(07-18-2019 03:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 02:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 01:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So your assessment is that the 9000 or so people are racist? Or they are ignorant for joining the chant?

More proof you don’t read the things I write. You wouldn’t have asked if I thought 9,000 people joined the chant if you had.

I read your answer and it wandered on a specific point, imo, and left me wondering. Notwithstanding your whiny 'proof' remark, son.

It is called having a doubt with a specific point on where you stand and pinning a point down precisely. That is the use here. Again, notwithstanding your whiny 'proof' remark, son.

There was a little point I left off my question, though, to be fair.

So your assessment is that the 9000 (or whatever your heart thinks is the number, for that matter) or so people who chanted are racist? Or they are ignorant for joining the chant?

Better now? Answerable now? And no you really haven't answered the question son. And with reference to what is typed by you, you said 'the chant [was] racist' (Direct quote mind you). I am not asking about the fing 'chant', I am asking your opinion on the *people who joined the chant*. Very specifically. Kind of a fing nuance there.

So yes, I read it. I read exactly and precisely what you typed. And wish for a clarification of that.

I do appreciate you trying to narrow down the point if you’re confused, although I clearly said that “a lot” of people in the crowd weren’t chanting.

That has zero to do with the question asked. The question asked was those of 'whom were chanting.' I fail to see how this has anything to do with actual question asked. Funny how you were just bitching about 'reading' and such.

Whether 'a lot' werent chanting, or 'a tiny number' werent chanting, or 50, or 100, or 3.1415 means zero in context of the specific question asked. I dont know your fascination with that chew toy. But it definitely in no way is an answer to the very specific question, is it lad? In your own words, please read the question (paraphrase of course, just to make sure their is no other verbal chew toy out there)

Quote:I watched video clips of the rally, and it was clear that a large portion of the supporters didn’t chant.

Again non-responsive.

And a point. I actually watched the entirety of Trump's remarks. A couple of times around the 2:32 and the preceding 10 mins in toto, and the succeeding 10 mins, again in toto. To be clear and precise of some items I was typing, in fact.

The cutaways showed a huge number of people chanting. This is opposed to the snippets that you rely so hugely on.

Funny thing I saw more than quite a few African Americans in the rafters chanting like no tomorrow. Jumping up and down as they yelled. Odd, wouldnt you say?

Maybe that is the difference between snippet watching and not. Maybe not.

Quote:Again I’ll ask, I wonder why a lot of people didn’t? Thoughts?

And once again non-responsive.

Quote:And my response is that the people who chanted that are either intentionally racist, ignorant of the racist component that “Send her back” has, or being intentionally inflammatory. Same way as those who chanted “Blood and Soil” in Charlottesville were either white supremacists, or ignorant of the relation to white supremacy.

Finally, thank god. An answer to the specific question. Holy moses that is like pulling teeth.

Quote:If people chanting that aren’t racist, and I’m sure some aren’t, they could have chanted many other things to quickly, and easily, get the point across that they disagree with Omar, and as you have argued, should prove that her approach works.

Based on your answer, I can see why you defend Hillary's 'deplorables' comment to your dying breath at every opportunity. Thank you for the clarification.

So your argument is that people chanting that are...

And what about those that didn’t join in the chorus? Why do you think they stayed silent?