Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
he’s basically saying that the jury was wrong
It’s a nice strawman you got there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You will find ignorant people everywhere. Congrats on your discovery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
We say ndes r proof of an afterlife... We don't say that the afterlife is proof of ndes. Thought I'd clear up that strawman up first.
I never said the after life is your proof of NDE’s, I said the afterlife is your explanation for NDE’s.
Like I said, X can’t be or forward as a candidate explanation for Y until X has been demonstrated to exist.
If there is no demonstration of an afterlife, then you must assume it which is a huge leap in logic, making it a complex assumption. But the way you avoid having to assume it is to claim it’s been demonstrated. So how have you demonstrated the existence of a soul out afterlife? NDE’s. And how do you justify your claim that the afterlife is the simplest explanation for these experiences? Because we already know there’s an afterlife. In other words they are substantiating each other. That’s circular.
But by your logic u think brain chemicals r proof of ndes and u think ndes r proof of brain chemicals. Circular
There’s nothing circular about my position. Brain chemicals are observed and then correlated to the point of predictability when it comes to the impacts we observe in the abilities and behavior of human beings. This is all logic 101 on how to establish a causal relationship.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Simple, it's stupid because the nature of hallucinations are nothing like the observations of NDE's.
Provide a link comparing the physiological processes of hallucinations to NDE’s.
So again, he is justified in simply dismissing speculations as stupid albeit it is his opinion.
It’s all speculation. We don’t know what NDE’s are, so the only question is what is most reasonable to believe. Most atheists like myself take the simplest explanation; that such experiences are a product of the human brain. Theists tend to accept something very different; that they are the result of one’s consciousness leaving their body and going to some supernatural realm of reality which we have no access to. That is almost by definition the more complex explanation, which by definition makes it irrational to accept over the simpler alternative. So no, he is not justified.
LOL, you didn't think that through very well did you?
Here’s a wild idea, instead of smug and ignorant condescension, provide an actual response to what I just said.
NDE's can't be repeated as an experiment of course, the circumstances are deadly....however the event has been repeated again and again. It has happened over and over.....that is what he means by repeatable.
I don’t care what he means, we’re talking about science. Science requires experimentation. Experimentation requires a controlled environment so that alternative explanations can be properly ruled out. This is the entire reason why repeatability matters in science, so that others can perform the same experiment and get the same results.
What you guys are talking about are randomized events that cannot in any practical sense be recreated in a controlled environment to be properly studied. That’s the opposite of repeatability in any scientific sense.
Yes, testimonies are defined as evidence. Evidence is also recognized as a testimony. Testimonies are clearly defined as "firsthand authentication of a fact : EVIDENCE"
Testimonies are evidence of what one experienced.
We’re talking about what caused the experience.
If someone tells you they witnessed Bill shooting John - and John lay dead with a bullet hole in him - we might question the accuracy of the testimony but we don’t generally question what caused the testimony. Clearly the cause was the witness observing a murder.
If the witness however claims to have watched John’s ghost leave his body and fly to heaven, that changes what we are justified in accepting about it at the outset. The question is no longer whether the witness’s recount was accurate, but whether he or she witnessed anything at all as opposed to the experience being a product of their brain.
So, what we have is a large data base of evidence, which clearly correlates with the proposition of a soul and an afterlife.
You can’t claim X correlates with Y when you have no evidence that Y exists.
Something must be demonstrated to exist before it can be put forward as a valid explanation for something else. You are putting the soul and afterlife forward as your explanation for NDE’s, yet NDE’s are also your evidence for the existence of a soul and/or afterlife. That’s inherently circular, which is inherently irrational.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
if it's commonplace for people to die and tell us they experienced the afterlife, the simplest solution is that that's what happened.
I already explained to you in detail why this is wrong. Do you have any thoughts on the points that I made, or are you just going to continue pretending I never made them while you repeat the same talking point?
but that it's so widespread, philosphically it's just stupid to say people are consistently dying and hallucinating elaborate afterlife stories.
Instead of repeating your claim that “it’s just stupid”, please provide rational thought explaining why. What evidence do you have to rule out hallucinations, and how does the frequency of them qualify to you as an argument against it?
even if a person doesn't think actual afterlife stories are being told as the simplest solution to what's happening, you'd have to ignore all the evidence
You have yet to establish how anything you are pointing to qualifies as evidence. Most notably, you completely disregard necessity, the most basic concept of evidence.
there are enough of these anecdotes to show a theme, though, it's repeatable and highly accurate, and there's no way to explain how these people know what happens out of their body when they are dead
What it shows is the law of truly large numbers (Google it). There are something like 8 billion people on the planet and billions more that have walked the earth over the past few decades and centuries. Of course you are going to have multiple anecdotal examples of anything people are looking for, and proof of the afterlife is arguably the most sought out thing is human history.
You also continue to claim that this is repeatable, seeming to have no idea what the word means. Repeatability means you can go to a lab right now and run the same experiment and get the same result. Of course however, you can’t. The story of the person hearing the conversation in the next room for example is neither repeatable nor verifiable. We have nothing but the word of those involved, and could never scrutinize their story in any way. That’s not science, that’s the opposite of science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Who did this? And why are you so convinced this is a one side issue?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Let me guess, by jury intimidation you referring to black pastors sitting with the family of the victim?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
This view is greatly distorted because mass shootings are a small portion of homicides, but the liberals don't care.
Liberals talk about gun violence in a general sense all the time. What are you talking about?
they are more upset about a mass shooting that kills 26 people than they are about traffic deaths that are responsible for 30,000 American deaths a year
Traffic deaths are accidents which occur as a result of our dependence as a society on transportation. Given how many people travel every single day, some level of casualties are inevitable. It’s a trade off we make to be able to live eventful and productive lives. Even then, vehicle safety is something we have been working on for decades and continue to make progress on every year.
Mass shootings are intentional and heinous acts which in many cases are entirely preventable but because of the right wing obsession with guns in this country we can’t do anything about.
These are not comparable issues.
With one party having no principles, and another party having principles that are partly based on emotion rather than reality, I think both parties are absolutely horrible. It's time for DART members to break away from the democrat and republican parties. The chads are the independents, who think for themselves.
Smugness and ignorance is a terrible combination. Not agreeing with someone else doesn’t mean they don’t think for themself, it might just mean you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Would there happen to be anyone else you believe shouldn’t have been there in the first place?
Everyone who was not peacefully protesting
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
He strapped himself with an AR15 because he knew he’d probably have to use it.That’s just baloney. That’s like saying you put on a seat belt because you knew you’d probably get into a car accident.
We’re arguing in circles so I’ll just recap the problem as follows… You simultaneously;
A) paint the rioters as dangerous rapist armed thugs who are out to hurt and kill people while burning down entire neighborhoods, and
B) hold that Rittenhouse heading straight into the lions den with an AR15 loudly displayed around his chest was no reason for him to think he’d find himself in a situation where he’d have to use it.
It’s a mind blowing contradiction, but once accepted I can see how the rest of your view comes together.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
I think the fact that Kyle was open carrying makes the court's ruling even more of a no brainer. Think about it -Rosenbaum attacked a kid knowing that he had an AR-15.
Irrelevant. I’m not arguing he should be charged with murder, I’m arguing he shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
According to your last post, bringing an (illegal) handgun for self protection is not immoral. The type of gun changes the morality of the situation? Why?
I’ve already explained this.
Do you believe a journalist walking around the battlefield with a mini-gun signals to the combatants that he’s there for journalism?
Do you believe that what you signal to others regarding your intentions dictates how others will treat you?
What are you talking about? It sounds like you just have an extreme prejudice against the AR-15. The type of gun involved has nothing to do with the morality of the actions that led to him being attacked (putting out fires and cleaning up graffiti) or the self defense situation after the attack occurred.
Once again, you remain focused on the wrong thing. I’ve made no criticisms of his actions after he arrived. I’ve repeatedly made clear that his decision to go down there strapped with an AR15 is what makes this egregious. Focus on the point.
And no, I don’t have a prejudice against the AR15, I continue to highlight it because of reasons I’ve already explained;
A) It’s highly visible, which is a clear signal to the rioters that he is there to stand against them
B) It is not a weapon designed to cripple, it’s designed to kill.
As far as the bolded bit…no. He has every right morally to walk down the streets of his community.
First of all, it wasn’t his community. He didn’t even live in the state.
Second, please stop making arguments as if there is no context, it’s disingenuous. You make it sound like he was just going for a midnight stroll. Once again, I don’t object to his presence, I object to his mindset which is made clear by his preparation. He wasn’t going there for the purpose of to putting out fires any more then a man takes a woman to dinner for the purpose of feeding her. He strapped himself with an AR15 because he knew he’d probably have to use it.
This is what I mean by you’re victim blaming. You’re saying he brought it on himself because he chose to put himself in a dangerous situation and therefore deserves some portion of the moral blame, but his actions were perfectly legal.
Legal and ethical are two different things. We’re not talking about the former.
Again, he was not the victim. He’s the one who walked away. Alive.
Again, it’s not about merely putting yourself in a dangerous situation. It’s about putting yourself in a situation where your only way out is to kill someone else. Rittenhouse was well aware that this would be the likely result of his heading down there and he did it anyway. That’s what I object to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Part of what makes this CLEAR self defense is that the videos show Rosenbaum beginning to chase Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse flees and…
All of this is irrelevant. What I have criticized from the start was his decision to grab an AR15 and head down there in the first place.
How is it provocative? People open carry at protests in the United States ALL THE TIME--so it's actually not predictable whatsoever that open carrying would be physically attacked.
This was absolutely nothing like any standard open carry rally, so your comparison is invalid. Open carry rallies are generally peaceful because they are protesting institutions that carry actual authority. Such institutions are built on public trust, so of course opposing them without crossing the line should be expected to remain peaceful. No such thing could be said with a straight face with regards to dealing with rioters.
A common theme throughout every argument you have made is a full disregard for the context of what was going on in Kenosha in the first place.
The reason people were out there was because of a perceived continual unjustified use of deadly force against the black community. This led to mass protests which inevitably turned into rioting. I don’t condone the rioting, but if you really believed your community was being killed by a system that didn’t value your life, how would you react? These are the people Rittenhouse decided to show up and stand on the opposing side from with an AR15. The idea that this was not a recipe for absolute disaster is ludicrous.
Yeah you're victim blaming again.
You really need to drop this counter point. Whatever you think about the actions of those who tried to attack Rittenhouse, they are the ones who are dead, not Rittenhouse, so this comparison is absurd on its face. A victim is by definition a person who actually lost something.
Second, walking around with an AR15 and walking around in a short skirt are not comparable. One is a threat to the safety of everyone around them, the other is sexually tempting. These are not the same thing. Not even close.
why does that condemnation not apply to the rioters who were actually committing crimes?
I never said it didn’t. This conversation is not about the rioters, it’s about Rittenhouse. Two people can be wrong at the same time.
Disregarding the existence of a weapon, was his very presence there immoral?
By itself no. Unwise, strongly cautioned against. Not immoral.
Are you seriously saying that if he had just unloaded on somebody attacking him who didn't know he had a gun, that would somehow be more moral?
You’re asking the wrong questions. This isn’t about what happened in that moment and what the attacker knew or didn’t know.
Again, there are two parts to this. First is that his decision not just to arm himself but to go to the lengths he went to ensure he had the right weapon for the occasion demonstrates his mindset. It shows just how fully expecting he was that he may have to use it. An AR15 is not a taser, you don’t pull the trigger expecting the person you are pointing it at will live. To be aware of both of these facts and proceed anyway is to be fully aware that he was going down there to possibly kill someone.
The second is the visibility of the weapon which sends a clear statement to the rioters about what you are doing there as well as who you stand with, and against. You cannot pretend you are there as some neutral do-gooder when you are showcasing an AR15, which is what makes the Boy Scout narrative so laughable. It’s like a journalist walking around with a mini-gun then wondering why they are being fired upon.
Created:
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
The presence of coercive elements is not sexual assault.yes that is.being coerced into sex is still rape.
Read the thread before commenting on it.
I never said she was coerced into sex, in fact I pointed out that to this day even she is still standing firm on the fact that the relationship was consensual. A consensual relationship is literally the opposite of coercion, and certainly rape.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Even Vox, a radical left wing blowhorn knows this is corruption.
Did you even read the article? It made no allegation of corruption. All it talked about is how it is unethical of Hunter to sell his paintings at such a high price. An argument that really amuses me coming from such a staunch free market get government out of my business advocate.
public knowledge of his 500,000 dollar paintings that are obviously money laundering
Obviously is not an argument, it’s a substitute for one. Provide your evidence.
And BTW, I never did get an answer… why are you along with Rightwingville so obsessed with Hunter Biden? I mean, selling his paintings at a high price has you triggered? Really? Where were you while Trump was selling out his hotels to foreign nationals, when Trump’s daughter was accompanying him on state meetings with Chinese officials right before being fast tracked Chinese patents, when Trump was diverting US troops away from military bases and out of their way to stay in Trump hotels where he would charge them the maximum legal amount? But now you’re an ethics watchdog? Really?
Created:
-->
@949havoc
Not to mention - since I already have and you ignore it - that Nancy failed herself in disregarding her own House Rules in mounting the impeachment effort in the first place.
I already addressed this and you had nothing to say about it. This is completely and utterly irrelevant to the charges against Trump. But when you have no argument all you got left is deflection, so I guess I don’t blame you.
Of course, that is patent prog thinking, ignoring the consequence that no cookie was, in fact, taken.
I don’t believe you are being serious. There’s no way I really need to explain these concepts to you, but I guess I will anyway…
If you were to catch your child with his hand in the cookie jar, the fact that no cookie was taken is irrelevant. The issue at hand is that your child has now shown himself to be untrustworthy around the cookie jar without supervision. That changes the way you do things.
Trump was the president of the United States, the most powerful man in the country and perhaps the world. He was in charge of making huge decisions that impact all of us including whether to use the nuclear codes, and in 2019 he showed himself to be unworthy of our trust. He showed that US interests came 2nd to his own personal interests. This is the literal definition of corruption and if it were Clinton, Obama, or Biden you wouldn’t have the slightest bit of trouble understanding this.
But, you would prosecute, anyway, because intent is, in your mind, all that is required in a criminal prosecution when the fact is, no one can read another's mind; you only think you can, because that's what progs do.
Establishing intent is one of the most basic elements of our justice system. Literally every person that’s ever been convicted of first degree murder has been found to have intended the act. So if you actually believed what you’re saying, you would be advocating for the abolition of first degree murder as a chargeable offense. But we both know you don’t believe that.
What really strikes me though about this comment is a pattern I’m starting to notice about you, where the very idea of using ones brain seems to be something you are against. You talk about us prosecuting Trump as if that were ever the conversation, where in reality all we’re talking about is using logic and reason to form a conclusion about what Trump did. And you talk about intent like it requires a mind reader even though assessing someone else’s intent is something every one of us does everyday with nearly everyone around us. It’s one of the most basic parts of assessing whether we like another person or despise them. This is really basic stuff.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
That has nothing to do with the here and now. Your position on the police and fire departments totally abandoning their posts is "the community has no right to collective self defense, they can just wait it out until the next election"
No, that’s not my position because we’re not talking about what rights the community has, nor are we discussing whether the Kenosha police department were or were not properly handling their duties. We’re talking about Rittenhouse and whether his actions were right or wrong. The arguments I’ve made are what, in my opinion, should have been his point of view on the situation.
You are calling what Rittenhouse did (put out fires and render medical aid) immoral
No, I’m not, and again, there is no way you could have gotten that from my statements. I made clear what I objected to, putting out fires and rendering medical aid were not mentioned. You added them on your own.
I said it’s not up to an 18 year olds in neighboring states to bring their AR15’s to defend against potential riots. Do you agree with that statement? If not, who is responsible? How do we as a society handle such a threat?I don't agree with that statement. If 18 year old LARPers are the only people with the courage to put themselves in harms way to put out fires and help people injured by rioters…
In other words, you don’t believe local authorities elected by the people in the community are the ones who should be deciding how to handle potential riots in the community.
I also said if one has no business in a neighboring state (and he didn’t, having family 30 minutes away does not make it your business) and it’s dangerous enough to need an AR15, and local authorities are on the scene, then he had no business going there. Do you agree with that statement? If not, what’s wrong with it?I don't agree with that statement. He is an American citizen and has every right to walk the streets if he so chooses. The streets do not belong to violent rioters, they belong to the people…
None of this is relevant. Of course he has a legal right to walk the streets, that’s not what I’m asking.
Again, what was his business in Kenosha?
This is textbook victim blaming. Does a 19 year old girl with a fake ID belong in a bar? No? Well, she shouldn't have been there! Who cares if she is assaulted!
Complete strawman and false equivocation. Any 19 year old girl should reasonably expect that if they walk into a bar they won’t be sexually assaulted. No reasonable person would presume that walking into a city plagued by riots is a safe place to show up with your AR15 as the anti-rioter. That is provocative, and that invites the very situation he found himself in. This was all foreseeable, this was all predictable. It’s not self defense when you create the situation that leads to you having to use deadly force. If he really just wanted to put out fires and render medical aid he could have left his AR15 at home. And if all he wanted was to defend himself he could have brought a hand gun instead of running around like a wanna be Rambo.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
Tell me how a payment that is due on Sept 30, and was actually pa0id, as you admit, on Sept 11, is "withheld?"
If you had bothered to pay attention to any of the charges against Trump, you would know that failing to make the payment was never one of them.
Trump was charged with attempting to coerce a foreign nation into investigating his political rival. The fact that he failed because his scheme became public knowledge before he could pull it off is not a defense a against that charge. You know that.
So no, the payment schedule is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that the pentagon was told to “hold off” 91 minutes after the phone call, and ultimately released the funds the day after news broke about the whistleblower complaint and congress demanding to see it.
If you walk into the kitchen and find your child with his hands in the cookie jar and he pulls his hand out as soon as you walk in, you aren’t seriously going to accept “but I never took a cookie” as a defense.
What we’re talking about here is Trump’s mindset, because the mindset of the person who holds the nuclear codes actually matters.
Biden's own commentary says otherwise, because Biden made it about family, not the U.S. Biden's condition on releasing payment was not an issue affecting the U.S., or its national security, but firing the Ukraine prosecutor.
Biden’s commentary does not say otherwise and had absolutely nothing to do with family, that’s just completely made up BS.
The position that the prosecutor needed to be fired was US policy supported by every intelligence agency, the state department, the White House, and the entire western world. Even republicans were on the record in support of it. This was in no way controversial, no matter how hard you will try to revise history now.
In Biden’s recap of the conversation Ukrainian officials even told Biden that he as VP cannot withhold the aid, which is a fact - he cannot, and he told them to call Obama. The idea that Joe was somehow acting on his own volition is just remarkably ignorantly wrong.
And once again let me reiterate, the reason the US was about to withhold the aid is because Ukraine had a severe corruption problem so the administration was well within its rights legally and ethically to withhold US funds if it had real doubts about where the money would end up. That’s what administrations are supposed to do - protect US assets and investments.
Contrast this with Trump, who decided to withhold aid if Ukraine was unwilling to lie on their behalf about investigating the Biden’s to help Trump’s re-election. Using your position of authority for personal gain is the literal definition of corruption.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
That's not my opinion, it's what the facts point to when they are all considered together. There are women who have been raped but don't think or say they have. They can call it a "bad encounter" or think they just regret it. That doesn't mean it wasn't rape just because they said it isn't, as a victim's words aren't how we determine if it occurred or not.Therefore, simply quoting her words doesn't mean it wasn't sexual assault.
So in other words, you know better whether it was sexual assault than the person who not only lived through it, but literally wrote a book and gives speeches about it in relation to today’s me too movement. Ok bro.
So, do you think that a sexual relationship between the most powerful person and someone with little to no power has no coercive elements? If so, why not?
The presence of coercive elements is not sexual assault.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh so all the other men watching the rape happen for 45 minutes wanted to put themselves in harms way but then suddenly realized it was an independent strong woman that could handle it herself for 45 minutes. That makes more sense.
Not sure if you’ve realized this yet, but you’re having a conversation entirely with yourself. Nothing I’ve said remotely resembles any of this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
What about when the local authorities have completely abandoned their posts?
Then those authorities need to be held accountable by the people who elected them. If what they did was egregious enough they will be, if not then perhaps the situation was not quite what right wing propaganda made it seem.
It’s immoral for citizens to put out fires or administer medical aid? What’s immoral about that?
That’s not the part I objected to, and there’s no way you could have honestly gotten that from what I said.
Why is unethical to do good deeds even when it places you in personal danger?
You ignored every point I just made.
I said it’s not up to an 18 year olds in neighboring states to bring their AR15’s to defend against potential riots. Do you agree with that statement? If not, who is responsible? How do we as a society handle such a threat?
I also said if one has no business in a neighboring state (and he didn’t, having family 30 minutes away does not make it your business) and it’s dangerous enough to need an AR15, and local authorities are on the scene, then he had no business going there. Do you agree with that statement? If not, what’s wrong with it?
Imagine a couple of antifa members showing up at the Capitol on Jan 6th with their AR15’s ready to “defend democracy” and then ended up killing a few Trump supporters. Would you be just as dismissive of their actions? Would you be just as sympathetic to their view that Capitol police weren’t going to handle them properly, so they felt they needed to handle it themselves? Would you be just as quick to talk about their Boy Scout activities prior to using their AR15’s? Would you be just as willing to dig up the personal histories of the people they killed and deem their lives unworthy of concern?
Created:
-->
@949havoc
Wrong, and the statement makes obvious that you entirely misunderstood the timing of events then, and now.1. The payment in question was paid on time, which was due by Sept. 30
The phone call in question happened on July 25th, a full 2 months prior. The idea that the payment being made on time has any relevance here is just silly.
91 minutes after the phone call on July 25th a senior White House official sent an email to the pentagon telling them to “hold off” on the aid to Ukraine. The White House would continue the freeze until after the story broke in Politico that the funds were being withheld on August 28th and news of the whistleblower complaint broke on September 10th. The funds were released the next day on September 11th.
You can’t seriously believe this is not obvious.
You were apparently unaware of this fact, being educated only by your MSM
The payment schedule is not relevant to the charge. If you want to know why these payments were so important, ask Ukraine, they could explain it to you. Ask Zelensky why he booked an appearance on CNN in early September that year to announce the fake investigation into Hunter Biden and then canceled that appearance on September 18th after the whistleblower News hit mainstream.
Who did threaten non-payment? JoeBiden. He bragged about it on video, about Jan 18, 2017 as then VP to Obama. Look it up.
I’ve seen the video a hundred times, it’s another nonsense deflection. The difference between these two scenarios is that Biden was acting on behalf of the United States, Trump was acting on behalf of his own reelection campaign. Let me know if I need to explain to you why those two things are not the same.
Let's cite "The other thing" to see exactly what it says:"The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great."and you claim it saysTrump... asking a foreign nation to investigate his top political rival’s son.. Let me know if you need help understanding what that means.
Hey, that’s a nice family you got there. Would be a shame if something happened to them.
At that time, does Trump have a political rival? No, because 2020 presidential primaries had not yet begun, let alone not yet having either party's convention to select the presidential rival candidates. Speculation, yes, but what meaning does that have? Biden didn't place in the the top three candidates in the first two primaries of spring 2020, so, at the time, speculation didn't mean much.
Biden lead in every single poll for months before, months after, and was the clear winner as all the polls predicted. It’s a nice try though, using the whole two state primaries to pretend as if there was any real doubt who the front runner was. Unfortunately for you I was there.
Was Trump asking about Biden's son as the thrust of the pg. 4 commentary, or Biden's stopping the prosecution?
If the transcript wasn’t clear enough for you, pull your head out of the sand and look around. It’s not even being disputed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
No. My position takes context into account.
My position is that it’s not up to an 18 year olds in neighboring states to bring their AR15’s to defend against potential riots. I believe in democracy, so I believe it’s up to local authorities to do whatever they have to do to contain such circumstances.
My position is also that if you have no personal business in a neighboring state, and going down there is dangerous enough that you would need an AR15 to defend yourself, and local authorities are there to deal with the situation… you have no business going there.
What part of that do you not agree with?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Do you think that she could reasonably have said 'no' to a request for a blowjob? Don't you think she considered that there could be severe consequences if she upset the president?
Instead of injecting our own opinions of what must have happened, why don’t we just ask her? This is what she had to say almost 20 years later:
“Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship”
You can all that many things, sexual assault is not one of them.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
Forget moral fortitude, the Democrat5s violated their rules. Read them. I know you won't.
You’re right, I won’t, because this is an absurd attempt at deflection. The question at hand is whether the president of the United States used the prospect of withholding foreign aid in an attempt to coerce a foreign nation into helping his re-election campaign. If Biden did that your hair would be in fire and you know it. But it was your guy, so instead you want to sit here and talk about what rules the democrats set for themselves in the impeachment process and whether they followed those rules appropriately. It’s a blatantly obvious attempt to change the subject because you know your guy is guilty and you can’t just admit it.
or the actual transcript, which indicates that between the time Trump asked for a "favor" and mention of investigation of Punter Biden, seven other named subjects were discussed. Which was the favor? The last? Only in the minds of zealots. Read the transcript.
I suggest you take your own advice. Take note of the phrase “The other thing,” on page 4 line 6 that Trump uttered right before asking a foreign nation to investigate his top political rival’s son.. Let me know if you need help understanding what that means.
Really? Does that apply to the "common sense" that Rittenhouse is a racist, as suggested by Biden's campaign ad last summer, when both Rittenhouse and the three men he shot in apparent self-defense [because the video shows all three men coming after him, not the other way around] are all white. What racism? that's common sense? Maybe to you and your sock puppet.
This response was sent to the wrong person. You and I were just talking about the impeachment, but you seem to be responding to someone who said something about Rittenhouse being a racist. That’s another thread, and another user since I have made no such argument.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
That's sure as hell a weird way of saying "sexually assaulting a White House intern"
Facts be dammed…
“as what transpired between Bill Clinton and myself was not sexual assault”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
He will be losing at first and then a bunch of lost last minute ballots all for him and none for the opponent will put him over the top in the dead of night.
You mean they’ll count the mail in ballots that they had been sitting on for weeks because they knew through polling data that they were going to lean heavily Democratic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I don’t understand how Rittenhouse deserves ethical blame for bringing along a firearm to protect himself from a dangerous situation
Because he had no business putting himself in that dangerous situation in the first place.
Self defense is when the danger comes to you, not when you seek it out and then find yourself having to use deadly force as a result. You seem to understand this but then dismiss it because he performed some Boy Scout acts in between. There in between is irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
The second ammendment does not justify using weapons against the police force enforcing the democratically forged laws of America. One can't just call whatever law or system one dislikes "tyrannical" when the word has a precise definition.
Tyranny is defined by the person holding the gun. You say they can’t just call whatever law or system whatever they want… ok, so feel free to stop them.
Keeping this perspective in mind, the second ammendment is hardly justifying the freedom of any American citizens to buy effective tools for creating death and destruction
It really does though. When reasonable conversation is no longer an option to solve disputes, violence is the only mediator left. The second amendment as interpreted gives the citizenry the power and means to decide that reasonable conversation is no longer an option. So you can disagree with the conclusions one draws about whether “2nd amendment remedies” are appropriate, but you cannot claim the second amendment doesn’t justify it.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
the trial to which you refer ended in acquittal
I hope you are not seriously suggesting that republicans unwillingness to remove the dear leader from office suggests anything meaningful other than just how absent they are of any moral backbone and how their craven political ambitions are the only thing that really matters to them.
there was no extortion of a foreign nation
There was. We have the call notes. All you need is to understand basic English.
The court of public opinion is not recognized in my republic.
The court of public opinion is just shorthand for the use of common sense. I am always amused when people who cannot make a reasonable argument to defend their position instead pretend that we’re all supposed to sit back and shut our brains down from forming any conclusions because the legal system hasn’t yet told us what to think.
This isn’t a legal trial, it’s a debate site. The whole point is to state and defend your position. If you think Trump isn’t culpable for what happened then argue that. If you think he is admit it. But stop with this disingenuous BS. If Biden were accused of inciting a mob to attack the US Capitol because he lost an election we all know you wouldn’t be waiting for a jury to render it’s verdict before telling all of us how guilty he is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
My credentials are irrelevant. Deal with the argument or take a seat. Your choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
How about this; provide evidence of it being taught. Then we can discuss the claim further.
And when you dig up whatever you can find, keep in mind what I’ve emphasized repeatedly ever since; that this isn’t about anecdotes. I couldn’t care less of one class in one school is teaching it, I’m talking about the big picture. If you’re not then you’re engaging in a huge waste of time.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The 37 percenters are fucking mad lads for sure.
Can you please explain what it is that has you so drawn to this 37 percenters line? I’m genuinely curious, I just don’t recall anyone using 34 percenters as a pejorative when Trump was in office.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Trump was impeached for the things you mentioned and acquitted
Serious question, why do Trump supporters keep repeating this line as if it demonstrates anything but either jaw dropping ignorance or pure intellectual dishonesty?
Let’s see how many congressman think ignoring a clear judicial order is not impeachable. Clear and concise case imo
Then why have you not responded to Ramshutu’s post thoroughly explaining why this claim is complete and utter nonsense?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Ok, let me rephrase… isn’t known to have been taught in one single school anywhere in the state.
Apologies for not making it clear enough to you that I’m not proclaiming to be omniscient.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
You had your shot belittling Trump. You no longer have him to kick around.Now, it's my turn, yeah?
No. You don’t get to spend 4 years supporting a man who thinks clean coal is when you take it out with a brush and scrub it and then pretend you’re on some sort of high ground to talk about a president needing to sound intelligent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Yes. That you don't appear to see it is not my problem. Think it over. You'll accomplish more than by my giving it to you.
More like an excuse to not have to say it out loud. It’s a tactic used by every anti intellectual movement; make a point but don’t explain it, that way you get the nod by those who agree with you but don’t have to face having your argument torn apart by those who don’t. It’s lazy and indicative of someone who has no interest in logic or reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I’m not directly answering it because as I already implied, it’s a terribly worded question.
You’re asking me whether racial justice materials are being used in any public K-12 schools. So if one book in one class anywhere is Virginia has been used, the answer is yes. Not only could I have no way of knowing whether that is the case, but that’s a silly thing to even be discussing.
This isn’t a question of whether one class in one school is teaching it, it’s about whether this subject is prevalent enough within the school system to warrant the attention it got in the gubernatorial race. If that’s not what you’re talking about then I’m not interested in this conversation.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Thanks for the long list of false equivalencies.
The false equivalence here is pretending that what Biden allegedly did is even worthy of being listed in the same sentence as any of the things Trump did for which you have no issue.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If it’s ok for a president to extort a foreign nation into investigating his political opponent and to incite a mob to attack the US Capitol, then this is fine too. I mean it’s not like he committed the grave sin of lying about a blow job or anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What part of what I said are you under the impression you are refuting?The part where his supporters applauded the idea.
Except that that had nothing to do with my point so it’s clear you are not talking to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Do you that the racial justice materials being promoted and distributed by the NEA are being used in any public K-12 schools?
96% of educators surveyed said CRT was not being taught in their districts, so that’s a no.
Now if you want to point to the 4% as validation for your position then go for it. I’m looking at this from the standpoint of what it says about VA and our society more broadly that this is the issue they got all hung up on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
To restate your claim yet another way:“The left isn’t as susceptible to that kind of nonsense”… so, they went with the Republican kind of nonsense instead?
No, left leaning voters stayed home. Turnout surged statewide thanks to democrats who actually care about democracy making voting more accessible, but if you look at where turnout surged it was much higher in rural areas and somewhat in the suburbs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
“I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”That is the direct quote. It's not a dogwhistle, nor some fantasy idea the radical right created out of whole cloth.
And then I came it a stupid line. What part of what I said are you under the impression you are refuting?
But to dig into this a bit more, I first off ask why this line even mattered? Pretty much every voter who voted for Youngkin could repeat this line verbatim. I mean seriously, since when did parents say in their child’s education become such a hot topic? The answer seems simple; when parents got wind of the idea that teachers had opinions on race, and the parents didn’t like them. That’s what this is all about, and it’s amazing to watch.
I don’t know what was meant by the person who said it, but listening with my left wing ear, it seems clear to me that the point was about expertise. Educators do this for a living, perhaps we should let them figure out how all this works. It’s a perfectly reasonable point, but of course the right was on their purge CRT rage so it’s not like they would have ever comprehended that idea. Not to mention the fact that the right rejects the very idea of expertise itself so it’s not likely it would have mattered anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
The left isn’t as susceptible to emotional appeals, so they voted for Youngkin?
What?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So even if teachers are not teaching the entirety of CRT, they are using CRT as a framework to engage students in Critical Pedagogy. Unless you believe that the materials being promoted and dispersed by the NEA are not being used at all in K-12 classrooms…
Anecdotes aside, correct. The NEA is not in charge of anything, they do not set the curriculum and they do not dictate what any teacher teaches nor can they hold any teacher accountable in any way. They’re essentially an activist group fighting for what they want.
But what you are touching upon is the point here. This has devolved into a game of semantics, a game which begins with a woeful misunderstanding of what “teaching critical race theory” actually means.
The reality is that the ideas from which critical race theory stems are prevalent within educators nationwide and what people really want isn’t about banning the curriculum from being taught, but banning the ideas from being discussed or even acknowledged anywhere around their children. In other words, they don’t want race to be discussed at all.
The irony of all this mind boggling. The most basic idea of CRT is that race is the most prevalent source of conflict within our society. The fact that a man rode the idea of not talking about race all the way to the VA governorship proves the central premise of the thing they all voted not to talk about. It’s absurd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
You think it was less emotions based and more reason based for McAuliffe to equate Youngkin with Trump and declare that parents don’t really need a say in the education of their children?
The “parents don’t have a say in their kids education” was a stupid line that the political right ran with. It had zero real world application as there was no actual change to the curriculum either candidate would/will implement except for Youngkin banning a course no school in Virginia is even teaching. That is an example to emotion based voting.
What McAuliffe tried was to tap into the emotions of the left by making it about Trump which had little effect. It turns out the left isn’t as susceptible to that kind of nonsense, so the republican won.
Created: