It appears dmarks is wrong on every count (which isn't unusual).
John Hansen actually spelled his last name "Hanson".
He wasn't the first president either. Snopes says, "John Hanson was never considered the first president of the United States ...neither the office of President of the United States nor the nation known as the United States of America was created until after he was dead".
And finally, John Hanson wasn't African-American. This appears to be a myth promoted by Conservatives to diminish the significance of the election of Barack Obama.
Name one thing where I was wrong on. You can't. Other than the spelling flame, with the spelling being the only thing I got incorrect. But this is coming from you, the person who turned fake attorney Francis Boyle into a woman by calling him Frances.
The information on Hanson has nothing to do with conservatives or Obama. You are changing the subject.
As for the rest of it, the jury is out: there is evidence both ways on his ethnic heritage.
"neither the office of President of the United States nor the nation known as the United States"
And here you pretty much admit defeat through lame sophistry. It's all the same country.
Using your logic, there was never a leader of German named Adolf Hitler (sorry for the Godwin!) since the name of Germany at the time was "Deutsches Reich".
And to put the nail in the coffin of the hilarious idea that the John Hanson "myth" was created to discredit Obama.
dmarks, the "logic" isn't mine. I posted a direct quote from Snopes. Snopes debunked the claim that Hanson was the first president of the United States.
When Hanson was president of the Constitutional Convention The US was operating under the Articles of Confederation and NOT the US Constitution. Hanson was never president under the Constitution, and thus not a president of the United States.
Also, I never said Right-wingers "created" the myth that Hanson was African-American... I said they are now promoting it to diminish the election of Barack Obama. Go back and check the wording I used. I was aware when I wrote my prior comment that the myth existed BEFORE Obama was elected.
Also, you're the one who misidentified Francis Boyle as a woman. I'm surprised that you're bring that up... one would think you'd be too embarrassed to remind people of your huge gaffe.
Wikipedia/ John Hanson: ...in 1779 Hanson was elected as a delegate to the Continental Congress. He signed the Articles of Confederation in 1781 after Maryland finally joined the other states in ratifying them. In November 1781, he was the first person to be elected as the presiding officer [but] Hanson was little more than the first among equals in Congress and had no executive power. His duties were largely ceremonial, and his correct title was President of the Continental Congress.
WD said: "Snopes debunked the claim that Hanson was the first president of the United States."
They did not, actually.
"His duties were largely ceremonial"
Which would mean, by that logic, the Queen of England is not really a Queen. All silly sophistry.
"Also, you're the one who misidentified Francis Boyle as a woman."
We both did. Independent of my gaffe, you referred to him is "Frances".
"I'm surprised that you're bring that up... one would think you'd be too embarrassed to remind people of your huge gaffe."
When I am wrong, I admit it.
I'm surprised you would keep this one going. One would think you'd be too embarassed to remind people of your OWN spelling gaffe, considering how hung up you are on spelling flames.
"Also, I never said Right-wingers "created" the myth that Hanson was African-American... I said they are now promoting it to diminish the election of Barack Obama."
That's a nutty conspiracy theory if ever there was one. Obama has nothing to do with this at all.
"I was aware when I wrote my prior comment that the myth existed BEFORE Obama was elected."
"Hanson was never president under the Constitution, and thus not a president of the United States. "
Again, pathetic, sad sophistry. This wold mean that the 557 Chinese emperors of the Qin Dynasty were not Chinese emperors, as the place was not called "China" at the time.
1) The country was first referred to as the United States of America in 1776, a few years before Hansen's Presidency.
2) "Presiding officer" means "president" here. From the definition of president: "One appointed or elected to preside over an organized body of people, such as an assembly or meeting.
3) The phrase used "first among equals" is used to apply to British Prime Ministers, who are considered to be the leaders of the nation. Not good for you to use this as support for your rewriting of history.
-------------
So here you have a land called the United States of America for a few years already. And then you have a governing body of this new nation, the Continental Congress. And then you have a president elected over this body... the President of the United States. You really have to twist definitions and history in order to deny this, which is why you have failed.
Sure. Hanson was not the father of the country. And while he was President of the United States, he was not of the same succession under the Constitution that started with George Washington. But you are flat out lying to say this man wasn't also the President of the United States.
dmarks: Not good for you to use this as support for your rewriting of history.
I quoted Snopes and Wikipedia. I did no "rewriting". Your beef is with them. Me, I'm going with the experts on this one. Also, I'd wager the all the history books used in our schools say Washington was the first president.
dmarks: I'm surprised you would keep this one going. One would think you'd be too embarrassed to remind people of your OWN spelling gaffe, considering how hung up you are on spelling flames.
[1] I don't recall ever spelling "Francis" with an "e", [2] I asked you for a link to where I spelled it that way and you couldn't produce one, [3] WTF difference does it make? You're the one who slandered the MAN by insisting he's anti-Semitic. You'd think if you're going to slime a person the least you could do is know if they're a man or a woman.
I usually ignore spelling errors, because I've made a few myself. I only brought it up this time because I found it interesting that, in addition to getting everything else wrong, you also got the spelling of his name wrong. (You did it again, btw... in one of your comments AFTER I pointed it out).
dmarks: That's a nutty conspiracy theory if ever there was one. Obama has nothing to do with this at all.
How can Obama have "nothing to do with this at all"? He is our first African-American president, not Hanson.
There was still slavery at the time, so I don't see how that would be even remotely possible for Hanson to attain a position of authority if he really were black. Unless it was some tiny percentage (of African blood) and nobody knew... but according to what I've read he was a White guy whose grandfather was from England.
Bottom line: you've produced no evidence to support your claim.
Which included details about how this man was the first President of the United States. (I found other necessary details elsewhere, including the name of the nation at the time he became President.
"I only brought it up this time because I found it interesting that, in addition to getting everything else "
That was the only thing I got wrong. The rest I got right, and your links, which provided details on how this man was President of the United States, only helped me.
"(You did it again, btw... in one of your comments AFTER I pointed it out)."
I did that on purpose, knowing you love pointless spelling flames, and would leap at the chance to "nail" me on the only thing I actually got wrong.
"You're the one who slandered the MAN by insisting he's anti-Semitic. Y
I only pointed out the facts. The man is on record stating his fond wish for the ethnic cleansing of Israelis... only those that are Jewish. Francis Boyle, the fake attorney, slimes himself with his antisemitism.
"Bottom line: you've produced no evidence to support your claim."
We both produced evidence that proved he was President before Washington. As for his ethnic heritage, there is good evidence either way.
And no it has nothing to do with Obama. I was not even thinking of Obama when I mentioned this man. You were the one who brought Obama up, but I don't care since the first president has nothing to do with the last one.
It is like if someone mentioned Truman, and you decided to rant about Millard Fillmore for a while.
No one is every going to agree on who should be on Rushmore and who should not. Those deemed worthy by some will be cast as virtual demons by the other party.
Therefore, I think we should put the most influential fellows on Mt. Rushmore. In other words, we should carve over Theodore Roosevelt with the image of FDR.
If we have more room, we should consider Ronald Reagan, not for what he has done, much of which was bad, but for the inspiration he provided to the GOP. Despite the fact that they are all nuts now and Ronald Reagan himself would have been horrified, he was inspirational.
Snopes said "false" (John Hanson was NOT the first president), but you read between the lines and found that they really meant "true"? That sounds pretty nutty to me, dmarks.
Also, if you go to the authoritative source on the subject, Whitehouse.gov, you'll find a list of the presidents of the United States... And according to Whitehouse.gov the first president was Washington. I think that settles it.
And why link to a picture of Native Americans hovering over Rushmore dmarks? Rushmore is for US Presidents... Are you trying to convince people that you're concerned about the rights of minorities? Despite the fact that you often worry about Whites being discriminated against?
dmarks: [Francis Boyle] is on record stating his fond wish for the ethnic cleansing of Israelis...
No he isn't. You made that up.
dmarks: As for [John Hanson's] ethnic heritage, there is good evidence either way...
If it exists why do you refuse to cite it? I'm fairly certain you're wrong.
Also, when I typed the info into Google I got a lot of right-wing cites in the results... thus my conclusion that Righties cite this myth to diminish the significance of the election of Barack Obama. The observation has nothing to do with what you were thinking.
John Myste: If we have more room, we should consider Ronald Reagan, not for what he has done...
Ronald Reagan was one of the worst presidents ever. He is easily in the top ten worst.
WD: Your "Frances", the fake would-be attorney, made the statements, not me. He wrote of how he wishes for the Jewish population of Israel to be purged. Expelled. By peaceful means, over a long period of time, he says. But his supposed peaceful claims are belied by his support of Palestinian terror groups and the Iranian government, which all give high priority to their goals of killing off Jews and Jewish Israelis.
These are inconvenient truths about your "Frances" and his views.
---------
"John Hanson was NOT the first president"
WD, you are lying. The information you yourself quote has him President prior to Washington.
" thus my conclusion that Righties cite this myth to diminish the significance of the election of Barack Obama"
You are lying again. For one, it is not a myth. Are you really this boneheaded? For another, it has nothing to do with Obama. You are making a leap of pure imagination to connect them.
Exactly like someone babbling about Millard Fillmore at the mention of Woodrow Wilson.
----------
"Are you trying to convince people that you're concerned about the rights of minorities?"
I don't care about special minority rights. Only racists want that. I do, however, believe strongly in equal rights for ALL regardless of their skin color. And another inconvenient truth is that the Black Hills, by treaty, really belong to the Lakota. So to me it would be fine to see Lakota carved into it.
"Despite the fact that you often worry about Whites being discriminated against?"
Any time anyone is targetted by racism, I condemn it. No matter what the color of the victim. I strongly reject your belief that people with white skin color deserve racist treatment, as I believe no-one does. At all.
dmarks: Your "Frances", the fake would-be attorney, made the statements, not me.
I never used that spelling. Your refusal to provide a link confirms it. Also, Francis Boyle made no statements about "ethnic cleansing of Israelis". You made it up. It's completely fictional. Also, Mr. Boyle received his degree from Harvard. Are you saying that Harvard gives out fake degrees? This is just more dmarks nuttiness.
dmarks: WD, you are lying.
I'm telling the truth. Snopes says FALSE.
dmarks: You are lying again.
Why the hell would I lie about what my conclusion was? Your accusation of lying doesn't make any sense. Why else would so many Righties be repeating this myth about the "first president of the US" John Hanson being African American?
dmarks: I don't care about special minority rights. Only racists want that.
Actually, your rejection of Affirmative Action says to me that you might be a racist.
Finally, what's up with your and Will's desire to blow up a national monument? Why do you hate this group of people (the residents of the area that depend on tourism for their income) so much that you want to destroy the source of their livelihood?
"Why the hell would I lie about what my conclusion was? "
The problem with liars is that it is hard to be consistent about the lies.
---------
"Actually, your rejection of Affirmative Action says to me that you might be a racist."
Why would it? Only by a leap of imagination and your complete ignorance of the result. I oppose any part of affirmative action which demands different treatment due to race because that is by definition racist.
Definition 2 of racism: ": racial prejudice or discrimination"
Specific examples of racist affirmative-action policies include the famous University of Michigan admissions policies, which have a point system to punish or reward applicants based on skin color.
We have discussed this before. You have disingenously claimed during discussions that I am somehow some sort of pro-white racist. When in fact if you have said it was OK for anyone of any color to be the victim of racism, I would and will defend that person. And I have.
--------------
Also, in regards to Francis Boyle made no statements about "ethnic cleansing of Israelis""
Actually, he has on numerous occasions. Here is one of his fevered rants full of antisemitic lies, in which he speaks fondly over and over of the desire to get rid of the Israelis. And when they are gone? His own words, this little Eichmann says: "Good riddance".
As for Boyle being a fake attorney, his aw degree is in "He also practiced tax and international tax with Bingham, Dana & Gould." This leaves him no more an attorney involved in matters of war crimes or international law than you or I. He merely thinks he has such qualifications. An armchair attorney with delusions of grandeur. But he is beneath the contempt of the actual professionals: his rants on war criminals submitted to the ICC and similar actual authorities always get ignored, as they are completely without merit.
But April 15th is coming. Maybe I can have Francis Boyle help me with my taxes. It's the only thing he's qualified to do.
Boyle's boobery of declaring Alan Dershowitz as a "War Criminal" merely for being Jewish and outspoken against anti-semitism is just more evidence that outside of his field, he has no idea what he is talking about. If you cut Boyle off in traffic some day, rest assured he will be hanging his head out the window flipping you the finger and screaming about what a war criminal you are.
dmarks lied: [Francis Boyle is] no more an attorney involved in matters of war crimes or international law than you or I.
From Wikipedia: Francis Anthony Boyle (born 1950) is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. Boyle received a A.B. (1971) in Political Science from the University of Chicago, then a J.D. degree magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, and A.M. and Ph.D. degrees in Political Science from Harvard University. [End excerpt from Wikipedia]
dmarks, you served as a professor of international law? Prove it. I haven't, and have never made such claims.
dmarks, in response to my statement that "Francis Boyle made no statements about ethnic cleansing of Israelis" lied: Actually, he has on numerous occasions. Here is one of his fevered rants full of anti-Semitic lies...
The words "ethnic cleansing" are not in the article you linked to. He stands up for the rights of Palestinians, which I agree with. But I think he goes quite too far and I don't agree with his overall view on this subject. But being anti-Israel doesn't automatically make a person an anti-Semite.
And he has never advocated ethnic cleansing... not in any article you've ever linked to. I think if he HAD actually said it in an article you would have found it.
dmarks: The problem with liars is that it is hard to be consistent about the lies.
So why do you keep lying? And why lie about such DUMB things? When you lie about things that are EASILY fact-checked it makes you look really stupid, dmarks.
A professor is not an attorney. You seem to be totally unaware of this. In fact, I was the only one who referred to Boyle's actual and meager qualifications as an attorney. Then you attempt to counter that by giving his credentials which have nothing to do with him being an attorney. Credentials which I already knew about.
Seeing as you evidence no knowledge of what an attorney is, lets refer to the definition of attorney: "A person legally appointed by another to act as his or her agent in the transaction of business, specifically one qualified and licensed to act for plaintiffs and defendants in legal proceedings."
Yes, Boyle is an actual tax attorney. He is not an attorney in any of the fields he imagines himself to be an expert in.
"The words "ethnic cleansing" are not in the article you linked to"
It is an accurate term to describe the situation of elimination of a population short of genocide, something Boyle supports.
"And he has never advocated ethnic cleansing."
No, not at all. He supports getting rid of the Israelis ("good riddance!") but not ethnic cleansing. Hahahah.
"So why do you keep lying?"
I have yet to.
"EASILY fact-checked it makes you look really stupid, dmarks."
I wonder how we can characterize it when you attempt to back up a claim that someone is an attorney by providing their qualifications as a professor.
So, your argument is that, even though he's a professor of international law, he actually knows nothing about international law. Yeah, that makes sense... not.
And clearly you have no idea what "ethnic cleansing" means. I suggest you look it up.
29 comments:
Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Ha, ha, ha...
Our first President, the African-American named John Hansen.
Wonder if there is a movement to
put the scowling Nixon up in the
granite cliff?
It appears dmarks is wrong on every count (which isn't unusual).
John Hansen actually spelled his last name "Hanson".
He wasn't the first president either. Snopes says, "John Hanson was never considered the first president of the United States ...neither the office of President of the United States nor the nation known as the United States of America was created until after he was dead".
And finally, John Hanson wasn't African-American. This appears to be a myth promoted by Conservatives to diminish the significance of the election of Barack Obama.
Name one thing where I was wrong on. You can't. Other than the spelling flame, with the spelling being the only thing I got incorrect. But this is coming from you, the person who turned fake attorney Francis Boyle into a woman by calling him Frances.
The information on Hanson has nothing to do with conservatives or Obama. You are changing the subject.
As for the rest of it, the jury is out: there is evidence both ways on his ethnic heritage.
"neither the office of President of the United States nor the nation known as the United States"
And here you pretty much admit defeat through lame sophistry. It's all the same country.
Using your logic, there was never a leader of German named Adolf Hitler (sorry for the Godwin!) since the name of Germany at the time was "Deutsches Reich".
And to put the nail in the coffin of the hilarious idea that the John Hanson "myth" was created to discredit Obama.
click here. And here is an account from 2003
This historic account was posted in 2005, years before Barack Obama ran for President. I knew of this history before that even.
Imagine that. A diabolical right-wing conspiracy that plotted to discredit Barack Obama more than 4 years before he started his campaign.
dmarks, the "logic" isn't mine. I posted a direct quote from Snopes. Snopes debunked the claim that Hanson was the first president of the United States.
When Hanson was president of the Constitutional Convention The US was operating under the Articles of Confederation and NOT the US Constitution. Hanson was never president under the Constitution, and thus not a president of the United States.
Also, I never said Right-wingers "created" the myth that Hanson was African-American... I said they are now promoting it to diminish the election of Barack Obama. Go back and check the wording I used. I was aware when I wrote my prior comment that the myth existed BEFORE Obama was elected.
Also, you're the one who misidentified Francis Boyle as a woman. I'm surprised that you're bring that up... one would think you'd be too embarrassed to remind people of your huge gaffe.
Wikipedia/
John Hanson: ...in 1779 Hanson was elected as a delegate to the Continental Congress. He signed the Articles of Confederation in 1781 after Maryland finally joined the other states in ratifying them. In November 1781, he was the first person to be elected as the presiding officer [but] Hanson was little more than the first among equals in Congress and had no executive power. His duties were largely ceremonial, and his correct title was President of the Continental Congress.
WD said: "Snopes debunked the claim that Hanson was the first president of the United States."
They did not, actually.
"His duties were largely ceremonial"
Which would mean, by that logic, the Queen of England is not really a Queen. All silly sophistry.
"Also, you're the one who misidentified Francis Boyle as a woman."
We both did. Independent of my gaffe, you referred to him is "Frances".
"I'm surprised that you're bring that up... one would think you'd be too embarrassed to remind people of your huge gaffe."
When I am wrong, I admit it.
I'm surprised you would keep this one going. One would think you'd be too embarassed to remind people of your OWN spelling gaffe, considering how hung up you are on spelling flames.
"Also, I never said Right-wingers "created" the myth that Hanson was African-American... I said they are now promoting it to diminish the election of Barack Obama."
That's a nutty conspiracy theory if ever there was one. Obama has nothing to do with this at all.
"I was aware when I wrote my prior comment that the myth existed BEFORE Obama was elected."
But it is not a myth.
"Hanson was never president under the Constitution, and thus not a president of the United States. "
Again, pathetic, sad sophistry. This wold mean that the 557 Chinese emperors of the Qin Dynasty were not Chinese emperors, as the place was not called "China" at the time.
Finally, some more facts for you:
1) The country was first referred to as the United States of America in 1776, a few years before Hansen's Presidency.
2) "Presiding officer" means "president" here. From the definition of president: "One appointed or elected to preside over an organized body of people, such as an assembly or meeting.
3) The phrase used "first among equals" is used to apply to British Prime Ministers, who are considered to be the leaders of the nation. Not good for you to use this as support for your rewriting of history.
-------------
So here you have a land called the United States of America for a few years already. And then you have a governing body of this new nation, the Continental Congress. And then you have a president elected over this body... the President of the United States. You really have to twist definitions and history in order to deny this, which is why you have failed.
Sure. Hanson was not the father of the country. And while he was President of the United States, he was not of the same succession under the Constitution that started with George Washington. But you are flat out lying to say this man wasn't also the President of the United States.
dmarks: Not good for you to use this as support for your rewriting of history.
I quoted Snopes and Wikipedia. I did no "rewriting". Your beef is with them. Me, I'm going with the experts on this one. Also, I'd wager the all the history books used in our schools say Washington was the first president.
dmarks: I'm surprised you would keep this one going. One would think you'd be too embarrassed to remind people of your OWN spelling gaffe, considering how hung up you are on spelling flames.
[1] I don't recall ever spelling "Francis" with an "e", [2] I asked you for a link to where I spelled it that way and you couldn't produce one, [3] WTF difference does it make? You're the one who slandered the MAN by insisting he's anti-Semitic. You'd think if you're going to slime a person the least you could do is know if they're a man or a woman.
I usually ignore spelling errors, because I've made a few myself. I only brought it up this time because I found it interesting that, in addition to getting everything else wrong, you also got the spelling of his name wrong. (You did it again, btw... in one of your comments AFTER I pointed it out).
dmarks: That's a nutty conspiracy theory if ever there was one. Obama has nothing to do with this at all.
How can Obama have "nothing to do with this at all"? He is our first African-American president, not Hanson.
There was still slavery at the time, so I don't see how that would be even remotely possible for Hanson to attain a position of authority if he really were black. Unless it was some tiny percentage (of African blood) and nobody knew... but according to what I've read he was a White guy whose grandfather was from England.
Bottom line: you've produced no evidence to support your claim.
"I quoted Snopes and Wikipedia"
Which included details about how this man was the first President of the United States. (I found other necessary details elsewhere, including the name of the nation at the time he became President.
"I only brought it up this time because I found it interesting that, in addition to getting everything else "
That was the only thing I got wrong. The rest I got right, and your links, which provided details on how this man was President of the United States, only helped me.
"(You did it again, btw... in one of your comments AFTER I pointed it out)."
I did that on purpose, knowing you love pointless spelling flames, and would leap at the chance to "nail" me on the only thing I actually got wrong.
"You're the one who slandered the MAN by insisting he's anti-Semitic. Y
I only pointed out the facts. The man is on record stating his fond wish for the ethnic cleansing of Israelis... only those that are Jewish. Francis Boyle, the fake attorney, slimes himself with his antisemitism.
"Bottom line: you've produced no evidence to support your claim."
We both produced evidence that proved he was President before Washington. As for his ethnic heritage, there is good evidence either way.
And no it has nothing to do with Obama. I was not even thinking of Obama when I mentioned this man. You were the one who brought Obama up, but I don't care since the first president has nothing to do with the last one.
It is like if someone mentioned Truman, and you decided to rant about Millard Fillmore for a while.
No one is every going to agree on who should be on Rushmore and who should not. Those deemed worthy by some will be cast as virtual demons by the other party.
Therefore, I think we should put the most influential fellows on Mt. Rushmore. In other words, we should carve over Theodore Roosevelt with the image of FDR.
If we have more room, we should consider Ronald Reagan, not for what he has done, much of which was bad, but for the inspiration he provided to the GOP. Despite the fact that they are all nuts now and Ronald Reagan himself would have been horrified, he was inspirational.
Forget the Presidents. If it needs to be carved over, why not these guys instead?
My image should be on Mt. Rushmore.
Truthie has my vote. Anyone else concur?
psst try the image you have used of yourself where you look like Jesus and have guns and whiskey.
I thought that the Truthster already WAS on Rushmore.
Snopes said "false" (John Hanson was NOT the first president), but you read between the lines and found that they really meant "true"? That sounds pretty nutty to me, dmarks.
Also, if you go to the authoritative source on the subject, Whitehouse.gov, you'll find a list of the presidents of the United States... And according to Whitehouse.gov the first president was Washington. I think that settles it.
And why link to a picture of Native Americans hovering over Rushmore dmarks? Rushmore is for US Presidents... Are you trying to convince people that you're concerned about the rights of minorities? Despite the fact that you often worry about Whites being discriminated against?
dmarks: [Francis Boyle] is on record stating his fond wish for the ethnic cleansing of Israelis...
No he isn't. You made that up.
dmarks: As for [John Hanson's] ethnic heritage, there is good evidence either way...
If it exists why do you refuse to cite it? I'm fairly certain you're wrong.
Also, when I typed the info into Google I got a lot of right-wing cites in the results... thus my conclusion that Righties cite this myth to diminish the significance of the election of Barack Obama. The observation has nothing to do with what you were thinking.
John Myste: If we have more room, we should consider Ronald Reagan, not for what he has done...
Ronald Reagan was one of the worst presidents ever. He is easily in the top ten worst.
Reagan, one of the top 10 worst Presidents - I commend you, wd. That statement is at least plausible.
The hell with Rushmore....the old cowboy should have a mountain side all to himself.
Its something how you libs demonize Reagan and bow to the community organizer.
WD: Your "Frances", the fake would-be attorney, made the statements, not me. He wrote of how he wishes for the Jewish population of Israel to be purged. Expelled. By peaceful means, over a long period of time, he says. But his supposed peaceful claims are belied by his support of Palestinian terror groups and the Iranian government, which all give high priority to their goals of killing off Jews and Jewish Israelis.
These are inconvenient truths about your "Frances" and his views.
---------
"John Hanson was NOT the first president"
WD, you are lying. The information you yourself quote has him President prior to Washington.
" thus my conclusion that Righties cite this myth to diminish the significance of the election of Barack Obama"
You are lying again. For one, it is not a myth. Are you really this boneheaded? For another, it has nothing to do with Obama. You are making a leap of pure imagination to connect them.
Exactly like someone babbling about Millard Fillmore at the mention of Woodrow Wilson.
----------
"Are you trying to convince people that you're concerned about the rights of minorities?"
I don't care about special minority rights. Only racists want that. I do, however, believe strongly in equal rights for ALL regardless of their skin color. And another inconvenient truth is that the Black Hills, by treaty, really belong to the Lakota. So to me it would be fine to see Lakota carved into it.
"Despite the fact that you often worry about Whites being discriminated against?"
Any time anyone is targetted by racism, I condemn it. No matter what the color of the victim. I strongly reject your belief that people with white skin color deserve racist treatment, as I believe no-one does. At all.
dmarks: Your "Frances", the fake would-be attorney, made the statements, not me.
I never used that spelling. Your refusal to provide a link confirms it. Also, Francis Boyle made no statements about "ethnic cleansing of Israelis". You made it up. It's completely fictional. Also, Mr. Boyle received his degree from Harvard. Are you saying that Harvard gives out fake degrees? This is just more dmarks nuttiness.
dmarks: WD, you are lying.
I'm telling the truth. Snopes says FALSE.
dmarks: You are lying again.
Why the hell would I lie about what my conclusion was? Your accusation of lying doesn't make any sense. Why else would so many Righties be repeating this myth about the "first president of the US" John Hanson being African American?
dmarks: I don't care about special minority rights. Only racists want that.
Actually, your rejection of Affirmative Action says to me that you might be a racist.
Finally, what's up with your and Will's desire to blow up a national monument? Why do you hate this group of people (the residents of the area that depend on tourism for their income) so much that you want to destroy the source of their livelihood?
"Why the hell would I lie about what my conclusion was? "
The problem with liars is that it is hard to be consistent about the lies.
---------
"Actually, your rejection of Affirmative Action says to me that you might be a racist."
Why would it? Only by a leap of imagination and your complete ignorance of the result. I oppose any part of affirmative action which demands different treatment due to race because that is by definition racist.
Definition 2 of racism: ": racial prejudice or discrimination"
Specific examples of racist affirmative-action policies include the famous University of Michigan admissions policies, which have a point system to punish or reward applicants based on skin color.
We have discussed this before. You have disingenously claimed during discussions that I am somehow some sort of pro-white racist. When in fact if you have said it was OK for anyone of any color to be the victim of racism, I would and will defend that person. And I have.
--------------
Also, in regards to Francis Boyle made no statements about "ethnic cleansing of Israelis""
Actually, he has on numerous occasions. Here is one of his fevered rants full of antisemitic lies, in which he speaks fondly over and over of the desire to get rid of the Israelis. And when they are gone? His own words, this little Eichmann says: "Good riddance".
As for Boyle being a fake attorney, his aw degree is in "He also practiced tax and international tax with Bingham, Dana & Gould." This leaves him no more an attorney involved in matters of war crimes or international law than you or I. He merely thinks he has such qualifications. An armchair attorney with delusions of grandeur. But he is beneath the contempt of the actual professionals: his rants on war criminals submitted to the ICC and similar actual authorities always get ignored, as they are completely without merit.
But April 15th is coming. Maybe I can have Francis Boyle help me with my taxes. It's the only thing he's qualified to do.
Boyle's boobery of declaring Alan Dershowitz as a "War Criminal" merely for being Jewish and outspoken against anti-semitism is just more evidence that outside of his field, he has no idea what he is talking about. If you cut Boyle off in traffic some day, rest assured he will be hanging his head out the window flipping you the finger and screaming about what a war criminal you are.
dmarks lied: [Francis Boyle is] no more an attorney involved in matters of war crimes or international law than you or I.
From Wikipedia: Francis Anthony Boyle (born 1950) is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. Boyle received a A.B. (1971) in Political Science from the University of Chicago, then a J.D. degree magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, and A.M. and Ph.D. degrees in Political Science from Harvard University. [End excerpt from Wikipedia]
dmarks, you served as a professor of international law? Prove it. I haven't, and have never made such claims.
dmarks, in response to my statement that "Francis Boyle made no statements about ethnic cleansing of Israelis" lied: Actually, he has on numerous occasions. Here is one of his fevered rants full of anti-Semitic lies...
The words "ethnic cleansing" are not in the article you linked to. He stands up for the rights of Palestinians, which I agree with. But I think he goes quite too far and I don't agree with his overall view on this subject. But being anti-Israel doesn't automatically make a person an anti-Semite.
And he has never advocated ethnic cleansing... not in any article you've ever linked to. I think if he HAD actually said it in an article you would have found it.
dmarks: The problem with liars is that it is hard to be consistent about the lies.
So why do you keep lying? And why lie about such DUMB things? When you lie about things that are EASILY fact-checked it makes you look really stupid, dmarks.
A professor is not an attorney. You seem to be totally unaware of this. In fact, I was the only one who referred to Boyle's actual and meager qualifications as an attorney. Then you attempt to counter that by giving his credentials which have nothing to do with him being an attorney. Credentials which I already knew about.
Seeing as you evidence no knowledge of what an attorney is, lets refer to the definition of attorney: "A person legally appointed by another to act as his or her agent in the transaction of business, specifically one qualified and licensed to act for plaintiffs and defendants in legal proceedings."
Yes, Boyle is an actual tax attorney. He is not an attorney in any of the fields he imagines himself to be an expert in.
"The words "ethnic cleansing" are not in the article you linked to"
It is an accurate term to describe the situation of elimination of a population short of genocide, something Boyle supports.
"And he has never advocated ethnic cleansing."
No, not at all. He supports getting rid of the Israelis ("good riddance!") but not ethnic cleansing. Hahahah.
"So why do you keep lying?"
I have yet to.
"EASILY fact-checked it makes you look really stupid, dmarks."
I wonder how we can characterize it when you attempt to back up a claim that someone is an attorney by providing their qualifications as a professor.
So, your argument is that, even though he's a professor of international law, he actually knows nothing about international law. Yeah, that makes sense... not.
And clearly you have no idea what "ethnic cleansing" means. I suggest you look it up.
Post a Comment