re: #482 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

I did not say DF “was ‘espousing anti-black ideas in the context of the debate that [we are] having here.”

Then why the hell did you bring it up in the context of this debate?:

[snip]

The anti-crime mentality is identical to the anti-lynch law mentality of 100 years ago, and I’ve seen you espouse those exact same ignorant, race-hysterical, authoritarian, majoritarian-supremacist views.

If you thought your anti-Black ideas would stand up to even the faintest scrutiny, let alone the scrunity of a nobody on the internet like me, you’d at least have the integrity of offering an Eric Cantor mealy-mouthed defense.

[/snip]

But he does harbor anti-Black ideas. I do not have an issue of pointing those out.

Point it out all you may. The way that you do it, it doesn’t help your argument. Rather to the contrary.

No, again, there was no “implication”. I said, quite directly, he doesn’t know what he’s even talking about.

That’s certainly not all that you said, see above.

“Racist sentiments” is your terminology, not mine - let’s just make that clear.

Fine, yours was “anti-black ideas” and “Birth of a Nation views” instead. Do you feel better now?

DF knows jack sprat about “lynch laws” of any decade, yet had some kneejerk response to something I said about them. You can tell, because “of the 20s” was his own addition to what I said…ask him why he added it, because I’ve no idea.

What a fine debate course that would have been. And how unfortunate that you decided to drag it into something else.

Oh wait, you can’t. He ran away.

Yeah, in the context of you making the anti-black charges.