2008 Presidential election about race?

Peaceful Bill wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Here's something you might want to chew on:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2008/1...ta_talk_angell

Enjoy !

Whatever. The article didn't even mention John Crowley. But then you
don't really know about what you speak anyway. And neither did the
author. Is he just another Fortenberry or does he have credibility.

Roger Angell ? Oh, he's just another one of the numerous
Ken Fortenberry wannabes at _The New Yorker_. LOL !!

--
Ken Fortenberry

Peaceful Bill wrote:


*Fortenberry.* Its the worst possible thing I can think of.


Heh heh, I´ll second that. Nevertheless, over a very long period of
time I have come to realise that there is basically nothing sensible to
be done other than ignore him. No matter what you write, sense or logic
will do you no good at all, he will just keep on hammering at you for
something or other. He has a talent for inciting people, probably his
only talent, and there are some here who would support him.

Just ignore the asshole. Nobody will think ill of you as a result, and
when he is obliged to spew his paranoid rants without anybody replying,
it just makes him look more of a loony.

Of course, these things are a matter of individual choice.

Neveretheless, I wish I had come to such a conclusion, and implemented
it, a long long time ago.

TL
MC

"Fred" wrote

I never met a moose or deer or even a bear for that matter that I did not
like
i never saw a bear throw beer bottles or cigarette butts in a river




I've met a couple bears that littered badly

On 15-Nov-2008, " wrote:

Nevertheless, over a very long period of
time I have come to realise that there is basically nothing sensible to
be done other than ignore him

I wish I had come to such a conclusion, and implemented
it, a long long time ago
====================

Quit you f'in whining and crying and listen to your own advice - Fool!
Its never too late!


Tonto

wrote:
Peaceful Bill wrote:
*Fortenberry.* Its the worst possible thing I can think of.

Heh heh, I´ll second that. ...

"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one:
O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it."

- Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:26:58 -0600, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Tom Littleton wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
Bull**** is fine, racist bull**** is not. I try to be careful and
call the bull**** racist, not the people.

and calling an alternative opinion, or reading of statistics, racist is
wrong. Repeating it, endlessly, at nearly everyone who questions your
statistical analysis, is loony.

Assuming that most or a significant number of black voters are
black racists is racist bull****.

Well, you've called me racist, the entire South racist, etc., etc.,
etc., and yet, I've not said, nor have I seen it said, that "a
significant number of black voters are black racists..." However,
depending on how you define "significant," I will say it right now: if
"significant" means more than 10% and less than 50%, a "significant"
number of black voters (and non-voters) are black racists. Just like
about the same number of white voters (non-voters) are white racists.
But that's not important in the data set under discussion. If you
define "significant" as "meaningful to the result(s) in question, what's
important is that a _significant_ number of non-white voters were
encouraged to vote skin color and did so. It just so happens that in
this case, using the latter definition, "significant" in import is
pretty small in relative numbers. And it doesn't say they are "racist"
in the traditional sense, it merely confirms the well-established - that
people tend to vote, associate, etc., with people they perceive as being
most like themselves...which also explains why so much white trash
support the Clintons...

It doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with "statistical analysis".
There's nothing wrong with calling racist bull**** exactly what
it is. And I fully intend to do just that.

Ken, I like you, but you are one of, if not _the_ most blindly racist
people on ROFF. I will assume, in your favor, that you have a blind
spot and aren't able to see just how racist you really are. Black folks
don't need or want some guilty white liberal defending them like some
benevolent better with some starry-eyed view of "his brothas in da
conflict." And it does no good, and it fact it does harm, to scream
"RACISM!!" anytime anyone treats "black" just like any other
demographic.

TC,
R

YMMV

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:30:37 -0600, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Peaceful Bill wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Here's something you might want to chew on:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2008/1...ta_talk_angell

Enjoy !

Whatever. The article didn't even mention John Crowley. But then you
don't really know about what you speak anyway. And neither did the
author. Is he just another Fortenberry or does he have credibility.

Roger Angell ? Oh, he's just another one of the numerous
Ken Fortenberry wannabes at _The New Yorker_. LOL !!

FWIW, various members of the Alexis family and my family are friends,
and I know neither of you know of that which you claim to speak...I
would guess that Lucky would have voted McCain, and I can just about
guarantee - to the point, ala John McLaughlin, of a metaphysical
certainty - that at least two of his children did.

HTH,
R

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Tom Littleton wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
Bull**** is fine, racist bull**** is not. I try to be careful and
call the bull**** racist, not the people.

and calling an alternative opinion, or reading of statistics, racist is
wrong. Repeating it, endlessly, at nearly everyone who questions your
statistical analysis, is loony.
Assuming that most or a significant number of black voters are
black racists is racist bull****.

Well, you've called me racist, the entire South racist, etc., etc.,
etc., ...

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck,
it's usually safe to assume it's a duck. Either that or the title
of a comedy album. LOL !!

It doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with "statistical analysis".
There's nothing wrong with calling racist bull**** exactly what
it is. And I fully intend to do just that.

Ken, I like you, but you are one of, if not _the_ most blindly racist
people on ROFF.

That one's getting a lot of use lately, the old "I know you are
but what am I" from kindergarten.

--
Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Peaceful Bill wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Here's something you might want to chew on:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2008/1...ta_talk_angell

Enjoy !
Whatever. The article didn't even mention John Crowley. But then you
don't really know about what you speak anyway. And neither did the
author. Is he just another Fortenberry or does he have credibility.
Roger Angell ? Oh, he's just another one of the numerous
Ken Fortenberry wannabes at _The New Yorker_. LOL !!

FWIW, various members of the Alexis family and my family are friends,
and I know neither of you know of that which you claim to speak...

A friend of my cousin's girlfriend once had a flat tire right
outside of El Paso, Texas so I know you're just plain full of it.

Sheesh.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:09:02 -0600, Ken "Quackers" Fortenberry
quacked:

Quack, quack-quack quackity-quack quack quack....