Whoa.... you better make sure Gregg knows you've got options!
How can you resist the promise of a meaningful reaction when all you have to do is... holla back?

I'm sick of the word "nigga" in all its variations. If I used the word, I would have reason to fear for my safety.

I once asked an African-American why they used the word, and he said, "To take the sting of it away."

Newsflash: it's not working. The word is more offensive than it ever was. It is now considered by Merriam Webster to be possibly the most offensive word in the language.

No one will ever change my mind about this: If you don't like the word, then don't use it.

"entitled" my ass... That is downright magnanimous.

It is now considered by Merriam Webster to be possibly the most offensive word in the language.

So, more offensive than cunt?

If I used the word, I would have reason to fear for my safety.

Substitute "Islam" for that word, and maybe you would. Who was it who claimed that the Boston bombers would turn out to be Tea Party activists again?

(Why let being in prison ruin your sense of entitlement?)

Well, there is the little-known Second-and-a-Half Amendment:

Non-deprivation being necessary to the progress of the prison population, the right of the prisoners to keep and bear bad bitches shall not be infringed.

I think this guy is just having escapist fantasies.

But at least he's close to literate.

cryptonite and friction?

Ltw: Who was it who claimed that the Boston bombers would turn out to be Tea Party activists again?

I don't know. To the best of my knowledge, no one here did that.

And "Islam" is not a slur. So, no, using that word would not give me reason to fear for my safety.

Ltw: So, more offensive than cunt?

From Merriam-Webster, under "nigger."

Nigger in senses 1 and 2 can be found in the works of such writers of the past as Joseph Conrad, Mark Twain, and Charles Dickens, but it now ranks as perhaps the most offensive and inflammatory racial slur in English. Its use by and among blacks is not always intended or taken as offensive, but, except in sense 3, it is otherwise a word expressive of racial hatred and bigotry.

As for "cunt," the dictionary does call it obscene and offensive, but no such statements about it being "the most inflammatory racial [or sexist] slur in English."

Ltw: "Who was it who claimed that the Boston bombers would turn out to be Tea Party activists again?"

Patrick "I don't know. To the best of my knowledge, no one here did that."

Patrick on April 15, 2013 2:52 PM: "Income tax day, in Boston. I'm betting extremists who call themselves Tea Party members. Way to put the final nails in the coffin of that political movement, guys."

Like I said, I know of no one who "claimed that the Boston bombers would turn out to be Tea Party members."

Learn to read, Ken, thanks.

Now you're trying to weasel out. Those are your words. Own them.

Any "Wall of Sound" letters via Corcoran from Phil Spector?

No, Ken, you're a moron. Own that.

I did not say they might have been "Tea Party members." I said they might have been "extremists who call themselves Tea Party members."

There is a distinction between bona fide members of the Tea Party and lunatics who might consider themselves members of the Tea Party but do extreme things that would not be endorsed by the Tea Party.

In much the same way, Scott Roeder and Paul Hill might consider themselves part of the pro-life movement. But would their actions be endorsed by the pro-life movement? I'm not part of the pro-life movement, but I am guessing not. But if Hill or Roeder were asked, I'm sure they would consider themselves part of the pro-life movement.

Hence the distinction between "members of the pro-life movement" and "extremists who call themselves members of the pro-life movement."

Suppose, for instance, we were talking about the late Robert Schwab. Schwab is no longer with us due to complications from AIDS. In 1983, this former President of the Texas Human Rights Foundation and professed gay rights activist said this:

There has come the idea that if research money [for AIDS] is not forthcoming at a certain level by a certain date, all gay males should give blood.... Whatever action is required to get national attention is valid. If that includes blood terrorism, so be it.

While I believe in gay rights, I would draw the line long before "blood terrorism." And if, in discussion of Robert Schwab, you described him as "an extremist who calls himself a gay rights activist," I would recognize that your choice of words effectively separates him from gay rights activism, and that contaminating the blood supply is not in keeping with activism, and I would likely thank you for making that distinction and not simply calling him a "gay rights activist."

I am completely convinced that there are several regular posters here who would not make that distinction.

And evidently, you're among them, since your previous post indicates, the difference between a "Tea Party member," and "an extremist who calls himself a Tea Party member" is far too nuanced for you.

Like I said: You're a moron. Own that.

"So, more offensive than cunt?"

If there was a pub called The Cock And Cunt, I'd drink there.

The words cock & cunt go together perfectly, just like their namesake organs do in real life. Yet somehow one of the C-words is benign, and the other one packs a real punch. Maybe because one of them is a tool, and the other one is a magical, powerful object of desire?

There is no word for whites that goes together with nigger. Watch some old videos of Malcolm X or the Black Panthers and you can see the steam coming out of their ears as they try to think up a word for whites that conveys the same hatred as nigger - whitey!honky!cracker! - they can't do it. It can't be done. There's no equivalent.

Blacks can go on calling each other nigga for the next 100 years, and they will never take the ugliness out of that word. Men can carry on using the word cunt as an insult, but it will still be a powerful object of desire.

Wow, Patrick evidently studied at the Bill Clinton College of Obfuscation. Comedy gold!

Calling Ken a moron doesn't change what you wrote, a dozen paragraphs of hamster-style rationalization notwithstanding.

Whatever, MikeInRealLife. I will stand by what I said. Too bad the distinction is above you. Did you even bother to read my post? Of course not. I figure a dozen paragraphs is about 11.5 paragraphs longer than your attention span will allow.

""Income tax day, in Boston. I'm betting extremists who call themselves Tea Party members. Way to put the final nails in the coffin of that political movement, guys."

So, genius - is there any way for someone merely claiming to be Tea Party could put those nails in place?

No.

Read what you read, yourself.

Radwaste: So, genius - is there any way for someone merely claiming to be Tea Party could put those nails in place?

Yes. In the same way that Roeder and Hill gave ammunition to those who oppose the pro-life movement. This would be despite the protests of actual pro-lifers insisting that they don't endorse murder. And in the same way that the actions of a few sick individuals fueled rampant Islamophobia... genius. The Tea Party is less able to weather the negative publicity generated by the actions of sick people acting in their name.

Keep 'em coming. I've come to realize a long time ago that many posters on this board are going to insist that they know my intent better than I do. Even though I addressed this already when I first made this statement. If you'd actually look at the discussion I had with Conan on the day I made these statements, you'll find that I had already addressed this.

Next, please.

Patrick,

I really don't care whether you implicated the Tea Party or Tea Party wannabe's. The assumption you made was that a right leaning group was responsible for the attack is where everyone is going.

You don't get to weasel on that, no matter how carefully you crafted your words.

So now that it is known -- you need to learn that many of us on the right economically truly don't care about the left's agenda. Just don't expect us to pay for it.

Jim, whatever. All I'm hearing is that you know what MikeInRealLife, Radwaste and Ken R already know (as much as they think that gnashing their teeth and stomping their widdle feet will somehow change what I wrote): I never implicated the Tea Party. I speculated incorrectly that the responsible parties would be extremists who consider themselves members of the Tea Party. And by implication that the Tea Party would disassociate themselves from them, as they should.

The only weaseling I see is yours, to be blunt. Having noted that Rad, Mike, and Ken have all failed to back their claims that I implicated the Tea Party, you have decided for them what they really mean. They lost their argument, so you've decided to pretend they didn't mean what they said, that they really meant something else.

You only get to decide what you think. Not what someone else thinks. You don't get to jump into a discussion and decide that these people didn't mean what said, because they're such idiots that they don't know how to express themselves in a forum that allows time for premeditation and editing (before you hit "Submit," that is).

No, they are not "going" to the conclusion that I said that "a right leaning group was responsible." They went to the conclusion that I said that the Tea Party would be proven to be responsible. I did not say that; I said that they would be lunatics who consider themselves members of the Tea Party. And what do you know? I was wrong.

I still don't see anything wrong with making a logical connection between Income Tax day, Boston and the Boston Tea Party. And I consider it charitable on my part to have stated that they might have considered themselves members of the Tea Party, as opposed to being actual members of the Tea Party. But thank you for admitting that the Tea Party is right wing. You have no idea how many have tried to suggest otherwise.

Keep 'em coming. I'm actually enjoying this. It hones my debating skills to recognize dishonest arguments.

So, when did religious extremist looking to impose the world most conservitite theocracy no longer qualify as "right wing"

How do these prisoners know who you are Amy? How do they get your address? You need to be careful, these idiots do get released.
I know you like to help people and not like a "therapist" that wants you keep coming back to spend your money..
Please be careful..

I decided to use a real email this time.

Haha hahahaha I just put pirates in for the fun of it, your spam protector works..

"How to get pregnant fast at ConceiveEasy "

Did the Duggar family team up with you?

Gee, Patrick. Maybe, since you are the custodian of your "intent", you could figure out what others would get from your statements.
Because you clearly did not communicate your "intent".

I, as a member of your audience, read what you wrote, knowing zip about you, and came to a conclusion about what you were trying to say.

Now, it looks like you failed with several people. There you go. Blame the audience.

Sorry, Rad. Not even.

This forum, while not strictly speaking a political forum, does get political. I've posted on such forums for years, and I know how it goes. Your enemies assume the worst, their hair-trigger sense of injury is on steroids, and they're quite willing to distort clear words.

So, no. I don't view it that way. I view it as the weeping of the hypersenstive. I didn't "fail" with anyone. They (and you) failed to assign words to me that I never said.

And if you must be a member of my audience, then I hope you enjoy the show. But I will not play to you. Even if you hate my performance, I could not be less interested in adapting my style to your taste. I could count the posters on this forum whose opinions I respect on one hand with fingers left to spare.

You may draw your own conclusions as to where you stand.

How fortunate that reality does not depend on your opinions.

The observation, based on the evidence, is that you failed to make yourself clear. You can claim anything you wish. You, like Crid, like me, like Amy, will not be correct in the logical sense in every comment. This does not depend on my existence to be correct.

Others take a different meaning from your words than you intend. Again, objectively, the only thing to do is explain, not berate your audience. You didn't CLAIM, you were "betting extremists who call themselves Tea Party members.."

For many, if not most, a bet is indeed a claim of good odds some element exists, and that's what YOU conveyed.

Now, be a dick. That'll sway 'em.