Skip to main content

Reply to "Not Modeling The "Model": The New White Flight"

And CON-Feed... Don't you dare open your damn mouth again until you deal with this bullshit you posted earlier:
YOUR BLANKET statement does not capture the entire issue.
With a direct question I asked you:
WTF are you talking about?
What "blanket statement"???


Your PUNK ASS is mum. SILENT, too, are you, being the PUSSY that you are, on the inherent conflict between two separate ideas you forwarded:
  • The loss of Blacks at Berkeley because they were DEPENDENT on a government program was A GAIN FOR THE ASIANS who have no such dependency.

  • The recent discrepancy in admissions for Asians was due to their lack of participation in ATHLETICS and extra-curricular activities as compared to other populations of students.
  • So? What??
    Did Asian-Americans all-of-a-sudden start playing sports at hyper-unprecedented rates or did something happen to address those discrepancies linked to NON-MERIT based considerations?

    As always... your BULLSHIT doesn't hold up and you, being the DUMBASS that you are (speaking for RHETORIC'S sake instead of for having something to actually say that's actually based on being informed, honest or truthful), have, yet again, shown your uncanny ability to CONTRADICT yourself... and show that you can't organize information. You just spout off with a bunch of disconnected RHETORIC, too dumb to know how you're setting your own traps that your PUNK ASS will have to run from.

    Now, if you're not a punk... tell me, first of all, WHY THE HALF-TRUTH about what was said on the Interview link? And, second, tell me what does that do for your argument, citing that misleading "factoid"?

    (Note: By doing that, you went right along and made a BLANKET STATEMENT (about the discrepanies being solely linked to athletics and extra-curriculars) when you called yourself trying to say that I made, a yet unspecified, "blanket statement.")

    So, yeah... If you're not a PUNK or a PUSSY (and, now, I'm thinking you're both and then some) then you take your ass back and quote my "Blanket Statement", whatever you claimed it was and deal with the conversation from there.

    Also, PUNK... This is my thread. You said something about a "discussion of how Black people are going to increase our numbers"... Well, that's not topic here (per se) and that's not what you responded to.

    You ask some inane ass, lame ass rhetorical question (DO YOU THINK THAT THEY CARE WHAT THE WHITE FOLKS DO?) as if that's RELEVANT. You follow that shit up, after I've smacked your ass for saying some other dumb shit, with this:
    I maintain my stance that ASIANS who now make up 50% of the freshman class at UC Berkeley don't care that WHITE FOLKS are clearing out.
    Now, you show me where somebody, anybody, especially me... tell me where I said or suggested Asian-Americans do or should "care that White Folks are clearing out" and I'll give your Scooby ass a cookie.

    See? That's the silly shit that earns you THE BEATDOWNS you get... Cause we all know, "PUNKS Jump Up To Get BEATDOWNS!" I guess you say it might as well be you, huh? CON-Feed?

    It's called... POINT & Counterpoint. You say something, if I challenge it, then you have to defend what you originally... Ummm... the actual thing I challenged. Now, list MY BLANKET STATEMENT or Shut Your PUNK ASS Up!!! scream