because...you don't have that power yourself. So your racial resentment directed at successful black athletes has nothing to do with what they're doing, or even why they're doing it. Your resentment comes from the fact that you simply cannot handle that a black man has greater power to get his message out than you do at denying it.

So, as usual, this isn't about anything other than you.

Get. The. Fuck. Over. Yourself.

When I protest high taxes, I do it thru letters to my Congressman, or I protest at Michigan capitol in Lansing.

WHITE PRIVILEGE.

There is a time and place for protest. Kneeling during national anthem at the sideline of football field is not the time nor place to protest.

And that is a standard you just made up on the spot, in order to give yourself comfort. These guys don't work for you. No one cares about what you personally think is appropriate. I happen to find it offensive and highly inappropriate that you post bullshit on a message board, but that's your right to do so on the medium you've chosen. All these guys are doing is using the platform to elevate the discussion about race...and you are simply too much of a whiny little bitch to man up and have that conversation. You lack the fortitude, courage, and huevos necessary because you're not really an adult. You're just in a state of arrested development.

 

[The Derp]

But I do believe in 1st amendment and religious rights.

Baking a cake (or not baking one) isn't a first amendment right.

 

[Ame®icano]

You suck.

Oh and BTW - you lied about Wiki saying there were multiple keynote speakers. The wiki page for the 2016 DNC lists Elizabeth Warren as the only keynote speaker. You didn't post the link from the DNC that supported your lie. You just spat it out there and hoped no one would check.

So now what we have is a case of a propagandist (you), saying something completely untrue (Clinton being the keynote speaker), then trying to wiggle around the definition of what you meant, all while also lying about the sources you claim to be using.

Sloppy, sloppy work.

Nope, there are links everywhere, you have to look for them.

All news get the schedule and list of speakers from DNC. Some news call them keynote speakers, some call them headliners. Therefore the question about what's the difference in between them.

So let's see... examples.

2016 Democratic National Convention: Schedule, themes and headline speakers - ABC Eyewitness News call them headliners.
Democratic National Convention 2016: Date, schedule, speakers - Alabama Online call them keynote speakers.

Because in reality, there is no difference, they all get the spotlight on a different day.

PC was right.

 

[Ame®icano]

I quoted to you already, Warren was keynote speaker first day, Clinton was keynote speaker second day. Barry and Biden were keynote speakers for their days...

Warren was the only keynote speaker. The Wiki you claimed validated your argument turns out to not do so, and you didn't post anything from the DNC that supports your fake claim.

So why did you say the Wiki said there were multiple keynotes when it doesn't?

I think I mentioned DNC somewhere in there.

 

[The Derp]

PC was right.

So you're just trying to wiggle "headline speakers (of which there were many)" with "keynote speaker (of which there is only one)".

We're wise to your semantic lies.

 

[The Derp]

I think I mentioned DNC somewhere in there.

Well, the DNC also doesn't say there were multiple "keynotes". Your original point was that Clinton was the keynote speaker. Then that changed because you spouted off about something of which you had no clue, so you modified what you meant by "keynote speaker" and you did it in a very dishonest, CYA way.

Your original point was that Bill Clinton was somehow the personification (not right word to use) of Democrats, and you based that on the (now incorrect) thought that he was the keynote speaker at the DNC. When you realized you were wrong about that, you tried to pretend that anyone with a headline speaking role (of which there were how many people? Oh right, at least 14) was somehow a personification of Democrats by way of Bill Clinton (when your argument starts to unravel due to the muddiness).

So now you're forced into the inconvenient position of having to walk back your original statement. So since Bill Clinton got a headline speaking role, as did 13 other people, how is Clinton the personification of the Democrats and not any of the 13 other people with "headline speaking" roles???????

I don't expect you to answer that...I just expect you to run away any second now.

 

[The Derp]

Democratic National Convention 2016: Date, schedule, speakers - Alabama Online call them keynote speakers.

THEM. Not just Bill Clinton, but "them". So there were at least 13 other "keynote" speakers, why don't any of them serve as personification of the party? Oh right because you're a piece of shit who said something stupid you've just had to spend the last half-dozen posts walking back.

Typical. That's because you're sloppy and do sloppy, sloppy work.

 

[Ame®icano]

Nope, that's what kneelers and you who support their kneeling are saying.

And why is their argument not valid? Do you just not think that there is such a thing as institutional racism? Let's get to the core of why you don't want to accept their message. Chances are, that reason is all about denial and self-preservation within the context of an internet debate.

Cite one law that support your claim of institutional racism.

When I protest at work, I protest something I don't agree at work.

Well, that's nice for you, but that's not what these guys are choosing to do. They have a platform where they can reach millions of TV viewers, so they're exercising their rights to use that platform to advance their cause. This bothers you, why? You're not employing them. You not watching the games doesn't matter to them. Your entitlement is of no one's concern. So that's what this is really about, isn't it? These guys are expressing their ability to have power and that exercising of power upsets you because...you don't have that power yourself. So your racial resentment directed at successful black athletes has nothing to do with what they're doing, or even why they're doing it. Your resentment comes from the fact that you simply cannot handle that a black man has greater power to get his message out than you do at denying it.

That platform is not their platform.

It's not their kneeling that bothers me, it's the false premise for kneeling that does.

That Google employee that was fired for writing a memo, also had a platform to reach millions, did you defend him?

So, as usual, this isn't about anything other than you.

Get. The. Fuck. Over. Yourself.

Tell that to Hillary and her supporters.

When I protest high taxes, I do it thru letters to my Congressman, or I protest at Michigan capitol in Lansing.

WHITE PRIVILEGE.

Civility.

There is a time and place for protest. Kneeling during national anthem at the sideline of football field is not the time nor place to protest.

And that is a standard you just made up on the spot, in order to give yourself comfort. These guys don't work for you. No one cares about what you personally think is appropriate. I happen to find it offensive and highly inappropriate that you post bullshit on a message board, but that's your right to do so on the medium you've chosen. All these guys are doing is using the platform to elevate the discussion about race...and you are simply too much of a whiny little bitch to man up and have that conversation. You lack the fortitude, courage, and huevos necessary because you're not really an adult. You're just in a state of arrested development.

They don't work for you neither, and nobody cares what you think is appropriate.

The kneelers are destroying their employers and their own jobs and are too stupid to recognize it. The team owners are so intimidated by their own employees that they don’t have the balls to deny them the NFL owned stage. They really deserve each other.

As I said, it's not their platform to begin with. The fact is that they're rejecting every conversation.

They show finger to all NFL supporters, and now when they're getting millions of fingers in return, they don't like it.

At the end, they will stand. It's going to be too little too late.

 

[Ame®icano]

But I do believe in 1st amendment and religious rights.

Baking a cake (or not baking one) isn't a first amendment right.

Religious freedom is.

Marriage isn't.

 

[Ame®icano]

I think I mentioned DNC somewhere in there.

Well, the DNC also doesn't say there were multiple "keynotes". Your original point was that Clinton was the keynote speaker. Then that changed because you spouted off about something of which you had no clue, so you modified what you meant by "keynote speaker" and you did it in a very dishonest, CYA way.

Your original point was that Bill Clinton was somehow the personification (not right word to use) of Democrats, and you based that on the (now incorrect) thought that he was the keynote speaker at the DNC. When you realized you were wrong about that, you tried to pretend that anyone with a headline speaking role (of which there were how many people? Oh right, at least 14) was somehow a personification of Democrats by way of Bill Clinton (when your argument starts to unravel due to the muddiness).

So now you're forced into the inconvenient position of having to walk back your original statement. So since Bill Clinton got a headline speaking role, as did 13 other people, how is Clinton the personification of the Democrats and not any of the 13 other people with "headline speaking" roles???????

I don't expect you to answer that...I just expect you to run away any second now.

Nope, PC point was that Clinton was keynote speaker. And he was, at the day two.

The PC point was that Clinton is personification of Democrats, not mine. I think Ted Kennedy would be better example, but Clinton is pretty close.

Nope, I did not backed on my statement. DNC provided list of speakers, I just pointed to places where you can find their lists.

 

[Ame®icano]

Democratic National Convention 2016: Date, schedule, speakers - Alabama Online call them keynote speakers.

THEM. Not just Bill Clinton, but "them". So there were at least 13 other "keynote" speakers, why don't any of them serve as personification of the party? Oh right because you're a piece of shit who said something stupid you've just had to spend the last half-dozen posts walking back.

Typical. That's because you're sloppy and do sloppy, sloppy work.

Bill Clinton was one of the keynote speakers of the day.

Therefore Bill Clinton was keynote speaker.

Therefore PC was right.

 

[The Derp]

Cite one law that support your claim of institutional racism. It's not their kneeling that bothers me, it's the false premise for kneeling that does.

It's not necessarily the law (though Rockefeller Drug laws and higher penalties for crack-cocaine vs. powder are pretty clear examples) it's the enforcement of the law that is racist and what they're protesting. The fact that blacks and whites use marijuana at the same rates, yet black people are six times more likely to be arrested and imprisoned for it then white people is undeniable. The fact that this has to be explained to you just now proves you don't really get it, and never did. That's not entirely your fault; a lot of it lies with your parents who did such a shit job raising you, but also because of your privilege. Assuming, of course, that you're not just some Russian propagandist and actually believe the shit you're posting...

That platform is not their platform.

Who are you to say it isn't? The internet isn't your platform to spread white racial resentment either. So shut up and stop posting.

That Google employee that was fired for writing a memo, also had a platform to reach millions, did you defend him?

That Google employee wasn't protesting anything. He was just spouting resentment and garbage. But I see that you are trying to draw some kind of equivalence. That's because you recognize the hideousness of your own position, so you are seeking to drag everything else down into the shit with you. It's not gonna work. You're wasting your time.

Tell that to Hillary and her supporters.

Nah, I'll say it to the angry white people who hate the fact that black athletes have a more powerful platform from which they can spread their message than you do in denying it. That much is evident from the shit you post. I think you resent the fact that these black guys are using their position and platform to express their grievances and you think you're entitled to the same platform and power. You're not. You're not remarkable. You're not special. You're not good. You're not a success. Those guys are successes, you aren't. But because you're a racist, you think that any black man who is successful owes it to you and your white social resentment. Let me clear something up for you right now; NO ONE OWES YOU SHIT. You've accomplished nothing to achieve that level of power, and you never will. So get the fuck over yourself.

Civility.

Taking a knee isn't civil but screaming "Jews will not replace us" is? Well, we already know you're a racist nobody, want to throw "fascist" on top of that? These guys are doing literally nothing and look how much they've upset your delicate, fragile, frilly little sensitivities. Such a snowflake!

They don't work for you neither, and nobody cares what you think is appropriate.

Right. So here we are, two guys on the internet who differ on your view that there is an "appropriate" way to protest. You don't want these guys to use their platform because it reminds you that you don't have that platform yourself, and because they're black, you think they owe their success to you. They don't. No one owes you anything. In fact, you owe us civility and honesty. So when are you paying that bill? Never, because Conservatives don't pay bills. They're deadbeats.

The kneelers are destroying their employers and their own jobs and are too stupid to recognize it. The team owners are so intimidated by their own employees that they don’t have the balls to deny them the NFL owned stage. They really deserve each other.

Wait, how are they "destroying the owners"? What does that mean? The only thing these guys are destroying is the unearned entitlement you have when it comes to being discomforted on TV. For you, it boggles the mind that a black man would not only be successful, but then use that success to push for social change. Because in your mind, they owe you everything. Even though you don't sign their paychecks, you don't watch their games, and you have not achieved the same level of success. Your resentment is more a reflection on your personal failures in life than it is about "appropriate". These black guys using that platform to express their grievances upsets you because you will never have the same platform, even though you think you're entitled to it. You're not. You're not entitled to shit. Not even your opinion.

As I said, it's not their platform to begin with. The fact is that they're rejecting every conversation.

You're denying institutional racism even exists, so you're the one who is rejecting the conversation. Like, you had to go so far as to ask for a law that is racist (of which, there are many including most of our Drug Laws), either because you didn't know or didn't want to know. We can't have a conversation about this because you all still think you're entitled to the same platform and grievances as black players. You're not. Get over yourself. Stop doing so much talking and telling, and do some listening.

They show finger to all NFL supporters, and now when they're getting millions of fingers in return, they don't like it.

LOL! You all vastly underestimate your impact on the players. In fact, since these things have started more players have knealt. So your actions are having the opposite effect of what you intended. By telling black players to pipe down, all you're doing is showing everyone that you've got unearned entitlement issues and cannot handle a black man with the power to use a platform to convey a message.

At the end, they will stand. It's going to be too little too late.

Conservatives aren't going to stop people from watching the NFL. In the end, what's going to happen is players will continue to kneel, and you'll continue to pretend you're not watching the NFL.

 

[The Derp]

Religious freedom is.Marriage isn't.

Baking a cake isn't religious freedom.

And furthermore, what is the harm to bakers by baking a cake?

 

[jc456]

What is the difference between keynote and headline speaker?

Because one is a keynote. Do they not have keynote speakers in Russia?

According to DNC and Wiki, there were keynote speakers every day, addressing different issues.

For fuck's sake, now you're trying to wiggle around "headline speaker" with "keynote speaker" and you're only scrambling to reset the parameters because you were initially wrong.

it seems you are the one doing the wiggling. too funny.

 

[jc456]

Religious freedom is.Marriage isn't.

Baking a cake isn't religious freedom.

And furthermore, what is the harm to bakers by baking a cake?

no religious freedom is the religious freedom. It allows someone to live by their morals from what they believe in. If it means baking a cake for someone you don't support, you don't bake a cake. what's so hard about that? It is allowed in this country. You don't like it, either change the law, accept the law or move.