DanG

Do you know what the word "if" means? It's okay if you don't, don't be shy. - Dan G

Just move to France, already done. - Dan G

So, by "a wide margin" you meant a wide margin of conflicting opinions? - Dan G

Assuming the conclusion is always an effective logical technique. Very impressive. - Dan G

I don't know, but I know if some blacks riot it doesn't mean that blacks are genetically predisposed to violence. If that's what you think, then you are a bigot. - Dan G

And I'm saying you're full of shit. - Dan G

I must be a perv. That's exactly how I read it. - Dan G

Thank you for the civility. It's generally lacking around here. - Dan G

First of all, we're already discussing this in the main thread. If you seriously think that anything you've posted shows evidence of anything, you're not being intellectually honest. And secondly, I love how apparent it has become that the right wing media is going to pound on this until it becomes part of the anti-Obama meme. It's really pretty fascinating to see how the machine works. - Dan G

If they say that being gay is evil, then yes, they are. So are Christians, Jews, and FSMers if that's what they think. Care to answer my question about people saying gays are born that way being labeled bigots? - Dan G

Are you seriously saying that anyone who mentions that gays are born gay gets labeled a bigot? If so, you are full of it, and I suspect you know it. - Dan G

And I've patiently explained, again and again, why your evidence is sorely lacking, but you don't want to see that. - Dan G

Examples, please. I greatly disagree, but maybe I don't know what you're refering to. Of course, if one of the "negatives" is that being gay is a sign of devil possession and will surely result in going to hell, then maybe the bigot label fits. - Dan G

That "evidence" has already been provided and responded to. I'll humor you in the very off chance that you're interested in what I have to say, and address the points one-by-one: These line items have been shown to be taken out of context. The "support for protest deployment" was truncated fromthe full line, which was "interregional support for protest deployment", and basically meant buying plane tickets and making travel arrangements for the CRS employees. It had nothing to do with which side they supported. The "technical assisstance" could be anything. Again, it doesn't say anything about what they may have advocated for. That's what they are supposed to do, set up dialogues. How does that prove that they were advocating against Zimmerman? The fact that the police chief resigned after the meeting has nothing to do with what the CRS did or did not do. If you can show that the CRS pushed for him to resign, then you'll have something. Without contect, that quote is meaningless. You choose to emphasize the words "us", as in "they were there for US (anti-Zimmerman people)." Neither of us knows if that's what the pastor meant, or if she simply meant that the CRS was there to help the citizens work through the issues, like they are supposed to. If a friend showed up to my Mom's funeral, my statement, "he was there for me," doesn't mean that he showed up for ME, and he was advocating against the rest of my family. Arranging for a police escort to make sure a peaceful protest stays that way seems pretty logical to me. Do you have evidence that a pro-Zimmerman group wanted a police escort and the CRS refused? That would help you argument. And what's with the three paragraphs you quoted saying the same thing over and over? If that's a direct quote from the HawaiiReporter, they suck at reporting. - Dan G

You can say that until you're blue in the face, but it's not the same as providing evidence. - Dan G

I was, of course, exaggerating. Sorry. So what did you mean when you said: - Dan G

I already offered a similar bet to GravityMaster with only tumbleweeds for a response. - Dan G

Read the thread above. All those documents show is that the DOJ unit assigned to mediate racially tense situations, went and worked a racially tense situation. They don't show that they were advocating for any position, coordinating any protests, and training anyone. But the right wing internet doesn't let facts, or lack thereof, get in the way of a good headline. - Dan G

And apparently there is a current politically driven thrust to get the CRS bullshit into the discussion, again with no thought about the actual evidence. - Dan G

As opposed to conservative argument strategy, which is to accuse people of throwing the race card whenever you are losing an argument. Or, as in this case, pre-emptively accusing people of throwing the race card before they even open their mouths. A. Both sides do that. B. What does that have to race and/or gender? - Dan G

That makes no sense. Unless by "call attention to it," you mean yelling "faggots die!!!" every time you see someone who looks gay. Technically, you're correct. Gay people are born and then eventually die, but most people probably don't take that statement to be one regarding biological inevitabilty. - Dan G

Did they help organize anything that was anti-Zimmerman? You have yet to show that. - Dan G

I didn't listen to the audio. Did it say something more damning than, "They were there for us," which isn't damning at all, but apparently the worst quote pjmedia could come up with? I don't know why the DOJ was involved in arranging a police escort. Possibly because the 40 mile route crossed multiple jurisdictions. I'm guessing, but that's a long way from organizing the march itself. - Dan G

Nice job ignoring the meat of the post. Interesting you don't mention any of the other spending that got us into debt, like military adventures in Iraq. - Dan G

That's exactly what I mean. You accept anything remotely anti-Obama at face value, but every other story is a product of the "lap dog media". No, they arranged a police escort for the already organized march. They did not coordinate the march. Again, try reading your own sources. - Dan G