Tariq Nasheed Is On Fox News Again 12/20/16
Options
Comments
-
semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »Ok I'm going to assume there is gonna be a Rd 3. Rd 1 was debatable. It was a long thread and ? was riding for tariq. The race casino line was good. So I'm in a generous mood tonight so I will give Rd 1 to tariq by the smallest of margins.
Rd 2 is Tucker. No debate! That ? got ugly when he started reading ? from Tariq's book. Now I know some of y'all ride for Tariq but nope not this time. Rd 2 is not debatable.
In Rd 3 Tariq is gonna have to do some subtitles, translations, and do which room I'm in. We shall see.
I don't understand what his books from over a decade ago have to do with his statements on trump
Y'all pulled the same ? in the last thread and it baffled me
man its too early for this right now. dude quoted the book and Tariq said its satire, comedic, and tongue in cheek. he then asked why should we take u seriously now? He also made the comment that Tariq was profiting off his views. Tariq had no defense for the ? other than to basically say tucker is reaching.
now im not the dude u should try to use the Socratic questioning technique on. u like to ask question after question and then come back and say ur questions are not being answered. I cant do that with u. u saw the video and im sure u understood, ovastood, comprehended, grasped, and got the gist of what the book had to do with his statements on Trump.
talk to me after my second cup of coffee.
-
semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »Ok I'm going to assume there is gonna be a Rd 3. Rd 1 was debatable. It was a long thread and ? was riding for tariq. The race casino line was good. So I'm in a generous mood tonight so I will give Rd 1 to tariq by the smallest of margins.
Rd 2 is Tucker. No debate! That ? got ugly when he started reading ? from Tariq's book. Now I know some of y'all ride for Tariq but nope not this time. Rd 2 is not debatable.
In Rd 3 Tariq is gonna have to do some subtitles, translations, and do which room I'm in. We shall see.
I don't understand what his books from over a decade ago have to do with his statements on trump
Y'all pulled the same ? in the last thread and it baffled me
man its too early for this right now. dude quoted the book and Tariq said its satire, comedic, and tongue in cheek. he then asked why should we take u seriously now? He also made the comment that Tariq was profiting off his views. Tariq had no defense for the ? other than to basically say tucker is reaching.
now im not the dude u should try to use the Socratic questioning technique on. u like to ask question after question and then come back and say ur questions are not being answered. I cant do that with u. u saw the video and im sure u understood, ovastood, comprehended, grasped, and got the gist of what the book had to do with his statements on Trump.
talk to me after my second cup of coffee.
Nah you'll never get me to understand what his books have to do with his trump statements because they have nothing to do with his trump statements
It was non sequitur period
And I find it funny how you ? wait til way after the fact to comment on the fact that I ask simple questions that you ? are incapable of answering smh
Y'all keep saying he's race hustling but I have yet to see anyone accurately explain where all this "black empowerment" money is coming from that he's supposedly making -
Fell for the deflection when the cac tried to discredit him.
I read that book back in the day. It was good but obviously some of it was satire Not to be taken literally. Here it came back to bite him -
Malcolm Xtra wrote: »jetlifebih wrote: »Malcolm Xtra wrote: »jetlifebih wrote: »He's a podcast host..not a political scientist......doesn't take away hidden colors and his contributions....
It's misinformation all throughout hidden colors...
? was all about getting negroes to get in they emotions...wether that was to make ? feel good or to make them angry.
Where exactly did you find the misinformation and what is the correct information regarding that error?
https://youtu.be/SsavmtsD6Oc
Good information especially about mustafa hefney....there has to be many more people like him, but haven't spoken up because they weren't African in mind and heart and benefit from being labeled as white...but still didn't see any misinformation from hidden colors
If there is misinformation throughout it, you should be able to give me an example without a 3 hour video... -
semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »Ok I'm going to assume there is gonna be a Rd 3. Rd 1 was debatable. It was a long thread and ? was riding for tariq. The race casino line was good. So I'm in a generous mood tonight so I will give Rd 1 to tariq by the smallest of margins.
Rd 2 is Tucker. No debate! That ? got ugly when he started reading ? from Tariq's book. Now I know some of y'all ride for Tariq but nope not this time. Rd 2 is not debatable.
In Rd 3 Tariq is gonna have to do some subtitles, translations, and do which room I'm in. We shall see.
I don't understand what his books from over a decade ago have to do with his statements on trump
Y'all pulled the same ? in the last thread and it baffled me
man its too early for this right now. dude quoted the book and Tariq said its satire, comedic, and tongue in cheek. he then asked why should we take u seriously now? He also made the comment that Tariq was profiting off his views. Tariq had no defense for the ? other than to basically say tucker is reaching.
now im not the dude u should try to use the Socratic questioning technique on. u like to ask question after question and then come back and say ur questions are not being answered. I cant do that with u. u saw the video and im sure u understood, ovastood, comprehended, grasped, and got the gist of what the book had to do with his statements on Trump.
talk to me after my second cup of coffee.
-
So basically what some of y'all are saying is that you fell sucker to "Fox News Deflections 101." Can't pop ? about their audience on any topic if you're victim to the same tactics.
-
If we're being straight up and judging this as a debate then you're borderline ? if you think Tucker won that.
Let's examine the quote.
Trump has appointed people to his cabinet from the alt-right--**COMMA: what is the alt-right?**--a white supremacists sect that literally throws up ? salutes.
That there is a factual statement. With a basic understanding of punctuation and sentence structure you can establish that no where in the tweet does he even begin to insinuate that Bannon himself was throwing up ? salutes.
Then to deflect w/ the macking stuff is basically throwing in a white towel on the topic at hand in an effort to save face.
These people want to feel some type of way, they don't care about that.
Gotta agree with that statement ... and I'm not even a Tareeq fan. I might be giving people too much credit to expect them to have understood that it was a misquote and that the book wasn't relevant to the statement, let alone a satirical book. -
semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »Ok I'm going to assume there is gonna be a Rd 3. Rd 1 was debatable. It was a long thread and ? was riding for tariq. The race casino line was good. So I'm in a generous mood tonight so I will give Rd 1 to tariq by the smallest of margins.
Rd 2 is Tucker. No debate! That ? got ugly when he started reading ? from Tariq's book. Now I know some of y'all ride for Tariq but nope not this time. Rd 2 is not debatable.
In Rd 3 Tariq is gonna have to do some subtitles, translations, and do which room I'm in. We shall see.
I don't understand what his books from over a decade ago have to do with his statements on trump
Y'all pulled the same ? in the last thread and it baffled me
man its too early for this right now. dude quoted the book and Tariq said its satire, comedic, and tongue in cheek. he then asked why should we take u seriously now? He also made the comment that Tariq was profiting off his views. Tariq had no defense for the ? other than to basically say tucker is reaching.
now im not the dude u should try to use the Socratic questioning technique on. u like to ask question after question and then come back and say ur questions are not being answered. I cant do that with u. u saw the video and im sure u understood, ovastood, comprehended, grasped, and got the gist of what the book had to do with his statements on Trump.
talk to me after my second cup of coffee.
Nah you'll never get me to understand what his books have to do with his trump statements because they have nothing to do with his trump statements
It was non sequitur period
And I find it funny how you ? wait til way after the fact to comment on the fact that I ask simple questions that you ? are incapable of answering smh
Y'all keep saying he's race hustling but I have yet to see anyone accurately explain where all this "black empowerment" money is coming from that he's supposedly making
ok so why ask a question and u already know u wont accept any answer other than ur answer? u wont ever understand the use of the book in their argument. don't ask about the use of the book ur mind is made up.
it was not non sequitor. tucker brought it up and connected the dots for u. he said if we couldnt take u serious then why should we take u are serious now? he went on to say how he basically feels Tariq statements on trump are to stir the ? and for him to make a profit. this interview aint debatable. CLEAR BODY BAG FOR TUCKER IN ROUND 2. dude stop it!
smh...here we go folks...the next 10 pages will be THE ATTACK OF THE TARIQ-CANS! y'all get ready.
-
If we're being straight up and judging this as a debate then you're borderline ? if you think Tucker won that.
Let's examine the quote.
Trump has appointed people to his cabinet from the alt-right--**COMMA: what is the alt-right?**--a white supremacists sect that literally throws up ? salutes.
That there is a factual statement. With a basic understanding of punctuation and sentence structure you can establish that no where in the tweet does he even begin to insinuate that Bannon himself was throwing up ? salutes.
Then to deflect w/ the macking stuff is basically throwing in a white towel on the topic at hand in an effort to save face.
These people want to feel some type of way, they don't care about that.
Gotta agree with that statement ... and I'm not even a Tareeq fan. I might be giving people to much credit to expect them to have understood that it was a misquote and that the book wasn't relevant to the statement, let alone a satirical book.
Stop riding your saviors ? ..... we simply AGREE with tucker carlson ....its not that hard to understand ... he showed you how to dismantle this race baiting "mack" with ease using true FACTS .... this is why all of these afrocentric clowns are afraid to show their faces on a legit news organization like fox news -
JDSTAYWITIT wrote: »If we're being straight up and judging this as a debate then you're borderline ? if you think Tucker won that.
Let's examine the quote.
Trump has appointed people to his cabinet from the alt-right--**COMMA: what is the alt-right?**--a white supremacists sect that literally throws up ? salutes.
That there is a factual statement. With a basic understanding of punctuation and sentence structure you can establish that no where in the tweet does he even begin to insinuate that Bannon himself was throwing up ? salutes.
Then to deflect w/ the macking stuff is basically throwing in a white towel on the topic at hand in an effort to save face.
These people want to feel some type of way, they don't care about that.
Gotta agree with that statement ... and I'm not even a Tareeq fan. I might be giving people to much credit to expect them to have understood that it was a misquote and that the book wasn't relevant to the statement, let alone a satirical book.
Stop riding your saviors ? ..... we simply AGREE with tucker carlson ....its not that hard to understand ... he showed you how to dismantle this race baiting "mack" with ease using true FACTS ....
LOL, I never listened to one of Tareeq's videos or read any of his books and now he's my "savior" ?
The internet bruh, I tell you.JDSTAYWITIT wrote: »
...this is why all of these afrocentric clowns are afraid to show their faces on a legit news organization like fox newsIf we're being straight up and judging this as a debate then you're borderline ? if you think Tucker won that.
Let's examine the quote.
Trump has appointed people to his cabinet from the alt-right--**COMMA: what is the alt-right?**--a white supremacists sect that literally throws up ? salutes.
That there is a factual statement. With a basic understanding of punctuation and sentence structure you can establish that no where in the tweet does he even begin to insinuate that Bannon himself was throwing up ? salutes.
Then to deflect w/ the macking stuff is basically throwing in a white towel on the topic at hand in an effort to save face.
These people want to feel some type of way, they don't care about that.
Gotta agree with that statement ... and I'm not even a Tareeq fan. I might be giving people to much credit to expect them to have understood that it was a misquote and that the book wasn't relevant to the statement, let alone a satirical book.
Just stop posting for today bruh, you just killed all your credibility. -
JDSTAYWITIT wrote: »If we're being straight up and judging this as a debate then you're borderline ? if you think Tucker won that.
Let's examine the quote.
Trump has appointed people to his cabinet from the alt-right--**COMMA: what is the alt-right?**--a white supremacists sect that literally throws up ? salutes.
That there is a factual statement. With a basic understanding of punctuation and sentence structure you can establish that no where in the tweet does he even begin to insinuate that Bannon himself was throwing up ? salutes.
Then to deflect w/ the macking stuff is basically throwing in a white towel on the topic at hand in an effort to save face.
These people want to feel some type of way, they don't care about that.
Gotta agree with that statement ... and I'm not even a Tareeq fan. I might be giving people to much credit to expect them to have understood that it was a misquote and that the book wasn't relevant to the statement, let alone a satirical book.
Stop riding your saviors ? ..... we simply AGREE with tucker carlson ....its not that hard to understand ... he showed you how to dismantle this race baiting "mack" with ease using true FACTS .... this is why all of these afrocentric clowns are afraid to show their faces on a legit news organization like fox news
But there was nothing factual about his position at all based on elementary punctuation and sentence structure as I said in my previous statement.
And that's coming from someone who knows jack ? about this Tareeq dude outside of seeing people mention hidden colors on social media.
They were debating a specific topic. "But you said this about subject Z," will never ever win you the topic in any formal debate.
Broken clocks are right twice a day. Cats need to get out of their feelings about dude and objectively judge the conversation at hand. -
JDSTAYWITIT wrote: »If we're being straight up and judging this as a debate then you're borderline ? if you think Tucker won that.
Let's examine the quote.
Trump has appointed people to his cabinet from the alt-right--**COMMA: what is the alt-right?**--a white supremacists sect that literally throws up ? salutes.
That there is a factual statement. With a basic understanding of punctuation and sentence structure you can establish that no where in the tweet does he even begin to insinuate that Bannon himself was throwing up ? salutes.
Then to deflect w/ the macking stuff is basically throwing in a white towel on the topic at hand in an effort to save face.
These people want to feel some type of way, they don't care about that.
Gotta agree with that statement ... and I'm not even a Tareeq fan. I might be giving people to much credit to expect them to have understood that it was a misquote and that the book wasn't relevant to the statement, let alone a satirical book.
Stop riding your saviors ? ..... we simply AGREE with tucker carlson ....its not that hard to understand ... he showed you how to dismantle this race baiting "mack" with ease using true FACTS .... this is why all of these afrocentric clowns are afraid to show their faces on a legit news organization like fox news
But there was nothing factual about his position at all based on elementary punctuation and sentence structure as I said in my previous statement.
And that's coming from someone who knows jack ? about this Tareeq dude outside of seeing people mention hidden colors on social media.
They were debating a specific topic. "But you said this about subject Z," will never ever win you the topic in any formal debate.
Broken clocks are right twice a day. Cats need to get out of their feelings about dude and objectively judge the conversation at hand.
The Knicks are looking semi competent this year huh? -
I don't know who they are but somebody is triggered off this comment.Man ? this ? . I keep telling you nignogs he's a sham but but but but he made Hidden Colors he know what he talking about. KYS
-
5th Letter wrote: »JDSTAYWITIT wrote: »If we're being straight up and judging this as a debate then you're borderline ? if you think Tucker won that.
Let's examine the quote.
Trump has appointed people to his cabinet from the alt-right--**COMMA: what is the alt-right?**--a white supremacists sect that literally throws up ? salutes.
That there is a factual statement. With a basic understanding of punctuation and sentence structure you can establish that no where in the tweet does he even begin to insinuate that Bannon himself was throwing up ? salutes.
Then to deflect w/ the macking stuff is basically throwing in a white towel on the topic at hand in an effort to save face.
These people want to feel some type of way, they don't care about that.
Gotta agree with that statement ... and I'm not even a Tareeq fan. I might be giving people to much credit to expect them to have understood that it was a misquote and that the book wasn't relevant to the statement, let alone a satirical book.
Stop riding your saviors ? ..... we simply AGREE with tucker carlson ....its not that hard to understand ... he showed you how to dismantle this race baiting "mack" with ease using true FACTS .... this is why all of these afrocentric clowns are afraid to show their faces on a legit news organization like fox news
But there was nothing factual about his position at all based on elementary punctuation and sentence structure as I said in my previous statement.
And that's coming from someone who knows jack ? about this Tareeq dude outside of seeing people mention hidden colors on social media.
They were debating a specific topic. "But you said this about subject Z," will never ever win you the topic in any formal debate.
Broken clocks are right twice a day. Cats need to get out of their feelings about dude and objectively judge the conversation at hand.
The Knicks are looking semi competent this year huh?
-
semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »Ok I'm going to assume there is gonna be a Rd 3. Rd 1 was debatable. It was a long thread and ? was riding for tariq. The race casino line was good. So I'm in a generous mood tonight so I will give Rd 1 to tariq by the smallest of margins.
Rd 2 is Tucker. No debate! That ? got ugly when he started reading ? from Tariq's book. Now I know some of y'all ride for Tariq but nope not this time. Rd 2 is not debatable.
In Rd 3 Tariq is gonna have to do some subtitles, translations, and do which room I'm in. We shall see.
I don't understand what his books from over a decade ago have to do with his statements on trump
Y'all pulled the same ? in the last thread and it baffled me
man its too early for this right now. dude quoted the book and Tariq said its satire, comedic, and tongue in cheek. he then asked why should we take u seriously now? He also made the comment that Tariq was profiting off his views. Tariq had no defense for the ? other than to basically say tucker is reaching.
now im not the dude u should try to use the Socratic questioning technique on. u like to ask question after question and then come back and say ur questions are not being answered. I cant do that with u. u saw the video and im sure u understood, ovastood, comprehended, grasped, and got the gist of what the book had to do with his statements on Trump.
talk to me after my second cup of coffee.
Nah you'll never get me to understand what his books have to do with his trump statements because they have nothing to do with his trump statements
It was non sequitur period
And I find it funny how you ? wait til way after the fact to comment on the fact that I ask simple questions that you ? are incapable of answering smh
Y'all keep saying he's race hustling but I have yet to see anyone accurately explain where all this "black empowerment" money is coming from that he's supposedly making
ok so why ask a question and u already know u wont accept any answer other than ur answer? u wont ever understand the use of the book in their argument. don't ask about the use of the book ur mind is made up.
it was not non sequitor. tucker brought it up and connected the dots for u. he said if we couldnt take u serious then why should we take u are serious now? he went on to say how he basically feels Tariq statements on trump are to stir the ? and for him to make a profit. this interview aint debatable. CLEAR BODY BAG FOR TUCKER IN ROUND 2. dude stop it!
smh...here we go folks...the next 10 pages will be THE ATTACK OF THE TARIQ-CANS! y'all get ready.
Again you're still speaking in vague generalities. What question SPECIFICALLY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
Once again please explain how a book that is over a decade old somehow discredits TN's trump statements
By your illogic no one who has ever made a joke can speak on serious topics ever in life smh -
semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »Ok I'm going to assume there is gonna be a Rd 3. Rd 1 was debatable. It was a long thread and ? was riding for tariq. The race casino line was good. So I'm in a generous mood tonight so I will give Rd 1 to tariq by the smallest of margins.
Rd 2 is Tucker. No debate! That ? got ugly when he started reading ? from Tariq's book. Now I know some of y'all ride for Tariq but nope not this time. Rd 2 is not debatable.
In Rd 3 Tariq is gonna have to do some subtitles, translations, and do which room I'm in. We shall see.
I don't understand what his books from over a decade ago have to do with his statements on trump
Y'all pulled the same ? in the last thread and it baffled me
man its too early for this right now. dude quoted the book and Tariq said its satire, comedic, and tongue in cheek. he then asked why should we take u seriously now? He also made the comment that Tariq was profiting off his views. Tariq had no defense for the ? other than to basically say tucker is reaching.
now im not the dude u should try to use the Socratic questioning technique on. u like to ask question after question and then come back and say ur questions are not being answered. I cant do that with u. u saw the video and im sure u understood, ovastood, comprehended, grasped, and got the gist of what the book had to do with his statements on Trump.
talk to me after my second cup of coffee.
Nah you'll never get me to understand what his books have to do with his trump statements because they have nothing to do with his trump statements
It was non sequitur period
And I find it funny how you ? wait til way after the fact to comment on the fact that I ask simple questions that you ? are incapable of answering smh
Y'all keep saying he's race hustling but I have yet to see anyone accurately explain where all this "black empowerment" money is coming from that he's supposedly making
ok so why ask a question and u already know u wont accept any answer other than ur answer? u wont ever understand the use of the book in their argument. don't ask about the use of the book ur mind is made up.
it was not non sequitor. tucker brought it up and connected the dots for u. he said if we couldnt take u serious then why should we take u are serious now? he went on to say how he basically feels Tariq statements on trump are to stir the ? and for him to make a profit. this interview aint debatable. CLEAR BODY BAG FOR TUCKER IN ROUND 2. dude stop it!
smh...here we go folks...the next 10 pages will be THE ATTACK OF THE TARIQ-CANS! y'all get ready.
Again you're still speaking in vague generalities. What question SPECIFICALLY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
Once again please explain how a book that is over a decade old somehow discredits TN's trump statements
By your illogic no one who has ever made a joke can speak on serious topics ever in life smh
Wait! what? vague? u know ur original question was what did his book have to do with trump statements. i addressed that clearly. i also addressed the fact that u said nah u'll never get me to understand. that right there kills any potential progress between u and i. i already said don't play the question game with me.
in response to the bolded...i have never said that. in fact i would be the last person to ever make a statement like that. i am dealing with the interview that was posted in this thread. please stop reaching. u a funny dude.
-
semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »Ok I'm going to assume there is gonna be a Rd 3. Rd 1 was debatable. It was a long thread and ? was riding for tariq. The race casino line was good. So I'm in a generous mood tonight so I will give Rd 1 to tariq by the smallest of margins.
Rd 2 is Tucker. No debate! That ? got ugly when he started reading ? from Tariq's book. Now I know some of y'all ride for Tariq but nope not this time. Rd 2 is not debatable.
In Rd 3 Tariq is gonna have to do some subtitles, translations, and do which room I'm in. We shall see.
I don't understand what his books from over a decade ago have to do with his statements on trump
Y'all pulled the same ? in the last thread and it baffled me
man its too early for this right now. dude quoted the book and Tariq said its satire, comedic, and tongue in cheek. he then asked why should we take u seriously now? He also made the comment that Tariq was profiting off his views. Tariq had no defense for the ? other than to basically say tucker is reaching.
now im not the dude u should try to use the Socratic questioning technique on. u like to ask question after question and then come back and say ur questions are not being answered. I cant do that with u. u saw the video and im sure u understood, ovastood, comprehended, grasped, and got the gist of what the book had to do with his statements on Trump.
talk to me after my second cup of coffee.
Nah you'll never get me to understand what his books have to do with his trump statements because they have nothing to do with his trump statements
It was non sequitur period
And I find it funny how you ? wait til way after the fact to comment on the fact that I ask simple questions that you ? are incapable of answering smh
Y'all keep saying he's race hustling but I have yet to see anyone accurately explain where all this "black empowerment" money is coming from that he's supposedly making
ok so why ask a question and u already know u wont accept any answer other than ur answer? u wont ever understand the use of the book in their argument. don't ask about the use of the book ur mind is made up.
it was not non sequitor. tucker brought it up and connected the dots for u. he said if we couldnt take u serious then why should we take u are serious now? he went on to say how he basically feels Tariq statements on trump are to stir the ? and for him to make a profit. this interview aint debatable. CLEAR BODY BAG FOR TUCKER IN ROUND 2. dude stop it!
smh...here we go folks...the next 10 pages will be THE ATTACK OF THE TARIQ-CANS! y'all get ready.
Again you're still speaking in vague generalities. What question SPECIFICALLY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
Once again please explain how a book that is over a decade old somehow discredits TN's trump statements
By your illogic no one who has ever made a joke can speak on serious topics ever in life smh
Wait! what? vague? u know ur original question was what did his book have to do with trump statements. i addressed that clearly. i also addressed the fact that u said nah u'll never get me to understand. that right there kills any potential progress between u and i. i already said don't play the question game with me.
in response to the bolded...i have never said that. in fact i would be the last person to ever make a statement like that. i am dealing with the interview that was posted in this thread. please stop reaching. u a funny dude.
No simple ? , in all of your posts you keep alluding to OTHER QUESTIONS that I ask in which I ignore the answer
I'm asking you WHAT SPECIFIC OTHER QUESTIONS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
How can I make that question any simpler?? See how you're confusing yourself? Smh
And for the record, TN's books have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with his trump statements -
semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »Ok I'm going to assume there is gonna be a Rd 3. Rd 1 was debatable. It was a long thread and ? was riding for tariq. The race casino line was good. So I'm in a generous mood tonight so I will give Rd 1 to tariq by the smallest of margins.
Rd 2 is Tucker. No debate! That ? got ugly when he started reading ? from Tariq's book. Now I know some of y'all ride for Tariq but nope not this time. Rd 2 is not debatable.
In Rd 3 Tariq is gonna have to do some subtitles, translations, and do which room I'm in. We shall see.
I don't understand what his books from over a decade ago have to do with his statements on trump
Y'all pulled the same ? in the last thread and it baffled me
man its too early for this right now. dude quoted the book and Tariq said its satire, comedic, and tongue in cheek. he then asked why should we take u seriously now? He also made the comment that Tariq was profiting off his views. Tariq had no defense for the ? other than to basically say tucker is reaching.
now im not the dude u should try to use the Socratic questioning technique on. u like to ask question after question and then come back and say ur questions are not being answered. I cant do that with u. u saw the video and im sure u understood, ovastood, comprehended, grasped, and got the gist of what the book had to do with his statements on Trump.
talk to me after my second cup of coffee.
Nah you'll never get me to understand what his books have to do with his trump statements because they have nothing to do with his trump statements
It was non sequitur period
And I find it funny how you ? wait til way after the fact to comment on the fact that I ask simple questions that you ? are incapable of answering smh
Y'all keep saying he's race hustling but I have yet to see anyone accurately explain where all this "black empowerment" money is coming from that he's supposedly making
ok so why ask a question and u already know u wont accept any answer other than ur answer? u wont ever understand the use of the book in their argument. don't ask about the use of the book ur mind is made up.
it was not non sequitor. tucker brought it up and connected the dots for u. he said if we couldnt take u serious then why should we take u are serious now? he went on to say how he basically feels Tariq statements on trump are to stir the ? and for him to make a profit. this interview aint debatable. CLEAR BODY BAG FOR TUCKER IN ROUND 2. dude stop it!
smh...here we go folks...the next 10 pages will be THE ATTACK OF THE TARIQ-CANS! y'all get ready.
Again you're still speaking in vague generalities. What question SPECIFICALLY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
Once again please explain how a book that is over a decade old somehow discredits TN's trump statements
By your illogic no one who has ever made a joke can speak on serious topics ever in life smh
Wait! what? vague? u know ur original question was what did his book have to do with trump statements. i addressed that clearly. i also addressed the fact that u said nah u'll never get me to understand. that right there kills any potential progress between u and i. i already said don't play the question game with me.
in response to the bolded...i have never said that. in fact i would be the last person to ever make a statement like that. i am dealing with the interview that was posted in this thread. please stop reaching. u a funny dude.
No simple ? , in all of your posts you keep alluding to OTHER QUESTIONS that I ask in which I ignore the answer
I'm asking you WHAT SPECIFIC OTHER QUESTIONS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
How can I make that question any simpler?? See how you're confusing yourself? Smh
And for the record, TN's books have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with his trump statements
Lmao u getting emotional cuz I talked about ur posting style. Man I ain't asking u no questions. Just tired of u always asking questions in ur post and then refuse to accept answers.
Smh but I'm the simple one. -
semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »Ok I'm going to assume there is gonna be a Rd 3. Rd 1 was debatable. It was a long thread and ? was riding for tariq. The race casino line was good. So I'm in a generous mood tonight so I will give Rd 1 to tariq by the smallest of margins.
Rd 2 is Tucker. No debate! That ? got ugly when he started reading ? from Tariq's book. Now I know some of y'all ride for Tariq but nope not this time. Rd 2 is not debatable.
In Rd 3 Tariq is gonna have to do some subtitles, translations, and do which room I'm in. We shall see.
I don't understand what his books from over a decade ago have to do with his statements on trump
Y'all pulled the same ? in the last thread and it baffled me
man its too early for this right now. dude quoted the book and Tariq said its satire, comedic, and tongue in cheek. he then asked why should we take u seriously now? He also made the comment that Tariq was profiting off his views. Tariq had no defense for the ? other than to basically say tucker is reaching.
now im not the dude u should try to use the Socratic questioning technique on. u like to ask question after question and then come back and say ur questions are not being answered. I cant do that with u. u saw the video and im sure u understood, ovastood, comprehended, grasped, and got the gist of what the book had to do with his statements on Trump.
talk to me after my second cup of coffee.
Nah you'll never get me to understand what his books have to do with his trump statements because they have nothing to do with his trump statements
It was non sequitur period
And I find it funny how you ? wait til way after the fact to comment on the fact that I ask simple questions that you ? are incapable of answering smh
Y'all keep saying he's race hustling but I have yet to see anyone accurately explain where all this "black empowerment" money is coming from that he's supposedly making
ok so why ask a question and u already know u wont accept any answer other than ur answer? u wont ever understand the use of the book in their argument. don't ask about the use of the book ur mind is made up.
it was not non sequitor. tucker brought it up and connected the dots for u. he said if we couldnt take u serious then why should we take u are serious now? he went on to say how he basically feels Tariq statements on trump are to stir the ? and for him to make a profit. this interview aint debatable. CLEAR BODY BAG FOR TUCKER IN ROUND 2. dude stop it!
smh...here we go folks...the next 10 pages will be THE ATTACK OF THE TARIQ-CANS! y'all get ready.
Again you're still speaking in vague generalities. What question SPECIFICALLY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
Once again please explain how a book that is over a decade old somehow discredits TN's trump statements
By your illogic no one who has ever made a joke can speak on serious topics ever in life smh
Wait! what? vague? u know ur original question was what did his book have to do with trump statements. i addressed that clearly. i also addressed the fact that u said nah u'll never get me to understand. that right there kills any potential progress between u and i. i already said don't play the question game with me.
in response to the bolded...i have never said that. in fact i would be the last person to ever make a statement like that. i am dealing with the interview that was posted in this thread. please stop reaching. u a funny dude.
No simple ? , in all of your posts you keep alluding to OTHER QUESTIONS that I ask in which I ignore the answer
I'm asking you WHAT SPECIFIC OTHER QUESTIONS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
How can I make that question any simpler?? See how you're confusing yourself? Smh
And for the record, TN's books have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with his trump statements
Lmao u getting emotional cuz I talked about ur posting style. Man I ain't asking u no questions. Just tired of u always asking questions in ur post and then refuse to accept answers.
Smh but I'm the simple one.
You have failed to give one example of this in any of your posts yet you keep talking smh -
"Lets talk about ur book"
Lmaooooo -
semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »Ok I'm going to assume there is gonna be a Rd 3. Rd 1 was debatable. It was a long thread and ? was riding for tariq. The race casino line was good. So I'm in a generous mood tonight so I will give Rd 1 to tariq by the smallest of margins.
Rd 2 is Tucker. No debate! That ? got ugly when he started reading ? from Tariq's book. Now I know some of y'all ride for Tariq but nope not this time. Rd 2 is not debatable.
In Rd 3 Tariq is gonna have to do some subtitles, translations, and do which room I'm in. We shall see.
I don't understand what his books from over a decade ago have to do with his statements on trump
Y'all pulled the same ? in the last thread and it baffled me
man its too early for this right now. dude quoted the book and Tariq said its satire, comedic, and tongue in cheek. he then asked why should we take u seriously now? He also made the comment that Tariq was profiting off his views. Tariq had no defense for the ? other than to basically say tucker is reaching.
now im not the dude u should try to use the Socratic questioning technique on. u like to ask question after question and then come back and say ur questions are not being answered. I cant do that with u. u saw the video and im sure u understood, ovastood, comprehended, grasped, and got the gist of what the book had to do with his statements on Trump.
talk to me after my second cup of coffee.
Nah you'll never get me to understand what his books have to do with his trump statements because they have nothing to do with his trump statements
It was non sequitur period
And I find it funny how you ? wait til way after the fact to comment on the fact that I ask simple questions that you ? are incapable of answering smh
Y'all keep saying he's race hustling but I have yet to see anyone accurately explain where all this "black empowerment" money is coming from that he's supposedly making
ok so why ask a question and u already know u wont accept any answer other than ur answer? u wont ever understand the use of the book in their argument. don't ask about the use of the book ur mind is made up.
it was not non sequitor. tucker brought it up and connected the dots for u. he said if we couldnt take u serious then why should we take u are serious now? he went on to say how he basically feels Tariq statements on trump are to stir the ? and for him to make a profit. this interview aint debatable. CLEAR BODY BAG FOR TUCKER IN ROUND 2. dude stop it!
smh...here we go folks...the next 10 pages will be THE ATTACK OF THE TARIQ-CANS! y'all get ready.
Again you're still speaking in vague generalities. What question SPECIFICALLY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
Once again please explain how a book that is over a decade old somehow discredits TN's trump statements
By your illogic no one who has ever made a joke can speak on serious topics ever in life smh
Wait! what? vague? u know ur original question was what did his book have to do with trump statements. i addressed that clearly. i also addressed the fact that u said nah u'll never get me to understand. that right there kills any potential progress between u and i. i already said don't play the question game with me.
in response to the bolded...i have never said that. in fact i would be the last person to ever make a statement like that. i am dealing with the interview that was posted in this thread. please stop reaching. u a funny dude.
No simple ? , in all of your posts you keep alluding to OTHER QUESTIONS that I ask in which I ignore the answer
I'm asking you WHAT SPECIFIC OTHER QUESTIONS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
How can I make that question any simpler?? See how you're confusing yourself? Smh
And for the record, TN's books have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with his trump statements
Lmao u getting emotional cuz I talked about ur posting style. Man I ain't asking u no questions. Just tired of u always asking questions in ur post and then refuse to accept answers.
Smh but I'm the simple one.
You have failed to give one example of this in any of your posts yet you keep talking smh
dude im going to break down my original response to u from this morning. u quoted me and I said I don't feel like doing this right now. i have seen u post in Tariq threads before and i have gone back and forth with u before so i knew i shouldn't have responded but blame it on the lack of caffeine. i said to u don't hit me with the socratic questioning technique. now i figured u would understand that but clearly u didn't. its basically a method someone uses in a back and forth where they ask question after the after question.
examples...
How does this relate to our discussion?
How can you verify or disapprove that assumption?
What would be an example?
now doesn't that sound like u in every ? thread? i never had a question for u. i was clowning ur posting style which completely went over ur head.
-
Smhsemi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »Ok I'm going to assume there is gonna be a Rd 3. Rd 1 was debatable. It was a long thread and ? was riding for tariq. The race casino line was good. So I'm in a generous mood tonight so I will give Rd 1 to tariq by the smallest of margins.
Rd 2 is Tucker. No debate! That ? got ugly when he started reading ? from Tariq's book. Now I know some of y'all ride for Tariq but nope not this time. Rd 2 is not debatable.
In Rd 3 Tariq is gonna have to do some subtitles, translations, and do which room I'm in. We shall see.
I don't understand what his books from over a decade ago have to do with his statements on trump
Y'all pulled the same ? in the last thread and it baffled me
man its too early for this right now. dude quoted the book and Tariq said its satire, comedic, and tongue in cheek. he then asked why should we take u seriously now? He also made the comment that Tariq was profiting off his views. Tariq had no defense for the ? other than to basically say tucker is reaching.
now im not the dude u should try to use the Socratic questioning technique on. u like to ask question after question and then come back and say ur questions are not being answered. I cant do that with u. u saw the video and im sure u understood, ovastood, comprehended, grasped, and got the gist of what the book had to do with his statements on Trump.
talk to me after my second cup of coffee.
Nah you'll never get me to understand what his books have to do with his trump statements because they have nothing to do with his trump statements
It was non sequitur period
And I find it funny how you ? wait til way after the fact to comment on the fact that I ask simple questions that you ? are incapable of answering smh
Y'all keep saying he's race hustling but I have yet to see anyone accurately explain where all this "black empowerment" money is coming from that he's supposedly making
ok so why ask a question and u already know u wont accept any answer other than ur answer? u wont ever understand the use of the book in their argument. don't ask about the use of the book ur mind is made up.
it was not non sequitor. tucker brought it up and connected the dots for u. he said if we couldnt take u serious then why should we take u are serious now? he went on to say how he basically feels Tariq statements on trump are to stir the ? and for him to make a profit. this interview aint debatable. CLEAR BODY BAG FOR TUCKER IN ROUND 2. dude stop it!
smh...here we go folks...the next 10 pages will be THE ATTACK OF THE TARIQ-CANS! y'all get ready.
Again you're still speaking in vague generalities. What question SPECIFICALLY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
Once again please explain how a book that is over a decade old somehow discredits TN's trump statements
By your illogic no one who has ever made a joke can speak on serious topics ever in life smh
Wait! what? vague? u know ur original question was what did his book have to do with trump statements. i addressed that clearly. i also addressed the fact that u said nah u'll never get me to understand. that right there kills any potential progress between u and i. i already said don't play the question game with me.
in response to the bolded...i have never said that. in fact i would be the last person to ever make a statement like that. i am dealing with the interview that was posted in this thread. please stop reaching. u a funny dude.
No simple ? , in all of your posts you keep alluding to OTHER QUESTIONS that I ask in which I ignore the answer
I'm asking you WHAT SPECIFIC OTHER QUESTIONS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
How can I make that question any simpler?? See how you're confusing yourself? Smh
And for the record, TN's books have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with his trump statements
Lmao u getting emotional cuz I talked about ur posting style. Man I ain't asking u no questions. Just tired of u always asking questions in ur post and then refuse to accept answers.
Smh but I'm the simple one.
You have failed to give one example of this in any of your posts yet you keep talking smh
@semi-auto-mato -
Smhsemi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »semi-auto-mato wrote: »Ok I'm going to assume there is gonna be a Rd 3. Rd 1 was debatable. It was a long thread and ? was riding for tariq. The race casino line was good. So I'm in a generous mood tonight so I will give Rd 1 to tariq by the smallest of margins.
Rd 2 is Tucker. No debate! That ? got ugly when he started reading ? from Tariq's book. Now I know some of y'all ride for Tariq but nope not this time. Rd 2 is not debatable.
In Rd 3 Tariq is gonna have to do some subtitles, translations, and do which room I'm in. We shall see.
I don't understand what his books from over a decade ago have to do with his statements on trump
Y'all pulled the same ? in the last thread and it baffled me
man its too early for this right now. dude quoted the book and Tariq said its satire, comedic, and tongue in cheek. he then asked why should we take u seriously now? He also made the comment that Tariq was profiting off his views. Tariq had no defense for the ? other than to basically say tucker is reaching.
now im not the dude u should try to use the Socratic questioning technique on. u like to ask question after question and then come back and say ur questions are not being answered. I cant do that with u. u saw the video and im sure u understood, ovastood, comprehended, grasped, and got the gist of what the book had to do with his statements on Trump.
talk to me after my second cup of coffee.
Nah you'll never get me to understand what his books have to do with his trump statements because they have nothing to do with his trump statements
It was non sequitur period
And I find it funny how you ? wait til way after the fact to comment on the fact that I ask simple questions that you ? are incapable of answering smh
Y'all keep saying he's race hustling but I have yet to see anyone accurately explain where all this "black empowerment" money is coming from that he's supposedly making
ok so why ask a question and u already know u wont accept any answer other than ur answer? u wont ever understand the use of the book in their argument. don't ask about the use of the book ur mind is made up.
it was not non sequitor. tucker brought it up and connected the dots for u. he said if we couldnt take u serious then why should we take u are serious now? he went on to say how he basically feels Tariq statements on trump are to stir the ? and for him to make a profit. this interview aint debatable. CLEAR BODY BAG FOR TUCKER IN ROUND 2. dude stop it!
smh...here we go folks...the next 10 pages will be THE ATTACK OF THE TARIQ-CANS! y'all get ready.
Again you're still speaking in vague generalities. What question SPECIFICALLY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
Once again please explain how a book that is over a decade old somehow discredits TN's trump statements
By your illogic no one who has ever made a joke can speak on serious topics ever in life smh
Wait! what? vague? u know ur original question was what did his book have to do with trump statements. i addressed that clearly. i also addressed the fact that u said nah u'll never get me to understand. that right there kills any potential progress between u and i. i already said don't play the question game with me.
in response to the bolded...i have never said that. in fact i would be the last person to ever make a statement like that. i am dealing with the interview that was posted in this thread. please stop reaching. u a funny dude.
No simple ? , in all of your posts you keep alluding to OTHER QUESTIONS that I ask in which I ignore the answer
I'm asking you WHAT SPECIFIC OTHER QUESTIONS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
How can I make that question any simpler?? See how you're confusing yourself? Smh
And for the record, TN's books have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with his trump statements
Lmao u getting emotional cuz I talked about ur posting style. Man I ain't asking u no questions. Just tired of u always asking questions in ur post and then refuse to accept answers.
Smh but I'm the simple one.
You have failed to give one example of this in any of your posts yet you keep talking smh
@semi-auto-mato
your first post to me
I don't understand what his books from over a decade ago have to do with his statements on trump
your next response to me
Y'all keep saying he's race hustling but I have yet to see anyone accurately explain where all this "black empowerment" money is coming from that he's supposedly making
your 3rd
Once again please explain how a book that is over a decade old somehow discredits TN's trump statements
dude u corny as hell.
-
Tucker spent the first 4 min purposely misquoting the tweet.
Tariq Tweet: "Trump has appointed to his cabinet ppl from the alt right, a white supremacist sect that literally throws up ? salutes"
at 1:28
Tucker: "U said 'appointed people to his cabinet who throw up ? salutes'"
Anybody see the word game there? And instead of discussing someone like Bannon's ties to the alt right, and furthermore Trump's ties to Bannon (and possibly alt right) they have a meaningless debate that could've been avoided with proper understanding of the semantics. Classic Fox News work.
Tucker bringing up the book was cheap but I see what he was trying to do, but not falling for that in this instance.
I gave the last one to Tucker but this one goes to Tariq. -
Legit question
In either case Tucker, Tariq, or whoever else. What do they "win" ?
