said that the vaccine wouldn't make you immune to covid. i was laughed at, called a loon, anti-scientific, a conspiracy theorist...
Now, an insane amount of people are dying of cardiac arrests, so whats the chances that 2 years from now it's accepted by everyone? just like the so called "vaccine" doesn't offer immunity!? hahahahahaha
Joe rogan said recently George soros was deliberately trying to raise crime in cities across the country.
He is the number 1 Democrat donor
He is strategically funding prosecutors, mayors and governors.
Most think this is a conspiracy even thought its been going on for well over 15 years.
Most people are very late to the table.
Some can see the shenanigans miles away.
Ah, Joe Rogan, the Moron Whisperer.
shareI don't like him either, but it's easy to prove Soros donates big money to Democrats.
Has hands in funding prosecutors with agendas of soft on crime mentalities.
Never have we seen prosecutors working as defense attorneys and reducing charges.
That's what a defense attorneys does.
Down grading a ton of crimes
So George Soros donates money to Democrats? So what? It's a good thing.
Have you ever looked into the philosophies of those who make big political donations?
Do you know anything about Soros' Open Society philosophy?
Do you know the ancestry of the overwhelming number of Right-wing Think Tanks?
Almost all of them descend from the Koch family, as a continuation of the John Birch society,
and Libertarian economists like James Buchanan? They are totally for elitist rule and
are the ones behind the massive inequality in America today.
Does it make any sense at all that George Soros would want to increase crime in the US?
No, of course not.
Its $873 million budget in 2013, ranked as the second-largest private philanthropy budget in the United States, after the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation budget of $3.9 billion.[23] As of 2020, its budget increased to $1.2 billion.[24]
The foundation reported granting at least $33 million to civil rights and social justice organizations in the United States.[25] This funding included groups such as the Organization for Black Struggle and Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment that supported protests in the wake of the killing of Trayvon Martin, the death of Eric Garner, the shooting of Tamir Rice and the shooting of Michael Brown.[26][27][28] According to OpenSecrets, the OSF spends much of its resources on democratic causes around the world, and has also contributed to groups such as the Tides Foundation.[29]
Yep, the big new report on COVID-19 is out, and it’s worse than you imagined.
Turns out, a lot of those “crazy theories” floating around?
Pretty spot-on.
Congress now says the virus most likely came from a lab in Wuhan, China.
And guess who was helping fund risky experiments there?
Good ol’ U.S. taxpayers, through a group called EcoHealth Alliance.
Yes, YOUR money might have helped create the pandemic. Let that sink in.
But wait, it gets juicier. Remember all those rules and mandates?
Mask up, stay six feet apart, shut down everything?
The report says they didn’t do much besides wreck the economy, destroy small businesses, and leave kids with massive learning loss and mental health issues.
Science? More like a dumpster fire of bad ideas.
And about those vaccines? Sure, they were a scientific win, but they didn’t stop transmission like promised.
The government sold them as a golden ticket to end the pandemic. Spoiler: they weren’t.
People are still mad about the mandates, and for good reason.
Oh, and if you thought the government might fess up, think again.
The report says officials like Dr. Fauci’s team blocked investigations into the lab leak theory and maybe even broke some rules along the way.
Biden’s crew? Accused of slowing down the truth train.
So, here we are: Congress spilling the tea, and it’s piping hot.
The pandemic was a mess of bad decisions, weak oversight, and cover-ups.
The big takeaway? Your doubts weren’t crazy. They were right.
None of the CDC COVID experts EVER said the vaccine would make a recipient TOTALLY immune from GETTING COVID, only that it would greatly reduce the chance of getting a SERIOUS case.
And no one here has provided any substantiated proof that an "insane amount of people are dying of cardiac arrests" DUE to the COVID vaccine...so a looney, anti-scientific, conspiracy theorist...yeah, you also apparently seem to fit into that category as many others here have who have offered no substantiated proof to the claim.
back tracking again. we'll see
shareThank you for proving you simply don't remember historical fact.
shareTruth please…thank you
shareIt's true, and why is it that Republicans have to try to spin everything into a death and violence spiral.
They can do this because they are taking advantage of a lot of uninformed Americans' view about vaccines.
Another claim that was never made is that someone who has been vaccinated cannot pass the virus to someone else. The concentrations of virus in a vaccinated persons system is less and they are less contagious, but that is not zero and never was or was claimed to be.
The charter of the vaccine makers was to reduce the spread of the virus, and the vaccines did that magnificently - for those who took them. Remember all the news stories about peolpe who were adamant against the vaccine dying of Covid. A steep price to be a member of the Conservative ignorant club.
WhoToTrust is one of the latest robots trying to infiltrate moviechat and turn it into an echo chamber like twitter.
shareYou sound triple boosted.
Doth the troll protests too much, me thinks...
Says a troll that always protests too much.
PROJECTS too much ME thinks. ; )
https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEI2OG7
share"Fun" Fact: More people around the world died from COVID due to being UNvaccinated than have died after being vaccinated.
shareSource?
shareDocumented, scientific history. Not surprised you would be unaware of it.
shareI thought you were a real poster. Just another idiot troll.
shareYour response makes perfect sense given all of the examples you've provided for what you obviously believe constitutes actual thinking. Sad.
shareThat's because the vaccine came way after Covid, so mathematically speaking it would make sense more people died being unvaccinated. That doesn't mean the vaccine works either. Now people are just dying from the same exact thing but with a vaccine in them. If people are even still from covid which they are not.
shareExcept for the fact that after the vaccine WAS introduced, more people died due to being UNvaccinated than being vaccinated. -Eyeroll-
shareYouse never thinks. Youse just passses on the Republican self-destruct programming codes.
shareWhoToTrust = LogicalLeftist
Do you receive compensation for the amount of lies or the extent of them?!
https://moviechat.org/tt23648998/Safe-and-Effective-A-Second-Opinion
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt23648998
Seeing as how I suggested just recently that another illogical, right-winger might be getting paid for all of the posts they make here...do YOU ever have any original thoughts of YOUR OWN? ; )
shareSo you answer a question with another question...Denial through deflection.
WhoToTrust = LogicalLeftist
Says the person currently making unsubstantiated accusations to try to deflect others from considering CDC historical, documented facts...AND...who is ALSO now trying to deflect from the possibility that there are right-wingers HERE who are being paid to spout right-wing propaganda.
shareYEAH...NICE STORY.
shareYou can't expect to have a rational discussion about a medical poison with those that have it flowing through their veins.
We are living through a mass psychosis. Enjoy the ride...
> You can't expect to have a rational discussion about a medical poison with those that have it flowing through their veins.
Certainly not with a malicious fool whse main goal in life to disrupt rational discussion.
I would have believed you even back then. A lot of stuff surrounding Covid in general sounded suspicious, as well as them not making a traditional vaccine using a weak or dead version of the virus, but instead an mRNA-based protein, and I'm like..."You couldn't even get off your asses and do it using a method that has worked since the 1700s?"
And then to hear a year later that the countries with the highest number of Covid cases [still] were countries that had near-total vaccination of the population, such as Israel.
I found it particularly suspicious that those hams on the news kept acting like the Black Plague 2.0 had arrived, and people were supposedly dying by the hundreds of thousands....and yet nobody I knew in town had even shown minor signs of the disease, nor were there bodies piling up in the streets and being taken away for mass burials, like in the movie "Contagion."
You must live in an unpopulated area. A number of people on my job died and I personally know people with long covid who weren't able to work for months and they're still not healthy. Before the vaccine, there were too many corpses to store so they brought in freezer trucks for them. Parks in my area had numerous memorials set up by grieving relatives.
While you were living in denial, I was living in a dystopian nightmare. I NEVER take vaccines with the exception of covid because of what I witnessed and where I work. I still know people getting sick from covid.
You are NOT crazy. You are saved!
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1614010203204100097/vid/1280x720/q6ozOWV6zMaJrFwa.mp4?tag=16
You knew something was fucky when they changed the definition of vaccine to remove the word "immunity".
shareOnce the TikTok dance videos came out from so-called “overrun” hospitals it was obvious the whole thing was a scam.
That was a month after the communist Democrat party lockdowns began. April 2020.
Remember when it was a conspiracy theory that the virus came from a lab? Or even worse that US government money helped fund it? Good times.
shareYes. Originally the vaccine was the conspiracy theory. “Being pushed by President Trump to win the election.” The Democrat party/media and their lemmings screaming they’d never take “Trumps vaccine”.
Then the big pharma companies withheld its availability until after the election to hurt Trump. Because you know it was all his fault. Then the moment Biden was inserted, they were all pro vaccine yada yada.
It’s hard to keep up with how many lies and whopper nothing burgers the Democrat media/party have pushed over the last 8 years. Unprecedented in history really. It’s ok their lemmings never question their Democrat instructions.
Remember all the conspiracy theories people use to suit their narrative?
shareHell, The Southern Strategy Conspiracy Theory is utterly unsupported, if you really go looking.
shareA stopped clock is right twice a day. There are many conspiracy theories that exist. You throw enough things at the wall eventually something is going to stick. It is why I do not think it looks good when people brag about a specific conspiracy becoming true. It is almost as if by them stating that it means we should actually start placing stock in all conspiracies. I will not since the batting average of how many are proven correct is rather low. I noticed there is usually an agenda behind each one as well.
shareOR, some people who like to keep secrets or just out right lie, like to dismiss the Truth using a limited number of tools, with calling them "Conspiracy Theories", being one that has gotten a lot of use recently.
shareIf something is proven to be true it is no longer a conspiracy theory. Some people even when the conspiracy is proven to be untrue will double down on their ignorance unfortunately. Or they will move the goal post. So do you think we should humor all conspiracy theories since a small number of them turn out to be true?
shareI think a couple of things.
1. We should hold people accountable for being WRONG. It used to be that if you made a public fool of yourself, that that led to you having less credibility in the future. That doesn't seem to be happening to the people or sources that have labeled true stories "conspiracies".
2. We should hold people and sources accountable when it is found out that they called something a conspiracy theory, and were KNOWINGLY LYING, as with the Hunter Laptop.
3. We should be more skeptical of people when they want us to dismss a story or report, just because they label it a "conspiracy theory" and manage to gin up a group of sheep to bleat out the same shit.
I agree. However for whatever reason when a conspiracy theorist is proven wrong but has a huge platform it is like they are bullet proof. They can spread a lie and people will still buy into their nonsense even after that lie is exposed. A prime example of that being Alex Jones or the flat earthers. Politicians of any kind should be held accountable for lies as well. It should not be excused or glossed over regardless of who it is coming from.
Of course. This goes both ways of course though.
We should also be more skeptical of people who stand by a conspiracy theory when it conveniently fits their narrative. Lots of people want something to be true so they set themselves up to believe it.
I am glad you agree. And yes, I have seen how people double down. The Flat Earthers, are a fringe.
The majority were lied to by the news media about the Hunter Laptop, in order to prevent the flow of information to the voters going into the Presidential Election.
That's some serious shit. And the same sources and people have done that same thing many times before.
The Alex Jones fans to me are as bad as the flat earthers. I can't stomach either one. Both are cringeworthy to me.
Media that comes from any big news source such as CNN or Foxnews is slanted and biased. CNN shills for the left and Foxnews shills for the right. There are more left wing news stations which are biased but anytime people attempt to cover up for their party I automatically tune out. I can understand people who work for that station doing it because even though it is shady they are being paid to do it. It still irks me but I can least rationalize it even if I disagree with it. Where it makes my skin crawl is when your average person does it. Why do it? Are you being paid? The election being stolen is not a conspiracy I buy myself. Do I discount fraud? No but saying it is stolen is a stretch in my mind. The same people screaming that I bet would not be saying that had their candidate won.
It happens a lot and I am sick of it. Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist! Trump will take away all women's rights! You can dislike whoever you want but there is no need to makeup stupid lies to help further your case. That shows you have little to nothing to stand on.
You really believe Barak Obama really believes in Christ as our Lord and Savrior?
shareI think many politicians use religion as a front. Most of the politicians use that as a way to influence their chances to get votes. I do not know what Obama believes religiously. I just do not buy the whole he is a secret Muslim terrorist rhetoric. Do you truly believe some of the current politicians are honest Christians? Can a politician be a good leader who is not necessarily religious or of a different faith?
shareI certainly believe that some current politicans are honest Christians. I certainly believe that a politician can be a good leaders without being religious.
And I believe that Obama is, as you say, "using religion as a front".
He is not a "terrorist" in the literal sense of the word, but he is, imo, of that political persuasion, ie a lot more hard core lefty than he was willing or able to admit.
He didn't spend twenty years in Rev. "God damn America" Wright's church, because he loved America.
I think the ones who are true Christians are few and far between. I do not care if someone claims to be Christian or goes to church. Plenty of awful people do the deeds for public appeal and are awful people in their spare time. I do not view a person as better than the other for their religious beliefs as there are good and bad people in everything.
I believe many politicians use it as a front and that includes Trump. He is not exempt from that.
Sorry I can't say I agree with you there. This is speculation and in all honesty his stuff is kept under wraps. He leans left absolutely but leaning left does not make you a terrorist or even close to it. I would not say that about the right and I myself lean further left.
I also disagree about this disliking America business. Just because a politician runs the country a different way than what you see fit does it mean they dislike America. Loving America does not mean we accept everything or agree with everything that goes on in this country.
1/ I feel it is quite a shitty thing to do, to pretend to be religious, to pander to people.
2. I never caught Trump pretending to be especially religious.
3. Coverting to join a church, where the rev. is literally preaching anti-American sermons, is evidence of being anti-American.
4. Nothing about anything I have said, in any way indicates anything about having to "accept everything" or anything like that. That is false dichotomy talk.
Of course it is bad to do that just to pander to people. However tons of politicians do that. It is quite common. It is not just politicians that do it tons of those evangelical preachers do this as well. They know that if they just mention God people will easily overlook their horrible actions or deeds. You know what else I think is bad promoting and reviving false conspiracy theories. Trump has been caught spreading lies about things which were debunked but he just played to his crowd. Since you said people should be held accountable for lies he should be also.
Then what was up with him walking across Lafayette Park to St. John's Church holding a Bible then? Also holding it upside down.
What do you view as anti American? You seem to be using this term rather loosely.
The fact that you alluded to the fact that leftists were terrorists I found rather dramatic. Would you like if people were labeling right wingers in that same light?
1. I did NOT say that people should be held accountable for lies. I said that I felt that pretending to be religious to pander to people was especailly shitty.
2. He was taking an anti-setting fire to churches stance. Hardly a stance limited to the religious, imo. You agree with that and supported that actions, correct?
3. Being opposed to American interests and beliefs.
4. You're teh one that brought up "terrorist" not me. And OBAMA being associated with that, is about OBAMA, not all lefties.
You said people should be held accountable for being wrong. Trump attempted to spread the conspiracy theory about Obama not being a born citizen in the US. Once it was revealed he tried to make the claim the birth certificate was fake. This should tarnish some of his credibility. Also yes I agreed with you but many politicians do this. I guarantee you even if you believe Obama does this he is not the only one. That does not excuse it but it is what I expect from politicians these days. Most of them are shady.
No I disagree. You can make that same stance without holding a Bible in your hand. I agree with not burning them down but he did this as a publicity stunt knowing certain Christians would eat it up.
I have a hard time with that because it seems to me that anyone who disagrees with the way you want the country run hates America. Obama did many things which was in America's interest. Why is it he gets flak for any failings but no credit for things that were in America's best interest?
I did and you claimed that although he is not one he is part of that political persuasion. What did you mean by that?
1. No, I said that pretending to be religious to pander, was especially shitty. That is my opinon, you are welcome to disagree with it, but the way you are being unable to hear me is very strange.
2. You could. But Trump made the point WITH a bible. Carrying a bible at that point, is not the same as joining a church. Obama pretended to be religous to pander to voters, Trump did not.
3. Seems to be an element of being a lefty today.
4. I was thinking specifically Bill Ayers, that old 60s terrorist that Obama was politically allied with.
I think a couple of things.
1. We should hold people accountable for being WRONG. It used to be that if you made a public fool of yourself, that that led to you having less credibility in the future. That doesn't seem to be happening to the people or sources that have labeled true stories "conspiracies".
1. That was in teh context of the being wrong about conspiracy theories. I also said that pretending to be religious to pander to peopel is, imo, especially shitty. Those two do not conflict. I stand by that. Obama, did that and that was extra shitty.
2. I don't think Trump was pretending when he took a stance against setting fire to churchs. It is quite credible to me, that as President he saw a mob set fire to a church and wanted to show that he cared about that.
That should have been a Moment of Unity in this country. Some mob set fire a church and the President took a stance against it. The nation should have lined up all on one side. But you people NEEDED to find something to attack him and thus the other side on.
3. Lefties "lump" themselves together when they self identify as lefites. THe lefty ideology of today seems anti-American to me. It comes up a lot. They identify with that ideology. That is not me being nastry but me noticing.
4. Trump's base is primary working class whites, with a good side of the Religous Right. Yes, I am fine with that. Idelogically speaking his platform was basically Paleo-conservatism, and I'm fine with that. I am not aware of any former TERRORISTS that he was aligned with. Certainly he was not a member of a Black Liberation Theology Church, like Obama was.
So you did say that then. Which means Trump's credibility should have taken a hit since he was wrong about Obama's birth certificate correct? Even after the birth certificate was shown he claimed it was fake. That should be a blow to Trump's credibility. I know you said that and I agreed that pandering that way is wrong. However if you think Obama was the only politician to do that I got a bridge to sell ya.
I disagree I think he was trying to pander to people and I did not find that to be genuine in the slightest. What do you mean by you people? Do not lump into any category when I have not done that to you. Show some class please. Drop the us vs them mentality that gets rather old. Especially when I have been civil to you.
I did not do that. Yet you cast that accusation at me. I will not sink to that level and do that to even people who lean right even though I disagree with them. I did not lump myself into any category yet you were quick to jump onto that. What does that say about you?
You are not aware with what his family has done in the past? Has his family always treated people with respect? Trump has been involved in many scandals in his past I think you are conveniently ignoring. He has also dealt with some shady people in his past which I think you are ignoring as well. His father was sued for discrimination in the past for a reason. Not to mention his comments on Mexican immigrants definitely was eyebrow raising to say the least.
1. I said nothing about Obama beingi the only one to do that. My point stands. It was really shitty of Obama to pretend to be religious to pander to voters.
2. He was taking a stand against burning Churchs. Your side ignored that and focused on himi carryign a bible. I think that was a serious bad thing to do. We as a soceity should have all been on the same side that day.
3. SUre you do, by your actions. Such as with the anti-church burning speech. I choose to support it. You choose to attack him. That is us breaking down into sides, ie US vs Them. That's the reality fo the situation. Your desire to have me ignore that is... strange and denied.
4. His father?LOL. That was 50 years ago and it was minor and unclear. Big difference from that and literally being politically allied with a terrorist.
Notice how you conveniently ignored a false conspiracy that Trump tried to spread? Even if I grant you that I bet you will only call Obama on it. Everyone else you will let slide. This is evident in you not wanting to call out Trump for that false conspiracy he spread about Obama. After you openly said leaders should be held accountable for being wrong when spreading false conspiracies. You said it should lower their credibility. Yet say nothing about Trump spreading a false conspiracy. Hypocrisy hard at work in you.
I do not believe he was I believe he was pandering. I agree in that burning churches is a bad thing as well but I do not believe Trump's actions were to stop that. I believe he was doing that to pander to an audience to help his approval ratings. We are on the same side but I do not believe Trump's reasons for doing it were genuine. You think because I question Trump's actions that I agree with burning churches. This is you gaslighting and I am not letting you do it sorry. That tactic is no good here. Also we all should have been on the same page to stop covid but you know how that ended up...
When did I cast an accusation about right wingers like you did about leftists? Go ahead and quote me doing that to you like you did to me. I can call out Turmp's actions and not be anti right wing just like a person can call out Obama's action and not be anti leftist. You openly said leftists are bad people. That is adopting the us vs them mentality.
Oh that was not the only shady person he was aligned with. Even if it was 50 years ago that does not excuse it either. So no you do not get to excuse his behavior not happening on my watch.
1 I said nothing of LEADERS. I was more thinking of news sources and talking heads. We allow people and organizations that have proved themselves to be dishonest and/or incompetent control the flow of information, thus causing damage. That was my point and if you have given a response to it, I have not understood it. The feel I get is that you want to avoid disccussing that.
2.I don't feel like we are on the same side. I feel like you are fighting me. Give me something that would make me feel like we on the same side of any significant issue.
3. I did not say you SAID something, i discussed your actions. I said your actions showed that the reality is Us vs Them.
4. It was not his behavior. It was his dads, and it is a weak example to smear his dad. AND big difference between renting discrmination and BLOWING SHIT UP AND KILLING PEOPLE FOR A TOTALITARIAN IDEOLOGY. Name an associate of Trump's with a record of THAT.
You said we should hold people accountable for being wrong. You openly stated that we used to hold people or the sources accountable. This applies to everyone not just news sources. Even with talking heads why does that not apply to leaders also?
I am disagreeing with you. I do not believe in burning churches at all. I just unlike you do not believe Trump's actions are genuine. I do not believe he is a genuine guy either. I think he is as corrupt as the rest of the other politicians. You singled out Obama stating that he uses religion as a manipulation tactic. That is like saying a rich person womanizes. Is it wrong sure but Obama is not some anomaly when it comes to that. You act as if he is. It is wrong let me state again but I believe Trump does that also.
Yet you accused me of doing something simply because I disagreed. Nowhere did I make a accusation about you based on your political beliefs. I have you on record doing that about leftists. That is you doing the us vs them not me.
Nope still he gets lumped in. After all he was raised by his dad. Oh I can list many of Trump's associates which are terrible. His alignment with Kanye West recently has been concerning as well. You been hearing Kanye's comments lately? Questionable to say the least.
1. Never said it didn't. Do you agree that news sources and talkign heads that say... ridiculed the idea that the covid came from a china lab, should now be ridiculed themselves and not listened to in the future?
2. BUT, you could not just support Trump and the rest of US in our anti-burning churches stance. You HAD to undermine that possible unity and postion, by attacking him for something that you deemed more important than the rioting thoughout the country...
See my point?
3. You did not "just disagree". I am making an observation of your actions and telling you what I think they reveal.
4. I was raised by my dad. He was a classic Union Democrat. You want to lump me in with that? LOL. Sorry, that makes no sense. You're reaching.
Anytime a source, a talking head, or a political leader is wrong they deserve ridicule. It should tarnish your credibility. I am fine with not listening to them in the future but this should apply to Trump also. Since he made up stuff about Obama and doubled down on his false conspiracy even when he was proven wrong.
I did not undermine it. I agree with not burning down churches. I just do not believe Trump's actions were genuine. What you want is for me to stay quiet and support Trump when I do not find his reasons or actions genuine. He did for that for brownie points.
What do my actions tell you? What have I done that is so bad? Disagreeing? Notice I did not lump a political party into being evil like you did. Wouldn't you say that assuming all leftists fit into a terrorist group is um rather telling of how you adopt the us vs them quickly? You would have totally went off on me if I had cast the accusation about right wingers you did about leftists. And you are talking about unity? Yeah probably do not do that if you want to try and make your cause believable. I single out people who are bad regardless of where they lean politically. You single them out based on what side of the political spectrum they fall. This is dangerous and makes it to where you are quite biased.
Big difference between that and Trump's father. Also nice on ignoring my comments on Kanye. Nothing to say about him huh?
1. You just CAN'T just agree with me. You have to get that dig in. That's YOU demonstrating the US vs THem.
2. Correct. in the face of riots across the country, setting fire to a freaking church, that is the time for unity. Irrelevant points like your suspicion on his motives, are for another day. That is you demonstrating US vs Them.
3. There are several very negative aspects of modern liberalsim that are part of YOUR side. Asking me to ignore them is unreasonable.
4. Not really. My dad did not define my politics, and we have no reason to believe that a POSSIBLE trait of the dad's defined Trump. Obama on the other hand CHOOSE to join the GOD DAMN AMERICA church and be buddies with a terrorist. You seem to be forcing balance to give YOUR SIDE a pass for bad behavior.
No I did agree with you. The problem is I do not believe you are being truthful in your statement. This is evident because you want to hold anything that is opposite side accountable while conveniently ignoring what your side does wrong.
Which is why when he did that I agreed with him in not burning down the churches. Now is my time to speak on it and do not believe he was being genuine. I voiced my opinion on this way after the fact. You want me to ignore it indefinitely.
There are several negative aspects of modern right wing conservatism as well. I did not ask you to ignore it I simply stated that lumping into one category was wrong on your end. I am not going to ignore bad aspects on either end. Where it seems like you will ignore it on your end. This is displayed by the fact that you made a generalization about all liberals.
Sorry I do not see it that way. We do have a reason to see that Trump's father's actions defined him. Look at the company he keeps. Look at the comments he makes. He doubled down on the birth certificate of Obama. Why should we believe him when he is claiming voter fraud? Again way to side step Kanye West as well yet again. I do not give a pass to my side but I am not going to let you only point to the negative on one end. Not how this game works.
Define the qualities of the contemporary "lefty ideology" that makes people "anti-american"?
shareOff the top of my head?
Univeralism, ie limiting consideration to AMERICANS, is immoral because of more deserving foriegners.
Also just a blind faith in the idea that Western Culture, with America as it's epitiomy, is a Evul Wacist Patriarchy, blah, blah, blah, and SLAVERY, ect.
So, you mean open borders?
I'm a leftist and I don't think that western culture is an "evil wacist patriarchy".
Then you should be talking with your fellow travelers, to see if you really want to be with them.
Because "evul wacist patriarchy" is pretty much baked right into the foundation of much of lefty thought, and policy positions.
It's not about whether I "want to be with them", or anyone. I'm independently leftist-aligned economically and socially. Whether or not I am dissident or not isn't remotely relevant.
I am certainly not right-wing, or conservative.
Well, then what is it about?
shareLeftism is broad term of reference that encompasses many schools of thoughts. Economically, which is its prime focus, most leftists want various amounts government involvement in the economy: state welfare, nationalisation, regulation, unionism etc - with a focus on wealth and social equality as a desired end goal. Often tending to be against traditional social hierarchies. This is why the focus is often class.
Historically many leftists could be socially conservative or reactionary: The USSR, and Eastern European socialist and communist parties are this.
What you mean is socially *progressive* ideas. Many modern social progressive, which at its worst replaces class conflict with identity conflict (race/sex/sexuality etc) aren't even necessarily especially leftist. Many Democrats are pretty centrist economically. You just take issue with their social stances.
I'm a leftist because I do believe in state intervention in the economy, support nationalisation when possible of various industries, and in favour of progressive taxation, strong workers rights etc. I'm also socially 'left' because I'm pro-choice, pro-euthanasia rights, secular, pro gay marriage rights etc.
In that case, move to China.
shareChina is not remotely socially liberal. I'm deeply anti-authoritarian.
Also, why should people move somewhere because of their political values?
Its a full-package deal. You can't have one without the other.
shareCan't have what without the other?
China is also not remotely progressive or 'woke' in any sense. It's hardly even Communist anymore (not that I'm a Communist).
But it does seem to me to be deeply anti-american to suggest someone leave because you don't like their political values.
Not Communist!?...LOL
🤣
https://hbr.org/2021/05/americans-dont-know-how-capitalist-china-is
Just because it has the aesthetics doesn't make it so.
China is Communist all day every day.
shareThat's just a reassertion of your original unevidenced claim.
Here's some more links:
https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinese-state-capitalism
https://www.cato.org/policy-report/january/february-2013/how-china-became-capitalist
https://www.promarket.org/2022/09/02/how-does-party-state-capitalism-in-china-interact-with-global-capitalism/
None of that changes the fact that China is Communist
shareArticles that specifically outline and explain how China has moved to a state capitalism model doesn't change that fact?
What makes modern China communist?
China is Communist all day every day.
shareSo you've abandoned actually trying to make an argument here.
Anyway, no, I have no desire to move to China. It's an oppressive, reactionary state.
I was not arguing. I simply stated a fact that you are arguing against.
shareWhat you assert against evidence can be dismissed with evidence. I've provided the evidence.
China holds the aesthetics but it is as communist now as "democratic" North Korea is.
You clearly have no clue what communism is
shareFeel free to enlighten me, and then feel free to show me how China somehow still meets the criterion.
shareWhy, you have already convinced yourself of a lie, so what would be the point?! You obviously don’t care for the truth.
shareAre you saying that if I agree with you that it is the "truth", I am obviously refusing to see it?
Why do so many publications and articles disagree with you?
No, you went searching for lies and you found them
shareThe Harvard Business Review is lying?
shareYou tell me. It's called fact-checking.
shareIt's literally an interview with a Chinese economist (or someone deeply informed about Chinese economic development).
Did you click any of the links I sent you?
Why do you ask?
shareBecause you're making a lot of assumptions about their veracity for someone who may not even have opened them.
shareSo you believe lies and want others to believe them? LOL
shareHow can an interview with a Chinese economist be a lie?
shareYou tell me. Like I already said, it is called fact-checking
shareThey're all accurate. They do back up their analysis with sources and one is, as I said, an interview.
China is an authoritarian state capitalist society.
Find me some sources that disagree if you so disagree, but we'll probably have to take this to DM because the text is scrolling off screen at this point.
this thread is too long.
shareWell, their social stances are pretty vile and htey are quite "fascist" in their methods for spreading them.
But, i am also not happy with their economic policies, I'm more aligned with Economic Natinalism a la paleoconservatism.
What social stances are vile here? And what ways are they spread specifically?
sharePlenty of them, in my mind I was thinking of their trans agenda when I typed it.
Adn to their methods I was thinking of hteir use of violence to silence opposing voices, much like thee Brown Shirts of the early nazis.
What, specifically, regarding the "trans agenda"? Any other social stances?
Brownshirts? Really? You do realise that early nazis burst into social democrat and communist communities and beat people up, or murdered them. Examples of this please?
Teh pushing of irreversible surgeries on young people.
Yes. Here is a good example. No one killed, plenty of violence, event cancelled. Often lefties in administration can use the threat of violence to cancel the event.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9SvHCQWyFI
Teh pushing of irreversible surgeries on young people.
Yes. Here is a good example. No one killed, plenty of violence, event cancelled. Often lefties in administration can use the threat of violence to cancel the event.
1. Example?
2, Really? If I go back to that time period and check your posts, we would see you supporting Trump's anti-church burning/rioting stance, and not undermining it with attacking his motivation because of the Bible?
3. Give me an example of a scale of the Left's anti-Americanism.
4. Confirmation Bias. You look at those factors and see what you want to see to support your pre-existing bias. IN the real world, this nation has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for blacks since the mid 1960s.
You made no comments about Trump's conspiracy theory about Obama's birth certificate when I brought it up. You were however quick to point out a wrong claim by a left leaning source. You were also quick to point out the wrongdoings you felt Obama did when I mentioned him. It shows you only want to hold the left accountable for being wrong and not the right.
I figured you would go here. So because you personally do not see it that means it supports your view. Okay do this then. Comb through my post history and show me calling him out on doing that when that occurred. Happy searching you will not find it. So even if you want to claim there is no proof of me supporting him during that time, there is no proof of me undermining him during that time either.
How about the utter failure that is the drug war and the healthcare policy? The it is every man for himself type mentality. The war on drugs is a right wing ideology. You know how many lives were ruined by that legal system?
No it is me calling out corruption where it lies. You have confirmation bias yourself and I have displayed that for you. Also just because of that does it mean there are not instances where bad cases happen. Tump's dad does not get a free pass for doing that under my watch sorry. I am not imagining him being aligned with Kanye West either. Kanye's recent comments are questionable and that is why you are ignoring it.
1. I generally don't consider Politicians, lawyers, or mothers, to be credible at all. Indeed, as a politician it would regularly be his JOB to lie. Claims from them should always been consdered to likely be POLITICALLY motivated. My point was about sources that are presented as objective or authoritive, and that is used to sideline information that is actually TRUE.
2. I asked the question because I wanted an answer. You say you did not, I will take you at your word. BUT, you have to have noticed that, generally speaking the "lump" of the Left in this country, did NOT follow your lead and instead did undermine Trump's anti-church burning position, instead of supporting itt.
3. How is the War on Drugs, right wing ideology? It's a policy, one with support from both sides, though more from the Right.
4. Trump' dad was an accusation. It was settled the way business often settle to just end it. THere was no admission or proof of guilt of the accusation, which, recall was about SOMEONE ELSE, LONG, LONG AGO. That this even gets mentioned as "evidence" of anything, proves how patethically weak the whole of the evidence is against Trump and/or republicans in general.
Then this applies to when a right wing news source is wrong as well. Alex Jones deserves as much ridicule as these left wing news sources spreading false information.
Again I am not in charge of what the majority of people do. Just because a lot of them did that does it mean I took that stance. I could lump right wingers like you just did with leftists in this way. Why when George Floyd was knelt on by Chauvin were right wingers more concerned about protecting their political ideology than calling out what was wrong? Rather than hey the cop should not have done that, that was wrong they attempted to excuse it by bringing up Floyd's past. I am not saying Floyd is a saint by any means. However his past does not excuse that cops poor behavior during that scenario. Your side uses his past as a means to gaslight and downplay his actions. That was poor timing as well right?
The war on drugs was started by Richard Nixon. A republican president. The fact that the war on drugs is mainly supported by the right tells you all you need to know. You see Foxnews treat weed like it is the worse thing on the planet. That should take a blow to their credibility. The War on drugs has been a massive failure. You want me to just overlook that? Anytime Obama has a failed policy you pin that on the democrats/liberals. Therefore that gets pinned on you guys since Nixon implemented that policy.
Lol nice attempt to gaslight. There are many other things Trump has been involved in that is questionable as well. The fact that he is claimed by the right to be this excellent business man despite many businesses he is associated with filing for bankruptcy. Yet again aligning with Kanye is a bad deal also.
1. Of course. It is worth noting though, that Alex Jones does not have the cooperation of big tech. And Big Government. And both virtual and literal mobs that will cancel you, if not physically attack you, if you say the wrong shit. The way that lefties have convinced themselves that it is morally right to suppress speech they don't like, even if it means abusing their responsibilities, is terrifying.
2. Big difference between disagreeing on policy and pretending that even discussing it is crazy or wacist.
3. A failed policy is an attempt to do something good that did not work the way that was desired. That is a very different issue from the anti-Americanism on the Left. Over look failed policies? Hell no. I want to policy results discussed. But the fact that the Left has an IDEOLOGICAL problem with serving AMERICAN interests in a whole different level of somethign that needs discussed. And Obama was part of that.
4.I have no problem with judging Trump based on his record. And Obama should be judged on his. And part of that is Bill Ayers, former leader of a terrorist organization.
Yes but in the end his credibility should be shot. I myself do not agree with cancel culture or suppression of free speech even though I think he is insane. The point stands regardless, he is not worth listening to.
Nope not when as a country we should come together on a black and white issue. What that cop did was wrong. There is no gray area in calling out what he did to Floyd wrong. Bringing up his past as a means of gaslighting is disenguine and terrifying. What does his past have to do with the cop's actions? Racism never left my mouth. So lets not go there either. I called out wrong actions by Chauvin. Lets not lob another accusation at me just because you dislike the left.
I do not view it as different. Anytime a policy is not in the best interest of the American people one can view that as anti American as well. The drug war does not benefit the American people in anyway shape or form. That is not in the interest of Americans.
Part of Trump's is who he aligns with as well. The fact that you want to overlook that is telling.
1. What if the story he is pushing is true? Should anyone that speaks of it be shouted down and ridiculed?
2. The Law Enforcement issues is NOT black and white and I am NOT going to get behind say, the DEFUND movement. NOT burning churches, is black and white and pretty simple. Trump was NOT for example, using it as a platform to call for extreme responses, such as clearing the streets with grapeshot.
3. It is not credible that you cannot see theh difference between supporting a policy that you want to serve American interesting and being actively HOSTILE to Amerrican interests. That said, I still want to be able to discuss BOTH, but currently, discussing the Left's anti-Americanism is generally not possible.
4. Overlook what? None of his associates are anything like a bomb throwing terrorist or a raving anti-American racist, as with Obama.
Truth is truth regardless of where it comes from. No they should not but as you said Alex Jones and anyone else who is caught in a lie does deserve ridicule. After they get exposed their crazy conspiracies should not be taken seriously. He has been caught in lies about many things. Yet certain people continue to think the man has credibility. He has none.
I do not believe in defund the police but I do believe in police reform. However Chauvin's actions were black and white. What he did to Floyd was wrong period end of subject. It has nothing to do with race, or law enforcement. When someone is doing wrong they deserve to be called out for it.
When your policy is failing the American people and it is not in their best interest that is anti American. It does not even matter if the intent is good what matters is the result. The war on drugs was started to target people in poor neighborhoods. It also created a huge divide between the police and citizens. Why bust people for weed when there are far worse crimes they could be spending time and money solving?
Sure about that? Trump has been associated with quite a few shady people in his past buddy.
1. Do you support the way that hte mainstream media lied about the Hunter Laptop to protect Biden's campaign?
2. You are kidding yourself. Plenty fo people said it was about race, and plenty of people wanted DEFUND. Being against that shit, was SANE. It was not a time for unity, but for push back from a stampede.
3. Nope. THat's race baiting bullshit. The War on Drugs was not about "targetting poor people". Trying and failing is not the same as being hostile.
4. Yep. Sure. Obama got a pass for shit that should have ended his campaign. No serious nation would ahve elected him.
I thought I made my point clear earlier. I do not support lies coming from anyone no matter who it is. I also said that truth is truth no matter where or who it comes from. So no I do not support the media doing that. Now let me ask you what do you think of Trump spreading that false conspiracy about Obama? Then claiming the birth certificate was fake? Anything to say about that?
I mentioned how people would cover up for Chauvin which many did. It is not about race it is about right and wrong. What Chauvin did to Floyd was wrong. Notice I did not mention race or being anti cop, I left out that and called it for what it is. Just like how you accuse people of playing the race card or anti police card your side played the defend cops at all costs card even when in the wrong. So answer a simple question was what Chauvin did to Floyd wrong yes or no? I am not mentioning race or anti police stuff. Were his actions wrong?
Oh no you are completely wrong. So it was merely a coincidence that the drug war affected poor people the most? Yeah fat chance! Nixon knew exactly what he was doing when he implemented that policy. There was motive behind that policy and you choosing to ignore it is rather disturbing.
Nope Trump has done just as bad if not worse than Obama. How about this use the same mental gymnastics you use to excuse Trump's actions for Obama and you should be fine.
1. My point was about the use of calling stuff "conspiracy theories" to marginalize it, as a way of suppressing information, true information. If you agree with that that is wrong, simply saying so is all you would have to have done. Yet, you couldn't do that...
2. I don't know. Or really care. I do know that people like Floyd lie constantly and if I had a big asshole like Floyd on the ground and he was talking about reasons I needed to let him up, that I wouldn't put ANY weight on ANYTHING he said.
3. Nixon was not anti-poor. And there is a big difference between failure and hostility. That you want to ignore that, is what is actually "distrubing" here. It is refreshing that you are not acting surprised or shocked that I noticed that lefties are generally anti-American, so good for you on that.
4. For a Trump associate to be in teh same league as Ayers or Wright...even being an active member of the KKK, would not be as illegal and dangerous and hateful as Ayers and Wright. And those are just two of the worse examples, not the only bad ones.
I did say that was wrong. I answered your question erven though I thought my explanation was rather clear. Notice how you will not answer my questions? Yet you accuse me of not answering yours. I feel this is projection and gaslighting from you.
See you can't answer a simple yes or no question. I did not ask you if you should listen to what Floyd said, I asked if what Chauvin did to him was wrong. I am not some Floyd worshipper. I never claimed him to be some saint or martyr. I also said nothing about racism or being anti police. The issue is your anger and ego is seeping through. You are basing your arguments around people who did those things and are incapable of benching that experience when discussing it with a reasonable person. I made my point what Chauvin did was wrong period end of story. Also your hypocrisy is on blatant display here. I answered a question when asked where as you will not.
Yes he was anti-poor. That is why he implemented that policy. It is no coincidence that the drug war mainly affected poor people like I originally said.
Ha I do not agree with that 1 iota. Trump is no better than Obama was.
1. Just trying to keep things on topic. I mean, my point was about supression of speech. Trump's pushing of hte Birther conspiracy theory was not suppression of speech. You have said that you agree that Truth should not be suppressed by calling Conspiracy Theory and that those that do so, should be judged accountable and lose credibility. So, good.
2. I did answer it. I said, i don't know, or really care. I was as clear as I could be. Why are you claiming I did not answer?
3. Nixon was not anti-poor. It is a coincidence that the War on Drugs mainly effected "the poor".
4. That makes no sense. Ayers was a leader of a murderious terrorist group. Wright is a raving anti-American racist marxist.
4
Suppression of speech is not the only thing we were discussing. You said we should hold sources accountable for being wrong. Trump's conspiracy theory was wrong and he deserves to be ridiculed for that.
No you did not. I asked you a yes or no question and you said I don't know or care. That is weaseling your way out of answering the question. You don't care because it does not fit your agenda. If someone asked if Kyle Rittenhouse was in the right to defend himself and said I don't care I guarantee you would ridicule that response. This is the problem you only care to call out wrongdoing when it suits your narrative. I lean left but am willing to call them on the carpet when they are wrong. Chauvin was in the wrong period end of subject.
Yeah if you believe that was a coincidence. Give me your number I got a bridge to sell you.
It makes perfect sense. Trump and or Bush have just as much if not more dirt on them than Obama.
1. And he was, constantly. While left leaning sources that have done worse, are still treated as respected sources. So, why are you harping on it?
2. Chavin was a cop in a dem city, ruled by dems for generations. EVERYTIME one of these incidents hit the radar, you check them, and it has nothing to do with republicans or the Right. You guys think there is a problem? You've had generations to address it, and/or you have complete control to do so again. Have at it. Your assumption that I do not call out republicans or Trump is just false.
3. You've done nothing to support your conclusion other than to assert it. You say that it effected the poor, and your supporting argument thaht it was intentional is that it effected the poor. That's an excellent example of circular logic.
4. No, they don't. Neither Trump nor Bush has friends or memberships in such murderous or racist or marxist people or organizations. Such people on the right, are restricted to the extreme fringe, totally marginalized, as they should be. The Left? Not so much.
I saw plenty of right wingers attempt to excuse his comments. Alex Jones is still treated by some as a respectable source. Do not act as if only left sources are treated this way. Bottom line all sources should be called on making false claims right or left. Period, no one is exempt.
Just because something happens under a democratic or republican controlled city does it mean it is by default the fault of whatever party is in charge. See this is the thing I can't stand about your behavior. It can't just be you know what Chauvin was wrong you have to find a way to pin point it to your political opponent. Rittenhouse defended himself. Notice how I do not need to attempt to deflect to my political opposition? Sometimes right and wrong is black and white. In the case of Chauvin it is not about right vs left he was in the wrong period. The fact that you can't admit that is telling.
Incorrect. I pointed out how the drug war affected mostly poor people. That is not an assertion that is a fact. You can't dispute it. Nixon did this intentionally, it was not a coincidence.
Yes they do. What was the war about then that Bush put us in? Why did the target become Hussein rather than Osama?
1. Alex Jones does NOT have the ability to suppress the speech of his enemies by ridiculing it as Conspiracy Theories. The MSM does and does it. That was my point. That is a real problem. Trump pushing an anti-Obama meme is not.
2. Dems have run these police departments for generations, with complete control of hiring and training policies. If they are not responsible for the policing of their cities, then no one is responsible for anything. Total chaos. Might as well worship the Old Ones. HAIL C'THULU!!!
3. There is nothing to support your assumption that Nixon did that for the purpose of targetting poor people, for the EVULNESS of it all.
4. First of all, IN ADDITION TO. And second of all, for plenty of reasons. And third of all, that... is insane. You are talking yourself in circles to give Obama a pass for his radical associations. AND to give dems a pass for accepting them.
That only is a case when the majority has control of a platform. I agree the MSM should not do that. It is wrong. The MSM is biased though and they have an agenda. CNN and Foxnews are just different sides with an agenda. Foxnews is a right wing msm that has peddled plenty of lies for the right just as CNN has for the left. Do you call out Foxnews for the lies they spout or only CNN?
No again what happened to just calling out right and wrong? Lets drop all that. Was Chauvin as a police officer in the wrong yes or no? I would be asking this same question if Chauvin was in a republican ran police department and city.
Yeah there is. You do realize that we had already seen the effects of the prohibition act? What is the purpose of implementing something you know will end in failure? Did he just not remember history? Come on use your head here. It was designed to target people he did not specifically like. He already had a roadmap to show you the prohibition act was a failure. It was not like this was the first time something like this had been implemented.
No the target was not Hussein it was Osama. Funny how that got conveniently ignored by people. It led us into a war which cost us billions of dollars. Not giving Obama a pass but I am not letting you let right wingers off free.
1. I'm not talking about "peddling lies", I'm talking about using control and authority across all groups, to suppress information by simply ridiculing if, even it, and maybe especially, if, it is true. It is strange the way you keep trying to pivot away from this point. Do you think that Hunter's Laptop, if it had been treated as it should have been, could have switched the election?
2. NOthing happened to it. It isi just a seperate issue from daling with the traits of an ideology, such as the Anti-Americanism of the Left.
3. People fail to learn from history all the time. That you see that and thus assume evul intent, is you seeing evulness where you want to see evulness, ie in the other side.
4. America did not have "THE TARGET", we had mulitiple targets and goals. You are looking for justifications for your emotional need to see balance between the Right and teh Left, when it is not there. Obama should have been done as a viable candidate when his associations with Wright and Ayers became known. The Left is worse than the Right, by far.
Leftists are not the only ones who do this. Right wing news sources for years attempted to distort and hide information about the medical benefits of Marijuana. Remember those anti marijuana commercials in the early 2000's? Sure yeah it could have switched the election just like how anything can alter things if the truth is revealed rather than lies. This door wings both ways.
If nothing happened to it why won't you call out a simple wrong? Instead you pivot and find ways to blame your political opposition. This is dangerous because it shows you will not call out your party when they do wrong. You are more focused on using it as a point for your side.
And there is a possibility they are refusing to learn from history because they have an evil agenda. It is not me playing sides it is me calling out evil or corruption where I see it. I would do this same thing for a failed policy on either end. You on the other hand seem incapable of this. Some people know history and blatantly refuse to learn from it. I believe Nixon knew this would be a failure and deliberately targeted poor people for a reason.
The priority was Osama not Hussein at the time. Also no Obama will go down as the better president than Trump was when it is all said and done. Nope right is not better than left and left is not better than right. Both have their own forms of corruption. You just want to say that because it is the team you play for.
1. Rights don't have the power nor the.... ideological...arrogance... of the Left that justifies such bad behavior. So, they don't do it. It is something that hte left does. And if the Left successfully abused their power to suppress information that saved the Biden campaign, then that is a huge problem for our democracy. Especially as there is every reason to beleive that that behavior will be the norm moving forward.
2. I am happy to call our my side, when I see them doing something wrong, but MY point was, about the anti-Americanism of the modern Left.
3. And you support that assumption by stating that you believe it. That is a perfect circle of circular reasoning. And bulletproof against any and all logic or reason.
4. Osama was in a position where reaching him was politically and diplomatically dangerous. Obama was a disaster. The Right is definently better than the anti-America and bat shit crazy Left. You refuse to see the obvious writing on the wall, because you play for the Left.
Wrong I demonstrated in my first paragraph before this response how that was not true. The right suppressed the medical benefits of marijuana because they believe in the drug war. Fox news constantly would spread misinformation about marijuana. I like how you conveniently ignored that point. Be mature and address my points please. So we are not going to play dumb and get all self righteous and think the right is above that stuff when they have blatantly done it.
No obviously you are not willing to since you ignored my entire point about the right suppressing information about marijuana.
No it is using logic to come to a logical conclusion. You are giving Nixon the benefit of the doubt where as I am not because I see no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Funny and yet he was captured during Obama's run. Bush was a disaster as well. We fell into huge amounts debt under his run. I do not play for any team. It is why I unlike you will address where the left is wrong. Showcase where I simped for the left like you have for the right.
1. A. Fox does not have the market position to control the news cycle. Your point is absurd.
B. Pot is not about medical uses, it's about people wanting to get high.
2. Sure I am. I just don't agree with you on the examples of that occurring. That you expect me to agree with you, even though you know I disagree with you, is...really something.
3. If you make an accusation, you have to support it. Especially if you are accusing someone of basically being evul.
4. a. Obama accepted a risk that Bush would not. I'm glad it worked out. Hell, I bet BUSH is glad it worked out. B. Where you give Obama a pass for his joinging Rev Wright's CHurch. No excuse for that. BLT is a marxist political movement disguised as a religion with racism on top.
3.
Yes they do. Again do you remember all the anti-marijuana commercials back in the early 2000's? That is right wing propaganda at it's finest.
It is irrelevant if people want to use it to get high or not. The fact is it does have some medical benefits. Not everyone wants to use it just to get high. It also makes no sense that it is illegal when it is less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes. The point stands the right lied about it and attempted to push their agenda and you are bypassing it.
I did support it. You accuse the left constantly without backing up your accusations. When someone disagrees with you and leans left you accuse them of being like a general extreme leftist. Like I said you are giving Nixon the benefit of the doubt where is I am not.
Bush should have taken that risk before Obama got in. It worked out. I never gave him a pass I just am not willing to only call it out his wrongdoings. You only want to point out the flaws of Obama while like letting right wingers slide.
1. No, they don't. The Big Three, big tech, most Print, ect, they operate like a herd and they have the ability. Fox, by itself, does not. Not even close. Your claim is silly.
2. What piece of evidence or logical argument did you present/make to supporrt your conclusion that Nixon did hte Drug War purposefully to target the Poor? Cause all I saw was assertions and assumptions.
3. I don't feel much motive to talk about the good points of a racist anti-American marxist, it is true. That does not mean that I give the other side a pass.
Yes it does. Foxnews did the same thing you accused the rest of doing which is hiding and suppressing information. Therm peddling that lie about marijuana is no different than peddling a lie about the laptop. It is deceitful and it affects the way the public perceives things.
I will state this again. Do you honestly believe Nixon was ignorant to the whole prohibition era? That was a big event in history that anyone in the political spectrum would know. It would be common knowledge in those circles. It would be like saying someone was unaware that having marijuana was illegal. So if he did know which is highly likely that means he went ahead with the drug war policy anyways. Why would he do this if he knew prohibition was a failure? That leads me to believe he was targeting people. The only way your point can make sense is if he had no idea about the prohibition act and it was just a coincidence. I just do not think that is a high possibility.
Lol and you just showed your hand. Notice how when anyone else brings up racism you mock them? Yet you are allowed to throw it at your opposition no problem. For the record I never said a word about racism that was you. Make sure you mark that down when you want to try and claim I mentioned racism. You do not feel the need to talk about the good points because he leans left. If he leaned right you would gladly highlight the good. I will take your approach then. I see need to talk about the good points of the war criminal that is George Bush. Just because of that does it mean I will not call out the left.
1. Your words are not making sense. Fox does not, cannot control the flow of information. THey can put their own information out there, but they cannot suppress the speech of others simply by calling it "conspiracy theories". The Left, hte MSM combined with Big Tech and Print, can, and have and will again do that. Example the Hunter Biden Laptop story.
2. He doesn't have to be ignorant of it. That is a false choice fallacy you are pushing, ie either ignorant or Evul. And, that is all you have to support your conclusion, ie a logical fallacy. And despite being shown that, you are refusing to "learn from it" and holding to YOUR position.
3. The vast majority of accusations of racism in our society today, are false and deserve to be mocked. Black Liberation Theology is an actual racist (and marxist and anti-American) movement.
That most accusations are false, does not mean we need to give actual racists (or marxist or anti-Americans) a pass.
Yes they can. Why did they suppress and lie about the medical benefits of marijuana if what you claim is true then? You realize they peddled the whole it a gateway drug nonsense correct? They would say that any medical benefits about marihuana was a lie made up by leftists. That is doing the same thing you are accusing the others of doing.
Yeah he does otherwise why would he do it? What is a logical reason he would implement that policy go ahead and explain. You honestly believe there was no agenda at all behind the drug war?
Nope I am not going to take that claim as fact. The vast majority of accusations of racism in our society you have not even looked into. You do not just get to assert that and have me believe you. I call out racism where it applies but remember you brought it up first. So do not get upset when others bring it up when you are free to. You are saying that as a means to dismiss wrongdoings by society. Rather sad and you think you will sway people this way.
Never said to give them a pass. However even with what you said you do not get to dismiss it where it applies elsewhere either. Seems to me you will only call out racism against whites.
1. You present them saying something as though it prevents other people from being heard. That has nothing to do with the way the Left managed to suppress the story of Hunter Biden's laptop, for the Election, to protect Biden.
2. a. At a guess? Drugs don't have the same acceptance in our culture so people will be more accepting of laws against them. FOr one example.
B. Agenda? Sure, reduce crime, get me reelected.
3 Really? The way assholes toss it around on EVERYTHING, and you haven't noticed yourself that most of the accussations are bullshit? Are you serious? Wrongdoing by society? You name me a "wrongdoing" and I will be happy to discuss it, but you cry "racism", it is on you to back that up. Until done so, i will assume "wacism".
4. Other forms of racism have been marginalized by society and law and culture from before I was born. It is a much rarer and weaker and lesser problem. Also, sometimes I see minor issues, that I don't feel a need to discuss.
It does when you openly deny the benefits of medical marijuana. Think about the folks who only listen to Foxnews or right wing sources. That hides the benefits of medical marijuana and therefore that makes the drug war continue to keep going. Which is harmful to society. Why did they say that is was a lie when you can scientifically prove the benefits? Why did they not allow factual information on their platform? This is them doing the same thing you hate the left for doing.
So we are basing it on what is accepted and not what is logical? Interesting not a good way to base your policy huh? I do not see that I think there was an agenda behind it. He just knew that since it was less acceptable it would be easier to hide his agenda by implementing that policy.
I never once claimed racism. That was you who did that. I have not looked into every accusation on earth. Like anything there are true and false ones. The fact that you claimed most are false means I have to take your anecdotal claim. That is not how I operate.
Just because of that does it mean racism only occurs against a certain group. You attempted to play the victim card. All wrongdoings are worth discussing not the only the ones that suit your agenda.
1. Disagreeing with others is not silencing them. Shouting them down, to the point the other side doesn't get heard, IS. Why are you refusing to address my actual point?
2. a. I've seen this before, the idea that if you disagree with a concept, then it is impossible that someone else could have agreed with it, and used it as a base for a decision or policy. It seems very, very weird. The fact remains it is a plausible basis for Nixon's decision. Would you like another?
b. Yes, to attack the Poor. Why do you imagine that that was his goal? It seems... like something you would expect from a Comic Book supervillian. A poorly written comic book supervillian.
3. I did not claim that you did. As to taking my word for it, don't. Just pay attention moving forward, you should catch on quickly enough. The wace baiters ran out of real racism a long time ago. They have became batshit crazy.
4. No, but it does mean that one type of racism is not only legal but required by law, and celebrated massively though society and the stated formal practice of most employers, ect. ect ect, while the rest is... crushed. So....
They did not just disagree. They left out facts. They left them out because it undercut their narrative.
That is not plausible at all. What is more plausible is assuming the worst from a bad decision and policy. Why is so outlandish to think he targeted poor people? You realize that by ruining certain people's lives that helps those people have no voice or be able to vote.
I will come to my own conclusion. Although I am sure that just like how people may claim it where it does not occur. I am willing to bet many people gaslight people when it is actually there.
Racism required by law? Elaborate. I do not think I agree or believe in what you are saying.
the fox corporation pushed the vax too, infact they made it mandatory for their workers, in last the few months a couple of their people have died of cardiac arrests.
the vax has been pushed by the MSM on the left and the right, any argument against the vax is buried on youtube and mostly demonitized, censored and you need to scroll for 7 hours in order to find it. which has pushed these to platforms like rumble.
you couldn't find a right wing mainstream news outlet that has asked serious questions about all this.
1. My point was about the way the Leftiy MSM, allied with Big Tech, has and will silence speech they don't want. It is telling that you want to NOT talk about that.
2.a Completely plausible AND I asked you if you would like another one. You did not answer, so i will taket that as a yes. SECOND example. Becuase we are smarter and/or more capable than they were.
b. No motive. Evul for the sake of evul, is the realm of comic books. As I said.
3. Pay special attention to micro aggressions or unconcious bias. You have to love the idea of wacism so.... what have you, that the wacist himself doesn't even realize he is doing it. Hell, enistenfountain, YOU MIGHT BE WACIST, RIGHT NOW!!!!! LOL!!!
4. Oh, A.A., specifically as enforced by idiots that believe that any disparate outcome is proof of discrimination, so you end up with shit like the NY firefighters scandal.
I never denied that. Foxnews does the same thing you are all up in arms about the left doing though. I addressed it and acknowledged it. Apparently that is not good enough for you though.
No it is not plausible. We are smarter than people in the past? Then why was Nixon so ignorant since he came after the people who did the prohibition era? Doesn't that give him a cheat sheet basically on why the war on drugs is futile?
Like I said I will come to own conclusions and take it case by case. Racism gets falsely claimed but it also gets denied when it is blatant at times as well. Lots of gaslighting occurs both ways. I get gaslighting vibes from you no offense.
A lot of things can determine outcome. Does everyone on the planet have equal start?
1. No, they don't.
2. Sure it is. People think like that all the time. Hell, sometimes it's true.
3. The vast majority of accusations of wacism, are nonsensical. LIke insults to the intelligence of retarded children nonsense.
4. And lots of people assume any difference in outcome is a result of discrimination. Surely you aren't pretending to not know that?
Yes they do. I just demonstrated how they do. Which is why you have no retort to it.
No it isn't plausible. You honestly think Nixon had no idea about the prohibition era? Either he was ignorant or there was nefarious intent. I am going with the latter.
Like I said before your word is not law. I am going with objective observations not your anecdotal claims. So you can continue on with your mocking condescending tone it is not going to change how I view things. Your view is obviously biased you do not even attempt to hide it so that makes me think your claims are untrue just by that alone.
We are not talking about others this discussion is between you and me. I am going to ask the question again does everyone have an equal start in life?
1. You are insisting on missing my point. It seems to be a form of hysterical blindness, so that you don't have to address it. Common in liberals.
2. I never even hinted that he was unaware of Prohibition. I gave two plausible alternatives. Your response indicates that you think that if you don't agree with a reason, then no one else could think it. That is a form of close mindedness I see often in liberals.
3. Remember when the man was fired for using the word "niggardly"? LOL!!! You're willfully blind.
4. You made a point about me discussing one type of racism more than the another. I was explaining why. I was answering your question, not accusing your personally. This type of losing the point is very common with liberals. Nearly universial in my experience, in fact.
No I have listed points you will not come against. You know this and are now feigning ignorance of this fact to try and save face. Common in conservatives.
Those are the only two realistic possibilities. The alternatives you gave were the most reaching I have seen on here in a while. There was nefarious intent behind the motivations of starting the drug war. You know it and I know it.
Nope I do not. Like I said I am not going off of what claims you make. You only notice racism it seems when it is done against your kind.
You dodged the question again. Does everyone have an equal start in life? You referenced lots of people's assumptions about the outcome. That does not answer the question. This type of dodging questions is common in conservatives.
1. I didn't address those counter points because they were not relevenat to my ACTUAL point. I here by give up trying to get you to hear me. You are willfully blind. If you want to discuss it more, go back and reread my earlier multiple examplanations, till you get it.
2. You saying "realistic" is just you affirming what I said, ie, you base your analysis on the premise that everyone else agrees with you on the facts. Despite the fact that you know that is untrue. Ironically, your own position violates your own posiiton. You are guilt of the exact irrational blindness that you are accusing others of.
3. We live in a society where racist discrimination against my kind is legal and celebrated and widespread while all other types are illegal and taboo and fought with a zeal that would make the Spanish Inquisition uneasy. This explains YOUR perception of my behavior. That you haven't noticed this, calls YOUR perception into question, imo.
4. The question is off topic. We were discussing my behavior, and your previosu question. I would be happy to answer another question, but first, do you understand why, from my perspective, not asking for your agreement, why I behave slammed Obama and Wright for their racism while mocking false accusations?
They were totally relevant to your point. I showcased how Foxnews suppresses information and lies just like any left leaning source of news does. I understood you fine your point just was not strong. It also showcased your hypocrisy.
There is no agreeing or disagreeing that is how the cookie crumbles. You are giving benefit of the doubt I myself am not.
Nope I am not taking your word on that. Saying that is not going to convince me your claim is valid.
No it is on topic. I asked you if everyone has an equal start in life. You deflected and did not answer that. Sure yeah I can see why you did. I am in no way saying Obama has no amount of dirt. I however think you gladly excuse Trump for behavior that is equal to his. I think you do this because he is right wing.
1. No, they weren't. You are willingfully failing to get my point. Stop doing that or drop it.
2. Nope. You are operating as though everyone agrees on the facts. That is just as, if not more irrational than "not learning from history".
3. Dude. You're asking me to support my claim that water is wet. Stop being silly.
4. We were discussing my motives. My motives are based on MY beliefs, not yours. Again, you are angling to assert that since you disagree with my beliefs, that means that I cannnot be operating based on them. That is you being... insane. I'm pretty sure that the stage of developement where children learn that other people think different thoughts, is...pre-verbal.
Yes they were. It directly addresses your point by showcasing Foxnews did the same thing.
No it is completely rationale. You just want to make excuses for Nixon. The drug war had ill intent. It is beyond obvious.
Ha no it is not me believing your anecdotal evidence.
Why did you deflect from the question I asked you?
1. You are not understanding my point. I have tried multiple times to explain it and have given up. NOw you are refusing to hear me tell you that you are off point.
2. That "obviousness" you feel? That is just your mind being unable to understand other points of view.
3. Citing generations of national policy and consensus is not "my anecdotal evidence". I can see that you are strongly and
emotionally committed to your world view.
4. Becauses the disucssion was about MY MOTIVES, which is based on MY beliefs, which makes YOUR disagreement with them, utterly irrelevant. This is a very, very simple concept. That you cannot see it, is again, your emotional committment to your world view, clouding your ability to think objectively, imo.
I guess agree to disagree. I believe I understood your point just fine. I was just able to point out how your right wing mainstream news source is guilty of the same thing you criticize the mainstream left wing news source of.
No not when it is that blatantly obvious. If someone shoots up a store isn't it obvious their intent is nefarious? So lets do this then what was the motive on the drug war then? Was there going to be any benefits to implementing that?
You told me that most claims of racism are false. That was anecdotal. So because of that should I dismiss your claim about racism? Or does that not include you when measuring most people?
I did not disagree I asked a question. Asking a question is not disagreeing. The fact that you did not answer it showcased your point was not a strong one. I am not emotionally committed. If I was I would not have asked you the question that you deflected from.
1.You failed to get my point despite my trying multiple times to explain it. One of us has really crappy communication skills.
2. Got it. You are REALLY REALLY SURE, that everyone agrees with you on the facts of the issue, even though they don't.
3. No, telling you that was my conclusion. I supported it by citing generations of policy and consensus. Anecdotal would have been if I supported it by citing a few examples I personally saw.
4. Your second question is changing the discussion from my motives, to something else. Are you aware of the concept of circular debating?
Your explanation fails because I was able to contradict your point by bringing up a counter example.
I would be willing to bet you are in the minority in thinking the drug war had no ill intent. Everyone can't ever agree on something. What matters is if it the point is logical. Which my point is.
You claimed that most claims of racism were false. This was an anecdotal claim.
No it is trying to get you to further elaborate on your point by challenging it. You rejected and ran away because you knew your foundation was weak.
1 your counter example countered a point, that was NOT the point I was making. i've told you this repeatedly. It is like you are insane, literally insane.
2. So...you're position is that no one ever takes an action based on illogial reasons? Do you realize what you are saying?
3. Nope. That is not what the word "anecdotal" means. You are using attacking language to avoid the point.
4. You made a serious accusation about me, based on my motives. My motives are based on my beliefs at the time. Arguing that my beliefs were incorrect THEN, is a dodge so you don't have to admit you were wrong to do so.
You made the point that left leaning msm suppresses and hides information. Did you or did you not say this?
My position is that the odds are in my favor. Sure people make decisions based on illogical reasons. However most of the time when people do anything there is usually a motive behind it. When someone is murdered isn't there usually a motive as to why someone did it? Yes there are serial killers who kill at random but most of the time there is some sort of motive behind a killing. I am going with the most probable cause and that is that there was motive behind the drug war.
Okay lets go over the definition together.
based on reports or things someone saw rather than on proven facts
1. You say that, then your counter example addresses something else. I'm don't know what is going on over there, and I have given up communicating on th is issue.
2. Why could the motive NOT have been, reduce crime, make America a better place, get re-elected?
3. I pointed out that in our society, for generations racism against my people has been legal and celebrated and formal national policy, while racism against non-whites were illegal and taboo. Those are documented historical facts, not personal observations.
4. Because my motive for my past actions, was my motive then. Challanging it, does not change the past. We have to discuss my actions based on my understanding of facts at the time. This is a simple concept. It is hard to credit your lack of understanding. If you would simply admit that, yes your actions make sense to me now I would be happy to move on to discussing whether my beliefs are CORRECT. But pivoting to that question before resolving the other one, reeks of circular debating, a dishonest rhetorical strategy of the most pathetic sort.
See I am going off what you said. You claimed left wing msm suppresses and hides information. Now you will not even address what you originally said. My counter to that is showing Foxnews doing the same thing with information.
Someone like that would know that would not reduce crime. That would be written on the wall considering the effects of the prohibition era of alcohol.
That is not all you said. You also said that most claims of racism against other races are false. That part was ancedotal. You don't get to cherry pick what you wrote. That part of your claim was not proven it was a statement you expected me to believe. Which I also need to fact check your claims about the other stuff you have tried to pedal to me. However the point stands you saying most claims of racism against other races being false was anecdotal.
Lol the past as in how long ago? Now you are acting as if I saw a point you made from 20 years ago. This is disenguine from you and you know it.
1. And I answered that. Yet here you are acting like I did NOT, because you disagreed with me. That is you pretending that reasons don't exist if you don't agree with them. That is you insisting that everyone else thinks like you, or they and their thoughts are not valid. You are INSANELY arrogant and close minded.
2. That if your opinion. You are again, insisting that everyone thinks exactly like you. And if they didn't, and you don't agree with them, then you insist that they did anyways and insist that I accept that and then we judge history based on that. That is insanely arrogant and close minded.
3. No, that was my CONCLUSION, not my evidence. My EVIDENCE was the documented history of the last couple of generations. I've pointed this out to you sevearl times now. This behavior where you just have really poor communications skills and the discussion gets bogged down in defiinitions? Almost universial in liberals. And when I say almost, I am just covering my ass so that you don't claim to have seen one lib once not do it and bore me with that. DROP THIS STUPID POINT AND MOVE ON.
4. No, I'm not. My motives were my motives, even if it was seconds ago. Challenging them, doesn't change that. That you need that explained, reveals a level of....something insane that I don't even grasp... narcassism? magical thinking? You are certainly very confused in your logic.
No you did not. You deflected from my counter example. Bottom line suppressing or hiding of information is wrong no matter which side it is on. You just want to ignore it when right wing sources do it.
No it is using reasons to come to a logical conclusion. As I stated earlier when someone murders someone usually there is motive behind it. Are there cases where someone murders randomly? Yes but what is the more likely scenario?
I never denied you said that but you also said that most claims of racism against non whites were false. That was an anecdotal claim. Bogged down in definitions? Yeah when you flat out deny you said something or you do not understand the definition of the word of course it gets bogged down.
Yeah no I am not buying what you are trying to sell. Challenging them is me thinking there are problems with your motives.
1. I pointed out a clear distinction which you are ignorning.
2. You dimissed alternate explanations because you disagreed with them. That is a you problem.
3. You are the one using a word incorrectly. My position stands the vast majority of accusations of racism, are false.
4. Are you accusing me of LYING about what my motive was?
No I do not believe you did.
I dismiss anything that is not logical.
Lol again just because you claim it does that make it true. That is an anecdotal claim. Why am I supposed to believe you that most are false? Because you say so?
I do not believe you are being genuine in this discussion. If your motive was genuine why did you avoid my question when challenged?
1. I know. Willful or hysterical blindness.
2. And then you judge people, pretnding that they agree(d) with you, on the facts. Ironically, that is extremely illogical of you.
3. Hence my supporting argument. IF I where to use anecdotal claims, that would be where I did so. Instead I cited documented history.
4. I already answered that multiple times. AND repeatedly promised to address it, if you admitted your previous point was addressed. You keep making this go in circles.
No not when you provided nothing to refute my counters to your point. This is you not liking being proven wrong.
No I judge it based off what is a logical most likely scenario. Do some people murder at random? Yes but most of the time there is a motive behind a murder. You are saying well yeah but people randomly murder. Yeah but which one if you are playing the odds is more likely?
Your supporting argument did nothing for your point. Even if I grant that it does not help your claim about most racism claims being false. Had you stopped at your other point you made you could stand on this hill without an issue. Documenting history about racism against a race does not prove that most racism claims are false. Two completely different things.
My question was not addressed you side stepped it the moment I asked it.
1. Your counters do not address my point.
2. You are insisting on pretending that other people agree with you. That is you just playing pretend. I cannot stop you. That is where we are at.
3. Racism against non-whites has been illegal and taboo for generations. We have had bi-partisan consensus on equality for non-whites since before I was born. It is nonsense.
4. You asked a question which I answered and then you asked another question, without admitting that the first question was answered.
Yes it does. You said left wing news sources suppress and hide information. Foxnews has done this before also.
No I am providing a logical conclusion. You are rejecting logic.
Lol using the law as a means to justify your position is flawed and you know it. Does the law apply to every person the same? Still the point stands your claim most racism claims are false was anecdotal. You do not get to state things and have me run with it.
I did admit you answered but you dodged the follow up question for a reason.
1. That was not my point.
2. Your position is based on the illogical, and clearly incorrect assumption that all people are logical, at all times. That is utterly delusional of you. And ironically, illogical.
3. By itself? One could imagine a scenario where the law says one thing, and the people just do another and ignore it. Of course, that is NOT what our nation has been doing since before I was born, and hence the rest of my supporting arguments, ie CONSENSUS, POLICY, AND PRACTICE.
4.i did not catch you admitting that. So to be clear before we move on, please restate your acceptance of my position clearly and completely. indeed, I don't recall the exact wording of the original point so be complete. And then after I accept that, I will be happy to answer your next question next.
I believe it was. I think now that I was able to point out how your side is guilty of the same thing you are now attempting to change it.
No it is based on a logical conclusion. I never said people were logical at all times. However more often than not whenever a policy is implemented there is motive behind it. I believe that motive was an ill one.
The law does not apply the same to everyone. It should but it does not. Your argument was not just about consensus, policy and practice. You also tried to slide in that most claims about racism are false. That was an anecdotal claim which I do not believe.
You said that just because someone does not end up in the same place that is not evidence of discrimination. Correct? Yes that can be true. Now answer my follow up.
1. Your belief is illogical. It ignores my repeated statements to the contrary. You seem to beleive that you are more of an authority on my intented point, than I am.
2. The ONLY support you offered for your dismissal, was your OPINION, that Nixon's stated motive was illogical. With no more than that, you dismissed his stated motives and assumed a secret evul motive. That only makes sense, if you seriously believe that all humans are always logical. Otherwise, simply saying "illogical" would NOT give you any reason to assign new secret motives.
3. Your dismissal of decades of documented national policy, consensus and law and practice, has already been noted. That you keep saying "anecdotal" is irrelevant. The fact reamins, the vast majority of accusations of anti-minority wacism are false.
4. I said that calling out the racism that is widespread, legal and celebrated, while not calling out the racism that is illegal and taboo and marginalized, is reasonable. You implied ill intent, to my obviously reasonable action. Do you withdraw that smear?
No it refutes your claim by showcasing your side does the same thing. Did you or did you not say that left wing sources suppress and hide information from the public.
I believe most decisions people make have motive. Key word there most?
Nowhere did I dismiss national policy I dismissed your claim about racism claims mostly being false. You provided no fact that most racism claims are false. You gave me an anecdotal claim. Also you list policy and law as if it is always honored. Even you know better than that. There are many cases where laws and policies are not honored. So the policy or law is irrelevant if someone is not abiding by it. This is a convenient loophole you have found to dismiss people's claims. Sorry I see through the gaslighting.
No because I believe there was ill motive in that. Racism no matter if it is legal or not should be called out the same. Racism is racism.
1. No, that was not the point. As I have repeatedly stated. I wonder what your brain actually sees when you read these words, cause it is clear the message is not getting tthough.
2. You changed the wording, but your behavior is the same. If you disagree with a reason, you pretend it stops existing, even though time and now you want to assign your own motives and reasons in place of it. That is narcassism to a pathological, delusional degree. Oh, and you expect the rest of us to accept that and continue the discussion as though your weird pretense now defines reality.
Do you realize how crazy that is?
3. No, I presented law and policy and PRACTICE, as though it is generally followed and thus defines reailty. That is my position. Are you prepared to address it now, or do you want to keep playing weird evasion games?
4. Well, you are clearly wrong. It makes complete sense that I am more concerned with the vastly bigger pile of racism, that is aimed at me and mine, as opposed to the much smaller pile of racism, that is already illegal and taboo in our society. That you considder that ill intent, is...insane.
I believe that was your point. I think you realize that I was able to refute it and now you are trying to change what you said. Here is your quote verbatim.
I think a couple of things.
1. We should hold people accountable for being WRONG. It used to be that if you made a public fool of yourself, that that led to you having less credibility in the future. That doesn't seem to be happening to the people or sources that have labeled true stories "conspiracies".
2. We should hold people and sources accountable when it is found out that they called something a conspiracy theory, and were KNOWINGLY LYING, as with the Hunter Laptop.
3. We should be more skeptical of people when they want us to dismss a story or report, just because they label it a "conspiracy theory" and manage to gin up a group of sheep to bleat out the same shit.
1. Trump did not silence information he did not like, by labeling it "conspiracy theory" and ridiculing it.
2. You are acting as though, your disagreement with a motive, means that that motive did not exist, and then you are assigning ill motives to replace them. That is insane of you. INSANE.
3. I asserted my positon and backed it up by citing documented history of law, policy and practice. The "practice" portion asserted, correctly, that it was generally followed. Are you claiming otherwise? Is so, make the claim clearly and we will discuss it.
4.Please support your assertions. Or admit that you cannot.
Which is why I also mentioned Foxnews hiding and suppressing the medical benefits of marijuana. I covered my base you just are incapable of admitting you were disproven. A lie is a lie it does not even matter if information was suppressed or hidden. Lying of any kind should be looked down upon. You are attempting to downplay when your side lies.
No I am going with the motive that makes the most sense. There was an agenda behind the drug war and it is beyond obvious. Open your eyes.
Except you also mentioned most racist claims were false. That was not proven that was asserted by you. You made two statements not just one. Did not think I caught it? Anyway to answer the question policies and laws are broken all the time. That is not helping your point at all honestly.
I did assert my position. You were the one to bring up race I never did. You are concerned with racism against whites which you claim is a bigger pile. I am not buying any of that snake oil I am sorry.
1. Foxnews did not suppress the "medical benefits" either. YOUR side, has the power to lie and make it stick and suppress information, such as the Hunter Laptop, not ours.
2. Nice assertion. Now back it up. Or admit that you cannot.
3. If law, society, culture, policy and practice all are on one side pushing anti-racism, than we are NOT the wacist society that so many pretend, which is strong evidence that that the massive and constant whining is unsupported by actual wacism.
4. I know you asserted it. I asked you to SUPPORT them, which you have not done.
Yes they did. Then why did they say it is a gateway drug and they were against it being legal? What were their reasons which were based on facts?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDvQsfQvS4Y
Notice how during this debate when Carlson is presented with facts he starts yelling? It does not go up among young people. When it is legalized you actually have more control of who gets to smoke it. Also like I said before your side has peddled many lies about marijuana that stuck for a long time. Remember the it is a gateway drug argument? How long did that stick for? Yet they do not have ability to make things stick? So no you are wrong.
I backed it up by using a logical conclusion.
If key word there. Society is not all on one side simply because something is a policy or law. That is like saying most people do not smoke weed because it is against the law. Even when weed was illegal everywhere and most people were against having it legalized people still smoked it in droves. Fail again.
Why should I when you did not support your claim about most racism claims being false? I was able to support my position by showing that just because something is a policy or law does it mean that the policy or law is followed. Your whole point gets undercut by that. That is me supporting a claim I made.
1. Big difference between saying somethign you disagree with, and actually managing to suppress information. You keep pretending that I haven't repeatedly explained this and addressing a point that is not the point of discussion, and then acting like it is weird that I am not letting you change the subject.
2. You've explained, to your satisfaction, why you think Nixon was wrong. And in your mind, this now means that you get to decide what his "real" reasons where, and declare him Evul. This is normal for liberals today.
3. Says the man ignoring that I mentioned "PRACTICE". Our current position is that I have sited generations of documented historical national policy, law, culture, and practice, and you have countered that by ignoring how comprehensive my list was.
If you disagree with my cited supporting evidence, have the balls to just say so, and explain why.
You seem to be leaning into something like "America is a racist society". Is that your intent?
4. But I did support it. You are just stonewalling now.
It is not about disagreeing. They hid and suppressed facts about the medical benefits of marijuana. Disagreeing with using it or legalizing it is one thing, hiding and suppressing the medical benefits is another. Nice try but fail again.
Lol I do not think he was wrong it is a fact he was wrong. Was the drug war successful or not? Yes or no? Here is some incite on the drug war for you. The video is only 6 minutes nad 25 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJUXLqNHCaI
I also addressed practice. If someone is not practicing their policy then that means it is not being honored. So because something is a law that means it is being practiced? Using law and thinking it is always just and moral is common among conservatives. I do disagree with your evidence where did I mince words about that? Also strawman I never said America was racist. Lol you were the one to cry wacism not me. Your gaslighting is no good here. This bait tactic is common among conservatives.
No you did not. You cited laws and practice. Have you studied and debunked every racism claim out there? For all I know you saw two which were false and ignored every other claim. Again anecdotal. I know logic is hard for conservatives.
1, They were not able to supress real information by just talking shit, ie calling it conspiracy theory they way your side has been doing.
2. Very dishonest to pretend a plan failing, means that the intent of launching the plan was not genuine. Either dishonest, or insanely closed minded.
3. You are talking in circles. Are you challenging my claim of "generations of ....pratice"? Speak clearly.
4. In my explaination about my actions, I made an assertion about the vast majority of claims of racism in this country. That does not require I check every single claim AND, it is not based on seeing "two" which were false, and ignoring every other claim. You want to try again there, buddy?
Yes they were. It is why so many people were uneducated about marijuana for so many years. Remember those anti-marijuana commercials in the early 2000's? Yeah that was not propaganda at all... Many Americans saw those commercials and thought weed was the devil. So no you were proven wrong.
Lol no. Not when all the scenarios lead to it likely being planned and ill motive. Did you watch the video I sent? I watched yours I bet you did not watch mine.
Yes I am! I just openly said that. Just because something is a policy or a law does it mean it is honored. That way of thinking is just sheer ignorance.
About the vast majority. Why am I supposed to believe you have investigated the vast majority of claims about racism? You want to try the smoke screen again? Or you just just making a generalization and expecting it to stick? The fact remains that your claim was anecdotal. Think before speaking. This is typical among conservatives. They do not like their statements questioned or challenged. Just go with what I say even though I have not shown I have investigated or can prove the majority of the claims incorrect. Knock off the nonsense and be a man.
1. I don't see the relevance either way, that was then, this is now. Today, you lefties are the ones using your control of hte means of information to lie to the america voters. And it's wrong.
2. Reduce crime, get relected, is a scenario that is not a ill motive. You are just just stonewalling now. Very skillful stonewalling, but still just stonewalling.
3. That is not what I asked. I did not ask a theoritical. I asked are you claiming that historically speaking over the last 50 years, that our laws and policy and cultural taboos were not "Practiced"?
4. What do you base YOUR view of America, in the context of racism on? Just curious. And what is your view?
How is not relevant? I just proved how the right peddles lies that affects society just like the left does. Convenient way to dismiss what I said also. The drug war is still going on. It is not over so it still applies.
How would it reduce crime? The prohibition era proves it would only make crime go up.
Again just because things are not recorded does it make your point apply. Policy means nothing when it is not practiced or someone violates it?
I am not sure I want to walk into that hornets nest considering how you just painted racism. It seems to me you only want to talk about racism when it applies to white people. Remember you were the one to bring up racism in a mocking manner. I was not the one who brought it to the table. Yet you accuse leftists of playing that card. So I am going to respectfully decline this question. I do not believe you are asking in good faith.
1. Counter information was/is out there. People that disagree were/are not just dismissed as "conspiracy kooks" and suppressed. This is a new level of control. The way you pretend to not get that, is you knowing that you are on the wrong side.
2. That is your opinion. Again we come up against the insanity of the Left, that you are incapable of understanding that other points of view, even exist.
3. I don't understand your answer. Here is my question again. That is not what I asked. I did not ask a theoritical. I asked are you claiming that historically speaking over the last 50 years, that our laws and policy and cultural taboos were not "Practiced"?
4. I "painted racism" as it truly is. You seem to be expecting me to back everything I say up with a link to a peer reviewed academic study. Asking you YOUR sources, seems a reasonable question. Unless you are hiding YOUR bad faith behind some shit talk .
Um yeah people who disagreed were dismissed as devil worshippers and other things for not believing in the drug war. So no people were dismissed as well.
Not an opinion. The prohibition era made the use of alcohol go up. We had this blueprint to show that the drug war would only make things worse.
I answered this already. I will answer it again. If a policy is not practiced why does it make a difference if it is a law or policy? In the last 50 years were laws or policies ever broken? The answer would be yes.
No you gave your biased opinion one that I do not agree with. I do expect you to back up your claims with facts. Not just say hey I say most racism claims are false accept that as fact. Not going to happen here pal.
1. Some people might have dismissed them. Those people did NOT have the power to silence them, as you people now do. I'm comfortable explaining this over and over again. Must feel weird to have to pretend to not get it.
2. I believe that you are incorrect and that alcohol use did decline during Prohibition.
3. That is not what I asked. I did not ask a theoritical. I asked are you claiming that historically speaking over the last 50 years, that our laws and policy and cultural taboos were not "Practiced"?
4. I "painted racism" as it truly is. You seem to be expecting me to back everything I say up with a link to a peer reviewed academic study. Asking you YOUR sources, seems a reasonable question. Unless you are hiding YOUR bad faith behind some shit talk .
Not just some, lots of people did. They did have the power to silence them. Otherwise the medical benefits would have been leaked out much sooner than they were. MSM like Foxnews refused or flat out denied the medical benefits for years.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w3675
Wrong at the very beginning it decreased but only for a short time. After that initial decrease it increased to numbers beyond even before it was prohibited. I know my history here. I took criminal history as well as law classes in college.
I answered this already. I will answer it again. If a policy is not practiced why does it make a difference if it is a law or policy? In the last 50 years were laws or policies ever broken? The answer would be yes.
No you gave your biased opinion one that I do not agree with. I do expect you to back up your claims with facts. Not just say hey I say most racism claims are false accept that as fact. Not going to happen here pal.
1. How far back are you going? I've heard people whining about medical benefits and good ropes my whole life. MEanwhile, the lefties are doign it TODAY. And you are supporting it.
2. What I've read, it decreased a LOT, and then stayed lower thoughout. You do realize that lower alchol use does translate to less domestic abuse, for one example?
3. I did not ask if they were EVERY broken, I asked if they were not "practiced".
Dude. You clearly know that they were. That is why you are being so willfully obtuse. Do you not realize that by your actions, you are demonstrating that you fear real discussion? And you know what that means, right? You clearly are not stupid.
4, What do you back your views up with?
BTW, we've been talking in circles quite a bit, but here something from teh real world, with Big Tech working with Big Government and with FBI agents, to run a REAL conspiracy, to keep relevant information from the America voters, during an election.
This is what you are defending with your weird stonewalling and gaslighting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRLxJCXuLws
I am not defending anything that is lies or corruption. I just am not letting your side get away with the same thing. Turn about is fair play.
shareIn a sane world, you people would be getting impeached right and left if not arrested for the crimes committed in these actions.
Part of the reason that is NOT happening, is because of people like you who are making a FALSE equivalance argument.
The right has done NOTHING like the Hunter Laptop, or the China Virus lies.
Thus, your FALSE BALANCE talk is a clear form of DEFENSE.
Same goes for the right wing lies. Your camp should be getting impeached for the lies they peddle about the drug war. That has done lots of harm to society.
Nope it happens because people play and defend their side. I am not defending corruption you are the one doing that. I stated the laptop information hiding was a bad deal and corrupt.
Oh yes they have. As I stated before about the drug war. Alex Jones spread misinformation about an actual shooting that took place. Your camp are not saints you need to quit acting like they are. Own up to the fact that they do wrong things as well. I do not go yeah well the left is better than the right. I think both camps are awful in their own way. How convenient that the party your rooting for is better than the other. Seriously are you like 12? You would come unglued if I was to go yeah well my camp is better than yours. Some do that. I do not.
1. Name one "right wing lie" that successfully misinformed the America population with an impact of the Hunter Laptop Lie. Or admit that you cannot.
2. Sure you are. That is what you are doing right now. Counter attack is a fine Defensives strategy.
3. Alex Jones is a fringe with very limited impact. You people are wedding Big Government and Big Tech and hordes of lawyers and street mobs and vitrual mobs, and professional liars in Big Education and Churches, into a totalitarian nightmare.
The drug war. Did you really make it that easy for me?
Nope I am just not letting you only point them out as corrupt.
Limited impact? No not considering the amount of followers he had. Trump has bought off many people to try and peddle a lie that you guys fall for. Such as that the election was stolen. Even though he has lost over 60 court cases.
1. The drug war is a policy. I asked you for a Lie. Which of course you knew, but delaying is always a good move for people defending the indefensible. LIke you are doing.
2. You are defending them, because you are on their side.
3. I've never met an Alex Jones follower. Very lmited impact. Comparing that to the alliance of Big Media and Big Tech and Big Government and street goons and cancel culture, is the most pathetic fail at "yeah but you too" I have ever seen.
A policy you could argue is worse than a lie. Also it is not just a policy they also spread lies about the drug war. So I actually killed two birds with one stone there. You now going to lie and say they did not lie about the drug war?
Nope I am on neither side.
Lol so because you have never met an Alex Jones follower that means little impact? Yet another anecdotal claim. Okay two can play that game. I have met an Alex Jones follower, therefore that shows his impact is huge.
1. And you again refuse to answer on point.
2. LOLLOLOLOL, Sure you're not. Clearly neutral and objective. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
3. ONE? In TWO whole lives? Sounds like a fringe to me. Meanwhile I meet supports of your paradigm, all the time, can't swing a dead cat without hitting on of you people.
Lies were spread about the drug war. This addressed your point. You simply dislike my answer because you can't refute it.
And you yourself claim to be objective? I lean towards an ideology but I am willing to call out the corruption on my side.
I have met more than one. I could say I have met over 100. You would call into question that claim because it is anecdotal. So no his impact is bigger than what you are trying to claim.
1. Your stonewalling continues.
2. I consider discussion to be a way to find the truth. I don't play evasive games to protect views I know can't stand up to scrutiny, like you are clearly doing. To be clear, I am ideological, partisan and try to be as objective as possible or at least to be aware of my emotional investments.
3. You have NOT met over 100 alex jones followers.
1. Wrong.
2. No. Potheads stink terribly.
3. I was not mocking YOU personally, but the lefties that make the false accusations.
4. Neally all lefties do. IMO that strongly implies that they do NOT believe that they have enough real dirt on him, that they have to make up shit to stop him.
Right.
So do Cigarette smokers.
Which was unwarranted since I personally never brought it up. You really think this will make any leftist person who is having a conversation with you want to listen to you after doing that?
Oh I got loads of dirt on him I can sling up with ease.
1. Wrong.
2. Not as much.
3. It came up in converstation, and I think that an accusation of RACISM, is a very serious accusation in this day and age. People's lives can be destroyed. Hell people can DIE. The people that throw it around like assholes, deserve to be, hell NEED to be mocked mercilessly. They are deeply harming this society.
4. The vast majority of lefties don't seem to agree, based on their actions.
Right.
Your opinion.
I never did bring it up or throw it around. So what was the point in doing that when having a discussion with me?
You are debating me not the majority of lefties.
1. Wrong.
2. Based on the reek of potheads.
3. I don't recall. It was at least weeks ago. What does it matter why? What are you trying to imply?
4. And I gave you points for not falling for hte painfully obvious trap. What more do you want?
Right.
Your opinion. I disagree.
It matters because I did not deserve that. You mocked something I never even brought up. You think acting condescending like that is going to bode well for people to hear you out? I will be honest it made me not want to hear a word you said about racism you told me you thought was happening. So you are fine to bring it up and shouldn't be mocked but others can't without being mocked nice logic there.
Then do not reference the majority of lefties anymore. It is irrelevant when debating me. Got it?
1. Wrong.
2. Reek like dead skunks.
3. If you want to find a reason to dismiss what I say, I cannot stop you. I made my point about why I mock those that make false accusations of racism. If you choose to be "triggered" by that and thus incapable of rational discussion, just stop posting then.
4. Depends on the issues being discussed. Quite often the behavior of major gropus will be relevant.
Right.
Cigarette smokers stink also. Your whole point goes up in flames with me saying that.
Why mock it to someone who never brought it up in the first place? Would you like it if I mocked talking points from the right you never brought up? A little piece of advice you might want to try not doing that to those who do not ask for it. That is you being a genuine jerk and you know it. If someone did something that warranted that behavior okay go ahead but I did not. So lets be an adult and act like a decent person ok there bud. You want change you need to foster good conversations and relations between people and not simply play the us vs them game where you demonize your opposition. I openly admitted there are good right wing people you do not grant that towards the left.
Not in my case. So quit doing it. It is annoying.
1. Wrong.
2. Not like freaking potheads. Makes a normal person want to puke.
3. A valid point, but really, we need to push back against the race baiters. Mockery is about shaming people bad behavior with OTHERS, so, doing it with people not directly involved is sort of the point. Really, if you don't do that, you should be able to join in. Doesn't it bother YOU, when you see others undermining REAL accusations of racism, with completely bullshit accusations of "Racism"?
4.I will not let facts off the table, just because it involves talking about the behavior of groups.
I WILL try to be careful to distinguish between YOU personally and libs as a group. BUT, I will not spell it out like you are a child. YOU have to read what I actually WRITE, and not assume the worst so you can derail the point.
shareI took what you said and I feel like my assumptions were correct. You mocking wacism was not done in good faith but out of malice. You mocking the left is not in good faith it is antagonistic.
shareYou are incorrect. Foolishly so in fact.
shareI am correct. If you were a fair person you would mock the right for the lies and damage they do as well. Turns out you do not.
shareThat ONLY people I mock, are the false accusations of wacism lefties.
They are the worst.
Nope because you mocked me in the process when I never brought it up. So nope that was a bold faced lie you just told.
shareHow did I mock you?
shareRead over your posts man. You generalized and put me into a box the moment you found out I leaned left. You also mocked racism and the left using it when I never did that.
shareRealizing you are a lefty, is not mocking you. Neither is commenting on the massive use of false accusations of racism from the left.
Again, this is nothing but you being so caught up in your ideology, that you have forgotten how normal... works.
A general statement about lefties does NOT personally mock you, unless you have done the specific act in question.
If you have, ESPECIALLY if you have done the act right here, then it would. But as you have NOT then it was just a reference to what is going on in the world, to make a point.
A point you dodged, by manufacturing some outrage, becuase you could not refute the point.
When you did that as a demeaning way I would say that it is. Like I said you mock nothing of the right yet will mock the left all day long. You are not going to sit there and tell me the right does nothing wrong which is not worthy of being mocked. This is your bias nature rearing it's head.
I understand perfectly how normal works. I just see through someone acting like a condescending jerk. Which is exactly what you were doing. The fact that you deny this is your denial oozing through the screen.
That general statement you tried to apply to me. You do this because you want the generalization to do the heavy lifting. It frees you from having to think. Think before grouping people together. You will not acknowledge that there can be a moral good person who is a leftist. I admitted this about the right. You lack this objective ability.
Your point was irrelevant. What relevance did it have when debating me? It was just an attempt from you to sling mud.
I did not dodge anything. I openly addressed your point to begin with. Once I debunked it you got all pissy and went into denial mode.
1. I have a very high bar for mockery. The ONLY thing I find that NEEDS to be mocked regularly is the left's massive use of false acccusations of racism. That is not to say that the right is never wrong, but nothing we do is as bad or vile or harmful as what hte left does.
2. It is absurd to claim that I am "trying to free myself from thinking". I am clearly very serious about my "thinking" and very much willing to discuss it or issues. Your complaint is just an excuse to be "outraged" or "offended".
3. I forget what the point was, but I do not sling mud. If you thought that, you misunderstood.
4. Don't get personal now, you've been doing so well. You did dodge. You debunked nothing.
Lol yeah how convenient. As I said before the drug war has done more harm than any claims of false racism. That is an objective fact.
No not when you constantly use them to backup your claim. Like I said you use generalizations to free you from thinking. If it were not for those you would have no talking points.
I believe you did this to sling mud.
Nowhere did I get personal, I pointed how you were acting. I debunked your point. Do not get into denial mode. Accept that your point was debunked.
1. Your opinion. So, we've established I don't mock a lot of stuff. That was exciting. You ready to drop that now, or you want to discuss that for a few more weeks?
2. "Constantly"? LOL. Again, you immediately ignore my points to change the subject to me.
3. Very convenient FOR YOU, to make that assumption, wasn't it?
4. You did not debunk my point. You expressed disagreement.
No it is a fact the drug war has done more damage than claims of false racism. It has been going on for a lot longer than these claims of false racism. Therefore it has affected more lives. Want to do a comparison? I guarantee you I have you beat in terms of numbers of people affected.
Because you do not like thinking. You like the generalizations do the heavy lifting. I have you pegged.
Just like how it is convenient for you to assume the worst of leftists huh?
Nope I debunked it. The right suppresses and lies just like the left. That is a fact you lost on that point.
1. That is your opinion. I would be happy to debate it. How would you support your claim?
2. Nope. It is just you evading the points by making it about me.
3. I generally don't do that. Indeed my whole spending time talking to you people, is based on the hope of real discussion of real issues, despite massive evidence to the contrary.
4. Strong assertions doesn't make it true. That was ironically weak of you.
How many people have been locked up for smoking weed? No other crimes simply smoking weed. Look up the numbers you will find it is quite high. https://www.aclu.org/gallery/marijuana-arrests-numbers
No I have you pegged. Generalizations are your favorite it allows you to not think. It must be nice to let that do the thinking for you huh.? Only look at statistics without any consideration as to why the stats are the way they are. It is a nice bubble I wish I was happy being that ignorant.
No you generally do. If you wanted real discussion you would not have been condescending towards me about points I never made. If it is okay for you to assume the worst about the left I am free to assume the worst about the right? Turn about is fair play after all.
I backed up my assertion with a fact. Learn how that works it will help you out in life.
1. How many serious issues have not been dealt with, becuase serious policy discuss was shut down because of false accusations of racism and the resulting racial strife?
2. Name one stat that I cited with no desire to discuss or consider the reasons for it. Or admit that you are just making this about me, because on some level, you know you cannot defend your positions.
3. I did NOT assume the worst about you. I HOPED that you would join me in mocking those people. You are now decending into normal, rude lefty behavior. I am disappointed in you.
4. I don't recall the fact now. I presume I did not agree with it, or did not find it convincing in your support.
You are the one making the claim. Provide the numbers like I just did with my claim. Educate us all.
You have made general claims and expected everyone to just go along with it. Do I really need to point this out? You know you are lying and I reject your manipulation tactic here.
Yeah you did assume the worst. I hoped you would join me in mocking people who want private weed criminalized. Funny you want people to mock the left but you will not mock the right. Hypocritical pal. At least be subtle about your hypocrisy.
You don't recall it? How convenient. You disagreeing with a fact does not change it being a fact. Facts do not care about your feelings now do they?
[deleted]
You have the patience of a saint.
shareRight.
Disagree I think cigarette smoke is worse.
Well then how come if we are takin that approach do you not mock right wingers? I only see the mockery of leftists. Convenient how you only mock the opposition and not your own team. It does bother me when there are false claims of racism which is why I did not appreciate what Smollet did. However it also pisses me off when blatant racism gets ignored also. Also how people will make excuses for their team just because they are their team. This goes both ways dude. Your behavior was antagonistic and you know it.
Those facts do not apply to me. I know it burns you up you can't throw me in a group because I know that is your favorite thing to do. Generalize that way you do not have to think the generalization does the heavy lifting for you.
1. Wrong.
2. No way you are serious. Unless you are a pothead yourself and can't smell it anymore, because...
3. There is nothing any rightwingers are doing, that is as bad and universially accepted as the massive use of false accusations of racism by the left. This practice is like a stake though the heart of America.
4. I am glad false accusations do bother you. Do you agree they should be shamed?
5. Actually you are completely wrong. I am delighted when I find a leftie with some signs of individuality. It makes me sad when I see human beings acting like badly programed bots. That you thought the opposite? That is just your inability to understand people different than you.
Right.
Yeah I know shocking someone can have a different opinion than you huh? I myself do not smoke anything and I would rather smell pot over cigarette smoke.
Yeah when you consider the lies they spread about the drug war I would say they do. They are the ones who spread lies about marijuana and they have gotten away with it for years. This is also damaging to the country.
Yep but I find it funny you do not do that with your group. Mention the storming of the capitol or the drug war lies your side spread and you will be met with yeah well insert excuse here. Pointing to a flaw in another group or thing does not make the flaw you commit go away. It is deflection and you know it.
No I understood fine. You were not mocking in good faith you were doing it for nefarious reasons.
1. Wrong.
2. Different opinions are fine. But potheads smell like dead skunks. Me not wanting to deal with that is a legitimate interest. Do you understand that?
3. Dude. The only reason that marijuna hasn't been legalized is that YOUR side just doesn't feel ANY need to give their voters ANYTHING, but lip service. NEWT FUCKING GINGRICH admitted to trying the stuff. The drug war is not about pot. Good try, but no. IMO, The false accusations of racism are THE worst divisive and destructive behavior in America today and it needs to be pushed back on.
4. The 1/6 riot was a criminal and violent act, and those that committed crimes should face justice with due process. So, you agree that those that spread false accusations of racism should be shamed. OK. How? Becuase right now, they are not, not even a tinny teeny bit.
5. What narfarious reason do you imagine?
Right.
Cigarette smokers smell awful as well. What if I do not want to deal with that?
Lol no the left has given plenty of good points as to why it shold be legal. Your side constantly fights against it. It is not surprising since a former right wing president in Nixon was the one who started it. IMO the drug war is far more damaging than false claims of racism. So we can agree to disagree here.
Funny then why do lots of right wingers make excuse for that 1/6 riot? Oh I see plenty of people shame Smollet. I think you are only seeing what you want to see.
You do it as a means to attempt to rile up the left. Learn to deescalate things as opposed to escalating them.
1. Wrong'
2. Not nearly as bad. Potheads freaking REEK. The drug war is a policy we can debate or change. Race Baiting is tearing this country apart.
3. The vast majority of right wingers are fine with them facing due process. Smollet was an extreme case. So, yes, there is a teeny tinny bit of push back. There needs to be FAR MORE.
Do you agree that this country has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for blacks since hte mid 60s?
4. No, I don't THe left will rile themselves up. It is part of their SOP. I do it to mock race baiters.
Right.
Your opinion I think cigarette smoke smells worse. If we can change it why is your camp so against changing it? How many years has it been going on?
Got any way to prove that claim? I have seen plenty of right wingers attempt to excuse that riot.
I already answered this question.
Yeah you do. I did not race bait so why were you doing it to me?
1. Wrong.
2. There is no way you are serious. Pot heads reek like a freaking dead skunk. That was sick before it died. And then several animals came by and pissed on the body of their hated enemy.
3. I doubt that. I suspect you have heard a lot of people asking about possible agitators or wanting equal justice, not "SUPPORTING" the riot.
4. You did? Then I missed it or forgot. Do you agree that this country has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for blacks since the mid 60s?
5. Because any discussion of issues, in this country, the way the Left uses race to divide us and spread hate and violence, is IMPORTANT, and needs discussed, and pushed back on.
I would like for lefties, especially those that claim to have individuality to join in in mocking the people that are doing that.
That you "individualistic" lefties almost NEVER do that, is deeply disappoininting to me. If you would have just agreed and joined in in bemoaning the harm those people are doing to this country, I would have loved that.
Your failure to do that, was very disappointing to me.
Right.
Someone disagreeing with you can happen. Funny notice how I can grant you the leeway of disagreeing with me? Notice how I can acknowledge you feel pot smokes worse than cigarettes but the moment I disagree with you about thinking cigarettes smell worse you can't accept it? Shows the difference of maturity between the two of us. I realize that others can disagree with me, you do not accept any disagreement. It is your way or the highway.
Ha no. Plenty of right wingers do their best to excuse the behavior. They will go yeah but the left insert excuse here. As if pointing to another wrong suddenly makes that one ok. Your denial is showing again and it is unpleasant.
I am not answering that again. I answered that already.
It has no relevance to me when I am not the one doing it. I can say the same thing for the drug war. That policy is still in place and is destroying the country. It is important and needs to be discussed, and pushed back on until we abolish it.
I would like for right wingers especially those that claim to have individuality to join in on mocking the people who believe in the drug war. See how it goes both ways here?
Your failure to address the drug war and mock it is disappointing to me.
1. Wrong.
2. I accept that other people can disagree with me in principle. BUT, not with comparing an ashtray to a rotting skunk. it is objectively worse.
3. you misunderstood their point. They were not excusing the behavior, just putting it in proper context to push back against the panic mongering of the Left. They are still fine with those that committed violence facing due process.
4. It is important to remember as we discuss racial issues, that our conflict is not FOR or AGAINST racial equality, but how best to reach it. The Left, as a group, loves to pretend that they are CHAMPIONS of equality fighting the EVUL Republcians who are AGAINST equality for blacks (and others) when that is clearly FALSE.
5. If we are discussing policy or issues, it can very well be relevant to discuss what various groups are doing. Denying that is irrational. Having a hissy fit about it, is an evasive tactic.
6. I don't agree with you on that issue. And even if I did, I might still respect the pov of those that disagreed with us. It is a rare position that I disrespect enough to mock.
Why do you not disrespect those that use falsee accusations of racism? DO you not see the massive harm it is doing to our nation?
7. My point stands. Mocking YOU personaly was not my intent. Time for you to drop that shit.
Right.
Lol your opinion. That is not an objective fact. You obviously do not know what an objective fact is. I double down I think cigarette smoke smells worse. That is my opinion.
No they were doing that to deflect. Anytime a flaw gets brought up about the right they immediately point to the left. A mature person acknowledges the flaw without deflecting. You lack this ability. I do not.
Yet your group will blatantly defend people like Nick Fuentes. You heard his comments on black people or Jewish people?
Not when I am not bringing it up. You did that to try and get a reaction out of me. So no your manipulative bs is no good here.
You disrespect anything about the left.
I do disrespect them. You just are mad because you did not see me do it. Why do you not mock the drug war?
My point stands you mocking me was your intent. Any respect for you I could have had has passed. Your credibility has taken a hit.
1. Wrong
2. Like a rotting skunk.
3. I'm speaking for US, you are on the outside here. I'm telling you you are AGAIN, misunderstanding our point. Would you like to address our actual point or continue to evade?
4. No, we don't.
5. No, I didn't. I made a point and you manufacured some outrage to evade it, becasue you could not refute it.
6. More so than in the past. You people have gone completely nuts, that is true. But still, I rarely mock positions or people. It is just that false accusation of racism, are so very hateful and hurtful.
7. Do you do anything to push back on those false accusations of racism? You have agreed that "very fine people" lie, was a lie. Do you realize how much damage that did to our country that nearly half the country thinks that the other half voted for a w.s. sympathizer?
8. You are choosing to manufacture outrage to try to marginalize me and my arguments, so that you have an excuse to not address them. That is an evasion tactic you are using, because on some level your brain understands that your positions are mostly wrong.
1. One example I think about is the border/illegals. This is a huge many faceted problem that we are unable to honestly discuss because it is CONSTANTLY demoninzed by race baiters of the Left. The list of probelms caused or worsed by this is quite long, BUT for discussion purposes, let us just look at the ability of cartels and gangs to enter this country and kill people. That is thousands of American dead, and whole communites living in fear and it is worsening by the year as MS-13 is taking over. And that is ONE example.
2. Sometimes. i mean, if we can't agree on anything, then we can't talk at all. Then the only way to resolve conflicts is though force and winning and crushing your enemies. That is not a good path. Your constant refusal to find any common ground, is a big problem for this country.
3. How did I assume the worst about you?
4. No, it is not convenient. What was teh fact you claimed? Have you forgotten too? Facts might not care about my feelings. But your fact might not have been correct or relevant. What was the fact? What as your point that you are going on about?
You are not providing me with numbers. I gave you numbers which were specifically addressing the claim I made. Which was showing you how many people get charged with drug issues such as getting arrested for marijuana. I want facts and numbers specifically backing up your claim. Which was false claims of racism.
You do not want common ground yourself. You back any right wing policy and reject any policy which leans left.
I already addressed this. You made assumptions because I disagree with you. The minute you knew I leaned left you got all obstinate and judgmental.
Nope I remember. The right has lied and concealed information just like the left. I provided proof of that and you did not like it. Facts over feelings bud.
1. Drop teh excuses for avoiding addressing my point. False accusations of racism, prevent discussion of the cited problem and thus preventing even ATTEMPTS at solutions to a problem that is killing thousands of Americans. That is a huge harm done to America, in one limited example. Admit it is a harm or explain why you think it is not, or why you think it is not that big, or something. Cease senseless evasion.
2. And again, your position rests on dismissing my own words of my own thoughts and intents, and insisting that your negative take on them is actually right. What an exciting and interesting conversation to have. You must be a blast at parties.
3. I asked what assumption about you i supposedly made. Accusing me of being obstinate is not a valid answer to that. This would be where you admit that you cannot back up your complaint.
4. LOL!!!! Your cited fact was retarded. Seriously. Again your position is based on ignoring my own words about my own intent and inventing your own and then attacking me for not abiding by it.
So you are not going to provide numbers to backup your claim? Can't say I am surprised. I was honestly looking forward to seeing what stats you were going to cite. Notice how I did it without a problem? I never denied it being harmful but it is your job to show me how it does more harm than the drug war. I cited my numbers now it is your turn. I stood behind my horse that the drug war is worse. Now ante up or drop the discussion.
The same way you dismiss anybody the second you realize they lean left. I bet you are a blast at parties also.
The minute I disagreed you made all sorts of assumptions about what I supported. Little secret not everyone who leans left is a bad person. How many times have you said typical leftist behavior? You might want to not say that if you are trying to be civil fyi. Remember you started that crap not me.
Nope. I met your criteria. The right has lied just like the left and hid information. You can not dispute that fact.
1. I did provide numbers. You are now stonewalling. Generally speaking, normal behavior for libs.
2. I have treated you and your statements and points with respect and seriousness and honesty. Your claim that I have dismissed you is clearly false. You are inventing reasons to avoid good faith discussion. Which is understandable for libs. On some level you understand that many, if not most of your positions are indefensible,
3, Sure. I make some assumptions about you. That does NOT mean that I marginalized you and stopped listening to what you actually said, inventing my own meanings for your words and insisting that my imagined meanings were correct and addressing those points instead, and then insisting that I had refuted you. That is YOUR game and you are now PROJECTING how YOU use generalizations, ie badly. Your complain about my generalizing is simply a tactic to generate a false... complaint about me, to talk about, to bog the thread down in personal nonsense because that is how you avoid serious discussion.
4. That was not my point and you know it.
No you threw out a vague number without citing data. I cited actual documented data. You are now in denial mode again.
No you did not. Why did you make assumptions about the left and generalizations then? You call that respect? Notice I only lobbed insults at the right once you started doing that. I did it to show you how rude that behavior truly is. Typical conservative behavior though. They can dish it out but can't take it.
Oh the minute you made assumptions you stopped listening to any points I made. Your denial is showcasing through yet again. You did invent your own meanings also. Once I told you to call out the 1/6 riot you assumed I wanted to play gotcha games. That is dumb because all I expected was for you to go okay that is wrong. I did not ever say they should not be allowed due process that was you jumping to a conclusion.
Notice how you can't refute facts? Facts>>>feelings. Do not criticize the left and then let the right slide on the same thing. Hypocritical!
1. Oh, now you see the numbrer? One post ago you were claiming that I didn't give ANY numbers. Kind of crappy that you did not acknowledge your mistake.
2. The numbeer is vague because of poor stat collection by the government. But the number is in the thousands of deaths a year. That is, imo, enough to know that it is a major harm to our society, to judge those responsible by.
3. I make assumptions and generalizations about a large group of people, because that is how normal people talk about or discuss a large group of people. That some of those generalizations were harsh is me expressing my opposition to them and calling them, as a group out on their bad behavior or bad positions. That you would rather have a hissy fit about my talking like a real person, instead of defending the behavior of your side, is a common tactic by libs to avoid having to defend shit that they know is indefensible. Your sides behavior over the last couple of decades has been terrible and your side's policies have been bad for America and Americans.
4. I have not "not listened" to any of your points. I am currently discussing the 1.6 riot with you and responding appropriately to all your posts. YOU are theh one that likes to dismiss my stated intent and make up your own stories in your head about what I said and what happened afterwards.
5. I have repeatedly explained to you, that you did not or cannot get my point on that. That is not me failing to "refute" a fact, that is me explaining that you are talkign about the wrong thing. That you imagine that you won that, is you being somewhat strange.
No you did not cite a stat sheet. You gave me a vague number. Notice how I linked you to how many arrests and charges there were? I did not just hey there were 100000 arrests... I gave you a link which was based on actual factual data. You have not done this. So if you want to get technical you through out a number but did not a cite a link that backed up that number. See the difference?
I am not taking your word on why the numbers are vague. Provide factual data that is accurate or else you need to concede you can't strongly backup your point. I did it where as you can't.
Nope nowhere did I excuse the riots or anything immoral by the left. So your just spouted nothing but nonsense here. You however did defend bad actions by the right. You also openly said they are better. Which shows why you are an arrogant individual. You think you are better than anyone who disagrees with you.
Had you just simply said okay the 1/6 was wrong and not leaped to that conclusion you would have gotten respect from me. You assumed I wanted to play gotcha games.
No I debunked your point. You are not used a taste of your own medicine is all this is.
1. THOUSANDS OF DEATHS A YEAR. Do you want to discuss/compare that number or do you want to quibble about stupid shit? That was a rhetorical question. It is clear that you want to quibble about stupid shit, to avoid a serious discussion of issues.
2. Do you want a link where the government sources discuss why the number is vague? That is a joke btw, I know that you are just trying to avoid actually discussing the issues.
3. a. An individual exception does not invalidate a generalization. That has already been explained to you. That you pretend otherwise is...seems to be you playing silly games.
b And again, blah, blah, blah, all you want to talk about is me.
4. Perhaps. So? You really want to talk about that for a few weeks? BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
5. Nope. You have been repeatedly informed that you failed to get my acutal point. Please stop pretending that you don't know that.
And where is your stat sheet to back that? Again are we going off a vague number or can you actually back your numbers up like I did? Even if I take that at your word which honestly I should not but I can. How do you dismiss all the lives charging people for Marijuana does? You don't think the drug war causes thousands of deaths per year also?
I want a number that is actually backing up your claim. You know the way I provided proof to you.
It can actually and it also depends if that generalization is based on a fact. Which we already established some generalizations are not based on facts. In any case people are not generalizations they are people. So no I do not agree with your point here either.
Learn to act mature. It will go further with me.
Nope I won this point. Until you come up with a counter that is logical this point goes to me.
1. Being charged for pot is a burden on people. Being killed is far worse. And that is just ONE issue that has festered for generations becasue we are not allowed to seriously discuss it.
2. Thousands a year.
3. Nope. A single exception does NOT invalidate a generalization and that is a completely different issue to "based on facts".
4. I like how your delusional way of thinking/talking is "mature" and mine is "not". Hilarious. Typical lib arrogance.
5. Now you are being an asshole.
It is not just being charged with pot. I said the drug war. Did you miss that? The drug war causes thousands of deaths per year.
Where is your number to back this. Cite the link with accurate data.
Yep it does. I know this hurts your ideology but all someone has to do is point to an exception. Which is why it is ignorant to go off of generalizations and not go case by case.
The one who is smart is not the delusional one. You are delusional. Typical conservative behavior though.
Funny the same way you do not address my points and go blah blah blah? Do not act like one and maybe you will not get it in return?
1. You keep jumping back and forth on that. I responed to what you most recently said. The Drug War causes deaths? You blame the law for the actions of violent criminals?
2. You want to focus on the exact count of dead, instead of adressing the issue. Typical.
3. No, it does not. Your position is based on you pretending to not understand the definition of generalization. That is silly of you.
4. Nope. You are delusional. And blind.
5. Your points about me, are boring to the extreme. We have been going on and on about ME, for months now. You might find me endlessly fasinating, but I can only do so much navel gazing before boredom sets in.
Not all drug addicts are violent criminals. You are already conceded to this point. Did you seriously send that without thinking?
I want an exact count. Even if I take your word for it. I have you beat. More people die as a result of the drug war.
Yep it does. Sorry I know this is tough for you but the world does not always fit into a generalization.
Nope the delusional one is you. Typical among conservatives.
Alright then going forward I know to be on the defense.
1. Dude. You didn't "win" anything by stating something that we both knew. Next you will mention that water is wet and then gloat when I "admit" that.
2. Got it. You don't want to discuss the issue, you want to quibble about exact numbers. What a surprise. Or should I say, you are AFRAID to discuss the issue.
3. No, it does not. You need to stop boring me with your lack of understanding of simple terms.
4. Said the man that presents as not understanding my simple point.
5. You need to be defensive because I am bored talking about myself? That's very strange.
You said you blame the law for the actions of violent criminals. Not all drug addicts are violent criminals.
Nope I took your word. I still have you beat in terms of deaths per year even going off your vague number. You could not refute that.
Yep it does. I know this is blowing your mind.
I understood it fine you just will not ever admit to being proven wrong. Typical among conservatives.
Nope because you will not admit to being proven wrong.
1. I did not say that. Nor have I said anything suggesting that all drug addicts are violent criminals. you should pay more attention to what I say, adn less to what you imagine.
2. We dealt with a point for about a second and now we are stopped by your demands for an "exact number" as though that matters when thousands are dying. This is you ONCE AGAIN, evading real debate on real issue(s).
3. No, it doesn't. Only someone pretending to not understand the definition of the word "generalization" could claim it does.
4. You not only failed to understand it, you insist on pretending that I told you you failed. That is you, behaving quite badly.
So then you now are you conceding that the drug war also ruins the lives of people then?
No I am humoring your number. I still have you beat with how many lives get ruined or killed because of the drug war.
Yep it does. Only a fool think generalizations are correct at all times. I do not go off generalizations I go case by case.
You were proven wrong I am sorry.
1. i am conceding nothing, for that was never a point of contention. Are you high right now?
2. You had a choice. To discuss the issue, or to shut down discussion by focusing on demanding an "exact" number. You, in keeping with your normal behavior, choose to avoid the actual issue.
3. That would be an interesting point, if anything I have ever said indicated that I thought they were. You are seriously like a crazy person.
4. You are being an asshole now.
So then why did you make the comment about protecting nice people from violent criminals? What were you implying?
I am discussing it now. Okay so your number is true. I still have you beat when it comes to lives destroyed or affected. Notice how you are dodging now? You are doing this because you know I am right.
You did since all you operate off of are generalizations. Keep living that way I refuse to do that.
I am not, I just think you do not like opposition.
Not that far. Like I said look at those anti-marijuana commercials in the early 2000's. Even today Foxnews will deny the medical benefits of marijuana simply because they disagree with smoking it. It is fine to disagree it is another thing to flat out deny medical benefits.
What you have read? I just provided you a link that proved that it increased to more consumption than before it was prohibited. It went down temporarily but over time there was more use than before it was legal. Are you honestly this ignorant? It created a black market for criminals to thrive on. It is no different than the drug war. Even if I was to play along and say it decreased permanently during prohibition which it did not but it still would not help your case. Okay domestic violence decreases but do you know what else increases in it's place? People's lives being destroyed, families being split apart, more poverty and prisons being overstuffed. All because of what someone wants to do with their own body. Should we lock up people for substance abuse or should we offer more programs to help with their problem? If someone wants to get stoned or drunk in their basement and not harm anyone it is not the law's job to get involved that is their personal choice. Anyway brush on why prohibition was a failure. It will open your eyes. The facts are out there.
If something is broken that means it is not being practiced now doesn't it?
I back my views up with facts rather than anecdotal claims like you. I just declined to comment on my views about racism. I do not believe you discuss racism in good faith.
1. Your stonewalling is noted. I understand that you are afraid.
2. i just goggled it to check my numbers. Multiple sources came up with similar numbers. Dropped a lot, and rose again, but not all the way.
You were just proven wrong on a matter of historical documented fact, and that had no impact on your position. You glossed over it, and moved right on with your defense. That is you being irrational.
Why are you emotionally invested in the Drug Culture?
3. I dismiss your pretense of being too dumb to understand that rare exceptions do not disprove a general rule. That was dishonest and weak of you. Please cease such games.
4. I see you claiming "facts". Can you vague that up for me a little? LOL!!! Why are you being so evasive?
I did not stonewall. Refute my point or drop this point.
Funny how you did not cite a source where as I did. You stepped around it because it proves my point that numbers increased. The reason it ended was because they realized it was making things worse. I am invested in drug culture because of the harm it does to society. More gang violence, murders, among many other things. Hey this stuff can ruin your life so lets ruin your life to protect you from ruining your life. The cons outweighed the pros when it came to prohibition and the drug war in general.
I dismiss your dismissal of my legit points.
Like I said I do not make anecdotal claims. That is your game not mine.
1. Sure you did. And still are.
2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/
And now you will demonstrate that your position is NOT based on reality but on...something else. You will do this by not adjusting your position AT ALL due to new information.
3. I dismiss your pretense of being too dumb to understand that rare exceptions do not disprove a general rule. That was dishonest and weak of you. Please cease such games.
4. So, you are claiming to have NO OPINION on whether or not America is wacist? Dude. You are talking nonsense to avoid being pinned down, BECAUSE you know you are in the wrong.
No the one stonewalling is you.
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2020/pov-the-100th-anniversary-of-prohibition-reminds-us-that-bans-rarely-work/
No I can cite multiple sources that can conflict with that one. Bottom line prohibition was a failure. The cons outweighed the pros. Your inability to admit this is you doing the stonewalling. Also you are conveniently ignoring that the alcohol that consumed was much more potent and dangerous to consume. This same thing happens with drugs.
Exceptions can disprove a general rule that is where you are wrong. It shows that a general rule is not something that we can rely on all the time. Smoking weed was illegal for how long? That is like saying there are generally no weed smokers because it is illegal. No many people do drugs and smoke weed despite it being illegal. So to say oh it is illegal to discriminate against minorities therefore it does not happen is foolish coming from you and you know it.
I am declining your question. As you can see you are not open minded at all when discussing that topic. Remember you brought up wacism not me.
1. Actually your link uses the same data mine did, just with reverse spin. THey admit that drinking declined sharply during Prohibition and though it rose, remained significantly decreased thoughout. Note, YOU said that during Prohibition, sharp drop and THEN RISING TO EVEN MORE THAN BEFORE. This has been proven FALSE.
This is important. Your position is not chaning ONE IOTA, despite your supposed reason for it, being proven wrong.
That is you being illogial. Just like you accuse Nixon of.
2. Drop the stupid act. This country for generations has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for non-whites, enacted though formal policy, laws and practice. Yes, there are isolated and illegal and taboo examples of old school anti-black or brown or yellow racism, but they are outside the norm, not defining it. Your weird resistant to this historical fact, and your weird rhetorical games are just...bullshit.
3. I mentioned it. You got weird about it, and are now running away from a simple discussion.
It did increase to more than before prohibition. Even if you were correct it would not disprove my initial point about the drug war being a failure. You are attempting to paint the drug war as anything but a failure. Remember even with the data not every single case of someone drinking got recorded. It is no different from smoking weed. You really think all weed smoking goes recorded? Either way what I posted actually proves my point. Even that aside the point remains about the drug war being a failure. You trying to deny that? I can keep going for days with data which backs this. https://www.nber.org/papers/w3675
https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/alcohol-prohibition-was-failure#prohibition-was-criminal
We also are forgetting that alcohol became more dangerous to consume as well. You can confirm from many sources that alcohol consumption got worse than before prohibition. Remember that does not even factor in the consumption that was not recorded....
Nope I am not accepting that premise. Your echo chamber is not me go find someone else for that garbage.
You mentioned wacism yet if a liberal does that you mock them. You deserve to be mocked as well. Do not be a hypocrite.
1. No, it didn't. And the only things you have supported your claim with, was Prohibition being a failure and assumptions of ill intent BASED ON CIRUCULAR LOGIC because you believed that consumption had increased to MORE THAN BEFORE DURING PROHIBITION. That was your SOLE piece of real evidence. Which turned out to be wrong. If you admit reality on this, your assumption of ill intent collapses, and you have nothing to support your opposition. Other than your emotinal committment.
2. Premise? It's decades of recorded documented history, and policy and practice. Oceans of it. Every Presidential election, both major candidates supported the policy and getting well over 90 percent of the popular election (wtih very few exceptions). That's not premise that is a well supported position. That you deny it, is you denying historical and present day reality.
3. Dealing with the fact of different behavior, is not hypocrisy. Your desire to treat different groups the same despite different behavior is not rational. This is very common with liberals. That is based on my personal experience with liberals, btw. So, "anecdotal", lol. Still true. I think you know that.
Yes it did. Prohibition was a failure even if what you said was true it is a failure regardless. I like how you avoided the fact that not every stat was recorded. That is how your brain deals with things. You only look at what is recorded as if it is totally perfect and every stat is recorded. Even without that though I cited data which supports my position. So are you now attempting to say prohibition was not a failure?
Like I said before policy means nothing if it is not being honored. You use policy as a means to dismiss anyone's claim of something. I will give it to you a rather underhanded and sleazy tactic.
How is it different? Racism is racism regardless of who it is against. Your desire to only call it out against your kind is very common among conservatives. This is based on my personal experience with conservatives. So anecdotal lol. Still true. I think you know that.
1. Dude, if we were in person, you would be talking faster and louder to try to drown me out at this point. YOu are emotionally unable to just accept that reasonable people can disagree with you on political policy. You feel a need to smear them as evul or stupiod.
2. All human endevors are imperfect. That you could find a few examples of failure or even resistance does not change the fact that the nation as a whole has been on this same page for a long time now. Let's get more specific. A common accusation by the Left is that this nation is a White Supremacist Nation. Do you believe that?
3. Different in that the left makes a lot of false accusations of wacism, while actuallfy BEING racist, while the Right, by and large, does not and is not. And to be clear, I have no problem with anedoctal evidence. The bad name it has, is a result of stupid people being stupid.
No not considering my entire premise was built around prohibition being a gigantic failure. I can cite multiple sources which show it made it get worse after prohibition. Even if the numbers did not get worse which they did it would still be a failed policy. You are attempting to say prohibition was not a failure.
Correct there are imperfections in any human endeavor. This is why it is rather disenguine to dismiss claims of racism just because something is a policy. You are following a generalization. No before we move on to questions lets address what you are saying. I know you can't function without using generalizations as your guide. So did I ever make claims of racism? Remember you are debating me not the left. Answer and address some of the stuff you have said and then we will move on to if I think America is racist against minorities.
Lol yeah nope I am not buying that nonsense either. There are plenty of claims of racism by the right which are false as well. Oh you do have a problem with anecdotal evidence. You just are saying that now because in this case your anecdotal evidence supports your claim. If I was to say I have experienced racism lots growing up as a mixed person you would dismiss it as me being a liberal or leftist and you would immediately cite policy or generalizations to dismiss it. So no I am not buying your statement on that for two seconds try again.
1. And the specific claim you made was that drinking increased to MORE than before Prohibition DURING prohibition. And that was wrong.
My point here is more than just that you were wrong about that, but that the policy was a lot more than complex than you admit and that Nixon could have drawn more and/or different lessions from it, than you did, and NOT be motivated by ill intent as you wish to assume.
2. a. That i am not weird about using generalizations, in no way implies that I cannot operate otherwise. That was a silly thing to claim.
b. Name one thing I've said that you want me to address,
3. Name teh biggest and most important claim of racism by the Right, that is false.
It did increase once again. You can look up numbers which show it was more than before prohibition. You also keep side stepping my other point that not all is measured. The alcohol was more potent and dangerous and not everything was recorded. Okay though I will play devil's advocate. Lets say I was wrong about the numbers. Even so the prohibition of alcohol was a failure. You are attempting to say that it was not a failure. Also no Nixon did it for ill intent. You give him the benefit of the doubt I do not.
No that is all you operate on. You like to cling to those because it allows you to not have to think.
I believe I already stated this. So you personally have investigated every racist claim against minorities? Yes or no?
First I want to know if you are willing to call out racism if it is a legit claim by a leftist source. Or will you dismiss it just because it leans left. I get the vibe you will dismiss it if it is a leftist claim.
1. Our joint numbers show that it did NOT increase to MORE than it was, which was your claim.
2. My refusal to join you in your weird fear of generalizations, is not me clinging to them, nor me only using them. That is silly nonsense.
3. i don't know what I said that you imagine justifies such an odd question, but my answer to move this along, is NO.
4. Depends on a number of factors.
Yet you also ignored the stuff which was unreported. I can concede my numbers were a tad off but it does not detract from my overall point. The point stands that prohibition was a failure. Also if you factor in the stuff which was unreported those numbers would be even more telling.
No it is you clinging to them in order to think.
Okay so have you investigated the majority of them?
On whether or not you would call it out? I will make this easy for you if something was racist and facts were represented I would call it out regardless of the source it came from so long as it was actually true.
1. Fairly normal behavior. You admit your data was off, but it has no effect on your position. Becuase your position is based not on data but emotion.
2. ALL you did there, was spin. You are just talking in silly circles to avoid any real discussion.
4. Perhaps you would. The vast majority of lefties, not. Meanwhile, my challenge to you stands. Name the biggest, most important claim of racism, by the Right, that is false.
Prohibition being a failure is not an emotion it is a fact.
See you will not answer. It shows you know I have you pegged.
So you admit then you would not admit to racism if it was from a left leaning source even if it were true.
1. Word salad that did not address my point.
2. YOu didn't ask a question, you made an assertion adn a stupid one that I had already addressed. I thought it more relefvant to point out your behavior. And to be clear, the implication is that you are afraid of real discussion, because you know that your positions are wrong.
3. Sometimes, depending on the situation. My challange to you stands, Name the biggest, most important claim of racism, by the Right, that is false.
Nope I addressed it perfectly. Go ahead bring it up again I will gladly dismantle it again.
Nope. You made a statement and I am holding you to it. You said most racist claims against minorities are false. In order for that to be true you would have had to have investigated the majority of them. You know this.
Lol no. Facts are facts. If the racist claim is true and factual it should be addressed and acknowledged no matter which source it comes from.
1. I've lost count of the times I've made the point. YOu want to read it again, go back and knock yourself out, stonerwaller.
2. That is not what I said, and that does NOT require what you think it requires. Oh, and you moved the goal post there from all to majority. LOL.
Einstein? the only reason you would do this much evasion, is becuase you know I am right and are just afraid to admit it. Grow some balls and admit it. .The vast majority of accusations of wacism in this country, are false.
3. That is your opinon. My challenge to you stands. Name the biggest, most important claim of racism, by the Right, that is false.
Which shows I already debunked it. Keep drinking more Kool-Aid.
Nope I originally asked you if you had investigated all claims then I asked about the majority. It was showing you how your claim was ignorant. You fell for the trap I set thank you. After you answered no on investigating all I followed up with the majority of them. No shifting whatsoever I was following up. This is common among conservatives they make claims and do not want to back them up. Typical conservative behavior.
Nope that is the truth. I am not accepting a challenge now that I know you will ignore facts. Why bother? You are basically saying that the only way a fact can be true is if it from the right source. No logic in that.
1. It shows that on some level, you know you cannot defend your beliefs or positions based on their own merits.
2. That's not a trap, it's a stupid question. I real challenge would have been something like, "how do you know that", or "can you support that", instead you went for a stupid gotcha. Which shows that you are not interested in getting to thee Truth.
3. LOL. You weren't accepting the challenge because you can know you cannot do it. Becuase the Right, just has not weaponized the false accusation of wacism, the way that the Left has.
4. Einstein, clearly you know that you are on teh wrong side of these issues and positions. Why are you loyal to a side that you know is bad for Ameriac and Americans?
Not when I addressed the point.
No it is showing that your claim was foolish. Don't make a claim you can't prove. You said the majority of them are false without having researched and investigated most of them.
No I will gladly accept the challenge once you prove you can be reasonable. The right wing lie about the election being stolen is very damaging to this country. Oh and yes you have weaponized wacism. You know how much I hear about people claiming wacism against whites?
I am not loyal to any side that would be you. I did not even vote for Biden. I just unlike you do not believe the right is good for America either.
1. Stonewaller.
2. I can't "prove" it to a dishonest person that would deny generations of national policy, law and practice, (for one example). Becuase you would just lie and stonewall.
3. You too young to remember all the times teh Left has refused to respect an election? Or are you just playing pretend?
4. Your loyalty is clear and it is not to America but to the lefty agenda. Otherwise you would not be using so many evasive tactics. CONSTANTLY.
No I addressed the point.
Again I did not deny law or policy but this means nothing when it is not practiced. Also I am not the one who would lie it is you. You will not accept a fact because of what source it comes from. Yet I am the one who is unfair? Explain that to me.
So because the leftists did that it makes it acceptable for the right to do it. Two wrongs do not make a right.
No you can spare me the whole if you are against Trump you hate America nonsense. If Trump succeeds America succeeds right? Is that going to be your next speech you give?
1. Stonewaller.
2. The law and policy and practice defined America for generations. You are denying it, with the lame ess excuse that it was not UNIVERSIALLY followed or practiced. That is cowardice on your part.
3. It puts your weaponized hysterica over it, in it's proper lights, ie bullshit.
4. And AGAIN, instead of addressing what I actually said, you put words in my mouth. That is again, evasion from you, becuase you know that my point is correct and you are AFRAID to discuss it honestly.
Are you worried that your lefty friends and family will turn on you, if you admit the Truth?
I disagree.
So it is against the law to smoke weed it has been for many years. Does that mean people do not smoke it?
No it is an attempt to make it acceptable because someone else did it. That is like saying well see your honor this man murdered this person yeah well this guy murdered more. That does not make murder okay simply because someone else did it. Okay by that logic then you hysteria over riots get debunked by the January 6th storming of the capitol. Thanks for that.
You openly said I am against America. Simply for disagreeing with you. That was quite the accusation there buster.
I have friends and family from many walks of life. They just are not married to one side being right like you are.
1. More stonewalling.
2. Again you pretend to be stupid. That one law is widely abused, does not mean that all laws are. AND, you cowardly ignore my points about national policy and society practice. My point stands.
3. THe way that you dismissed my explanation and invented your own? That was you shovelling bullshit. My point stands. It was to put your weaponized hystetria in prooper context, ie it is bullshit.
4. And again you put words in my mouth, instead of having the balls to address what I actually said. Your cowardice would be impressive. If cowardice was a virture.
5. Really? I'm suprised. So why then are you loyal to positions and polcies that you clearly realize cannot be defended except with dishonest and misleading tactics and rhetoric?
No.
Lol it showcases that just because something is a law does it mean it is followed. So you using a law to determine something being followed it is not necessarily true now is it? Your point does not stand that point debunks it.
Lol again false. Your hysteria about rioting and violence is also dismissed since your side stormed the capitol. Another point debunked.
You said my loyalty was to the lefty agenda and not America. All this because I disagree with you. So no you directly said that. You are lying and attempting to deflect.
I am not loyal to any team like you are. That is your bag not mine. Honest question why you like that and play for teams? Why not call out corruption on both ends as opposed to clutching your pearls and defending your team at all costs?
Right.
No one is denying it stinks, cigarette smokers stinky also though. Where do you draw the line?
No I am understanding perfectly. When someone immediately deflects when a flaw is brought up it shows they are deflecting. It is a way to downplay what their side is doing. I will acknowledge any flaw on my side without deflecting. You and the right will not.
Yeah they do. He has a lot of supporters for a reason.
We were not discussing that point. You brought up racism when I never mentioned it. You see how hypocritical you are right? So it is okay for you to claim that but if the left it is not acceptable? Nice logic there.
That is generalizing. You would not like it if everyone treated the right like they were braindead anti vaxers now would you? Quit generalizing it is getting rather old.
Do you push back against the drug war? You realize that locking people up for getting stoned has ruined families right?
No what has happened is you do not like that I called you out on bad faith behavior. You are not a genuine person who wants to inspire change. You are all about demonizing the side that is opposite to your own. You have no intent on bridging any kind of gap. My point stands.
1. Wrong.
2. Somewhere between cigarette smoke and pot skunk.
3. No, you are not. You are purposefully missing the point, so you can avoid the point. The 1/6 riot was a riot, a small short riot, compared to the hundreds of others of that time period. Having a hissy fit about that one riot, while ignore the others, shows the Left to be full of shit.
4. No, they don't. He is a fringe character for a reason.
5. There is a difference between making a valid point and massive use of false accusations. That is fine logic. That you want to pretend they are the same, is you being disingenous.
6. Generallizing is normal thinking. Not going to stop. Your inability to understand how it works? That is a YOU problem. Get over it.
7. Difference is, YOU agree that the behaviour is wrong, but refuse to join me in pushing back. That is group loyalty. I don't agree with you on the drug war.
8. If you would join me is mocking those bad people, that would be a fine bridge. Other cons who read this and saw it would be pleasantly shocked and adjust their view of the Left accordingly.
Right.
Notice how you think you determine this lol. Not how it works friend. I am just glad I live in a state where weed is legalized. You know I am right here and your denial is painfully obvious.
Acknowledging the 1/6 riot being wrong does not mean you are ignoring the other bad things done by another group. The point I am making is your side can't just go okay you know what that was wrong without deflecting to try and downplay it. This shows you are not secure in your position. You deliberately misunderstood this so you do not have to take responsibility for your groups wrongdoings. The 1/6 riot was wrong, no amount of deflecting to something else is going to change that.
Nope as I said he has lots of supporters for a reason.
You did not make a valid point. You mocked me as if I was the one doing that. This shows me you only care about calling out racism when it is done against your kind.
Not by smart people. I do not need to rely on generalizations to do the thinking for me. This is how prejudices start. Would you like it if I made bad generalizations about the right? Or is it better to judge every person as an individual?
You know the drug war is wrong also. Okay you said you think weed is fine to smoke in your private house. The right does not want weed legalized period. Why are you not pushing back on that? I just caught you in a contradiction and a lie. Watch what you say.
Same goes for you mocking the drug war. You think weed should be fine to smoke in your own house. So you should be mocking people on foxnews who do not think it should be legalized period. Get educated before making yourself look like a clown.
1. Wrong.
2. You asked me. Who did you think would answer?
3. Your complain is based on utterly ignoring my own words about my intent.
4. Lots? Care to vague that up a bit? He is fringe.
5. Yes, by smart people. Your attempt to avoid generalizations is silly. Your irrational obsession with "prejudices" is clouding your thinking.
6. I do not know that the drug war is wrong. I know that legalizing crack and heroin would be wrong.
7. I disagree with them, but I respect their opinion. I do not respect people that make false accusations of racism. I understand that you need to pretend to not get this, so you can generate... lots of words that are about attacking me, and avoiding any real issues.
Right.
I asked because you have no answer. Where do you draw the line? You think you have the authority to determine the smell that should be allowed and what shouldn't be? This is merely an opinion you gave. I can come back and say meh I disagree I think cigarette smoke is worse.
Nope it is about calling out you and your clan about deflecting.
No I would say he has quite the influence considering how many followers he has.
Nope smart people realize you judge things in case by case basis. Why should I use a generalization when I have my own brain?
No it would not be. I will ask the question again would you start doing heroin if it were legal tomorrow? I would not because I know the ramifications of doing it. I do not need a legal system to tell me not to experiment with certain drugs.
Why should you respect an opinion when it has been proven to be wrong? So you do not respect false accusations of racism but you respect people's opinion that people should be locked up for years for simply smoking weed? Wow! All I can say is man and I thought the hypocrisy from right wingers could not be any more blatant. My goodness wow!
1. wrong.
2. I gave you an answer. You saying it was not an answer, becasue you disagree with it, is just you revealing that YOU are the arrogant one here.
3. Context is not deflecting. Your complaint is based on ignoring my own words about my own intent, in favor of your own, which conveniently gives you an excuse to dis me. Common behavior among libs, btw.
4. You go ahead an touch each fire to see if it is hot, i will just remembeer past experiences and NOT do that, and let's see who has a better life. Is there a point to this?
5. Neither would I. Still I believe that legalizing such shit would be wrong.
6. If you were secure in your position, you would not exaggerate the oposing view. I respect people that are again the legalization of pot, even in private use, because they have valid reasons, that I believe that they sincerely believe. Those that use false accusations of racism, know that they are lying, their reasons for it are nonsense, and their goals are not good for people, but evil. Settle down your drame, btw. It does not impress me.
Right.
It was the most pitiful answer you could have given. That is why I did not count it as a real answer. However okay since you want to stand by it I can go with that. It still did nothing to further your point. All I have to do is disagree with you and say I feel cigarette smoke smells worse. No one is right or wrong. It is an opinion. So you actually made my point stronger thanks.
When someone mentions the 1/6 riot and you guys immediately jump to yeah well the left does this is you guys deflecting. You are in denial because you know you and your clan do that.
You will remember past experiences? Oh so you actually at one point in time touched that fire then? I said I would use my own brain. Just like you are using yours not to touch fire anymore. See you are actually catching on. I am proud of you. We are making progress. See you do not need to generalize in order to come that conclusion now do you?
So then the people who would do drugs will do them regardless of if they were legal or not. Why not instead of throwing them in jail create programs where they can actually get help? As opposed to throwing them in a prison and ruining their life further?
Lol you mean the way you exaggerated the views of the left? What is their valid reason for wanting it illegal in private use. Go ahead enlighten me. Some do honestly believe it is bad but others are shills and talking puppets for the right and will spout whatever their donor tells them to. Plenty of them know the benefits of making it legal and still want to continue ruining lives. That is also evil. So um nope try again.
1. Wrong.
2. Except that pot freaking REEKS. So, what is your point in defending the stench of pot?
3. YOUR side is conducting a witch hunt against everyone they can find from 1/6, without due process, and without respecting their rights, while ignoring the much worse riots of your side during the same time period. Thus, talking about 1/6 ISOLATED from the far more numerious and deadly riots of the Left, is morally and practically wrong and should be challenged.
4. Not touching fires in the future, because of being burned in the past, is generalizing. I am generalizing that fires are hot and burny. That I need to explain that to you, is... a you problem.
5. Because they are supporting a system of violence that kills lots of people and ruins whole communties. And putting them away in prisons keeps them away from normal, decent people. And I still disagree with your claim that drug use would not increase.
6. How did I exaggerate the views of the Left?
Right.
No one is denying pot reeks but so does cigarette smoke. I think people who don't brush their teeth or take a shower have bad body odor or bad breath. Is it illegal to go around with bad breath or body odor? You are picking and choosing what should be allowed in public. Since you are offended by pot then smoking cigarettes should not be allowed in public either. Neither should having bad breath or body odor. You are being hypocritical.
No we are not going there. Let me ask the question again. Were the people involved in the 1/6 riot in the wrong? Answer yes or no without deflecting. Your camp will not go yes okay that was wrong. It is always followed with but the left is worse... That game does not fly with me. I do not make excuses for the riots of blm or anybody vandalizing property. When I asked I say flat out it is wrong I do not deflect to the right.
No that would be called a conclusion you yourself have made by personal experience. Also fire hot that is an undisputable fact. No matter how many times you touch fire it will always burn you. The result will not change because it is a fact. People are not fire... Is every left leaning person a vile human who supports violence and rioting? Nope neither is every right leaning person. Fire will not generally burn you. It will burn you if you touch it period! So nice false equivalence but I caught it and saw through it. Try again. I will continue to judge people as individuals than a generalization. You go ahead and treat people based on that and we will see who gets along better with people.
You think putting them in prison and ruining their record does not ruin lives either? What happens when they get released? Someone gets caught for weed. Boom now they have a felony. Now you go to prison. They get severe ptsd from seeing bad things in prison. They get out they have a felony. Their job choices are limited. Low paying jobs which leads to poverty.
1. Wrong.
2. It is not "hypocritcial" to consider one smell to be worse than others, nor to consider that as one factor in why a certain drug should remain illegal, or not legal to use in public. Your odd need to pretend that any policy difference with you is somehow "bad" is just a manifestation of how close minded you are. A common issue with modern libs, generally speaking.
3. Sure, the actual rioters of 1/6 were wrong. I've admitted that repeatedly. NOw, what will you do NOW to avoid finding common ground?
4. What is your problem, that you want to fight against the normal process of thinking?
5. I was clear what the point was, ie to keep them away from good people. The way you ignored the fact that I already explained WHY I supported something and then asked the question, is... not good of you. Why did you do that?
6. How did I exaggerate the views of the Left?
Right.
Yeah it is because that is based on opinion. Like I said why should people be allowed to have bad breath or body odor in public then? In my opinion cigarette smoke is worse. Why is your opinion more valid than another person's?
Good now also call out the people who deflect when people bring that up. Pointing to another wrongdoing by another group does not excuse the wrongdoing your group is doing.
I just dismantled your logic. Fire is hot that is a fact. It will burn you no matter which way you touch it. You tried to attribute that as the same thing as making generalizations about people. That was lame on your end and you know it. I caught you in being ignorant. Do not do it anymore.
No I showcased how ruining their lives also destroys communities. You act as if locking them up in prison for weed does not ruin communities. That ruins lives doesn't it? Do weed smokers need to be kept from society?
I already answered this.
1. Wrong
2. Dude. Even people that smoke pot, don't like it when they have to smell stinky potheads in public. Your denial is strong.
3. So, there was no point to discussing how 1/6 was a riot. It was only a leading..."question" to get me to attack my own, people making a fine point that the wrong doers of 1/6 deserve due process, which they are not getting. That is not "common ground", that is you playing a gotcha game.
4. The way people think about fire, is a generalization. Your entire point of this pointless debate is to find an excuse to avoid addressing any points I come up with, because you know you cannot. Because on some level, you know that your positions are wrong.
5. You care about the criminals and I care about their victims. This is a normal representation of lib vs con.
6. You failed this. Your entire point was based on ignoring the my actual meaning and arguing against a point that was not my point. I've seen lots of libs do that. It is hard to admit that your side is the bad side.
Right.
Again we are not talking about whether it smells or not. It smells we can close the case on that. However so does cigarette smoke. So does bad breath, body odor etc. What determines what should be legal in public smell wise? I think cigarette smoke smells worse. Give me something other than your opinion that should determine whether it should be legal or not.
Everyone deserves due process. See how easy that was for me to say that without deflecting? Anytime you bring up the 1/6 riot you can rest assure conservatives will downplay it by deflecting to something else. Riots done by anyone who vandalize property are wrong, therefore blm doing that is wrong. As is the 1/6 riot. End of story.
Nope not what you originally said lol. You said not touching fire because of being burnt by it in the past. That is not a generalization that is a conclusion based on facts. Fire will burn you regardless of how you touch it. Even if you do not touch it you can prove that scientifically. You can't go well it is a fact every leftist is a violent person who supports rioting. Same way you can't do that with a conservative. Fire will not generally burn you if you touch it, it will burn you! Notice the difference? You failed on this point and you know it.
Nope I care about what is right. If someone on drugs violates someone's rights they should be arrested like anyone else. Someone smoking weed in their homes is a victimless crime. Just as is someone getting drunk in their home. Charging people for smoking weed causes harm to communities. Why ruin someone's life just for that? Who are you protecting?
No I have just addressed this many times before and you ignore it. Typical conservative behavior though. Not surprising. No side is better than the other. You are just caught into playing for a team. I can call out corruption no matter where it is. Again typical conservative behavior.
1 wrong.
2. The democratic process. Barring constitutinional issues. Are you claiming you have a right to reek of pot?
3. But the 1/6 defendents are not getting due process. Indeed, due process as a principle seems to be under constant assault today.
4. Generalizations are generally conclusions basesd on facts. The vast majority of lefties I have spoken to about has supported to varying degrees, the violent rioting of the Left. Thus a generalization that lefties generally support the violent lefty rioting, is valid. That you are offened by this, is just you being strange.
5. I already addressed that in the point you are trying to pivot away from. I made a point about keeping bad people away from good people and you are now tryhing to twist that into a strawman about potsmokers, as though you are not aware of the harm done by violent drug addicts and dealers.
6. I do not deny being on one side of the political divide. Your desire to keep repeating that point, is pointless. My point is thath your side is the bad side. Currently your defense is to not understand my point, and I have given up trying to explain it. You are either hysterically blind or dishonestly stonewalling. Either way, it is dumb of you to bring up a point, that I have explained that i cannot get you to understand.
Unless, your goal is to bog down the thread is stupid, pointless crap, for some reason.
You afraid of something?
Right.
That door swings both ways. Do people have a right to reek of cigarette smoke?
No we are not deflecting. Everyone deserves due process let me repeat everyone! This however does not excuse the 1/6 riot. That was wrong period end of story. See you will not even just go okay that was wrong. It has to follow up with yeah but... This is exactly what I am talking about.
See and right there you just shot yourself in the foot. Not all generalizations are based on facts. Even if you take the ones which are a generalization is just that a generalization. This kind of thinking is what leads to prejudice. Should you treat someone as an individual or just go off a generalization? I laugh at how disastrously your analogy was when you tried to compare it to touching fire. Abandoning that analogy now are we?
No you did not. How am I pivoting away? I am directly addressing what you are trying to claim. Not all drug addicts are bad people. I have had members in my family suffer from prescription drug abuse. Like anything else there are good and bad in it. Not all drug addicts commit violent crimes. Pot smokers often times commit less violence than alcoholics. You made the assumption that all drug addicts are violent. If you violate the law and commit a violent crime you should be charged like anyone else is. I am saying drug abuse in and of itself should not get you locked up. Especially when it comes to stuff like pot.
Yeah I know how you think. Any side I disagree with is the enemy. It is why this country is in such a bad state. Grow up. Notice I did not sink to your level. There are good and bad people on both sides. You denying that shows how childish you are.
I am not afraid of anything concerning you.
1. Wrong.
2. Of course not. Of course it is LEGAL right now.
3. Ironically, you could not go, "everyone deserves due process, end of story", you had to add "that does nto excuse the 1/6 riot". I said NOTHING about excuseing the riot. That, was YOU deflecting from teh lack of due process.
4. I Agree that not all generalizations are based on fact. I like the way you say "prejuidice" like you think that is a magic word that magically hides the fact that your counter point was against something I did not say.
5. I said nothing about them ALL being violent criminals.
6. Thanks for telling me what I think. And then attacking me based on your claims. And blaming ME for the country being divided based on that. Your lack of self awareness is typical of liberals.
7. It certainly looks that way from the way you insist on making ME or the way I think, or talk the issue over and over.
Right.
It is legal right now to smoke cigarettes. In some states it is legal to smoke pot.
Because you yourself would not call out the 1/6 riot without being apologetic about it. You did try to deflect from the riot. You stop being an apologist for it and will not be apologetic about the due process got it? Also what if I was to take your approach and go meh I do not care if they get due process? You took this approach when it came to the George Floyd incident.
No I was highlighting why I do not operate off of generalizations when it comes to people. You attempted to act like people are like fire. Notice how you will not pivot to that anymore? It was because it was a lousy analogy. My point remains not all generalizations are based off facts.
You generalized about them all being violent though.
Nothing is typical here you just can't handle someone disagreeing with you.
Well why act like a jerk and expect respect in return?
1 Wrong.
2.So, your point?
3. That is your self serving assumption about my intent, even though I have repeatedly explained otherwisee. Once again, no, STILL, we see that all you want to talk about is me.
4. As I already pointed out, I never claimed that ALL generalizations were based on facts. Are you implying that any generalization I have made was not based on facts, or is this more of just general musings, to avoid any real discussion of any real points?
5. Did not.
6. Blah, blah, blah. You know, I know that I am an interesting man. But even I find that a few months talking about me is enough.
7. Blah, blah, blah, and again all you want to do is twist any discussion to YOUR perceptions of me, and anything I say to the contrary, you dismiss. You must be a BLAST at parties. LOL!!!
Right.
Therefore your point about you wanting one banned publicly and not the other is ignorant. If one should be illegal for the smell then both should be. Be consistent.
See you will not address your own hypocrisy. Oh well I should not expect mature behavior from a conservative though right?
Okay then that means using them is not always effective right? Why did you drop the fire analogy? That not go well for you?
Okay then lets say you did not. Therefore my point stands. Not all drug addicts should be locked up.
Nice childish way of ignoring conversation.
Okay lets drop your behavior then. Start making logical points. You have yet to do so.
1. Wrong.
2. Except that one is far worse smelling than the other. So... it makes sense to treat it differently. You seem to have ZERO ability to see nuance.
3. I've lost you. Your response makes no sense to me.
4. Nothing is always effective. Your statement made no sense.
5. Drug ADDICTS? Were we speaking of drug ADDICTS? I don't think we were. Nice moving the goal posts.
6. And still, it's all about me.
7. LOL!!!!!!!!! Says teh man that does nothing but run away from points.
Right.
Your opinion. That is not a fact it is an opinion.
Too many big words for you? It is typical for a conservative to not follow logic though. I should not be surprised.
Oh it made perfect sense. Your fire analogy failed miserably.
No goal post move we were discussing the drug war. Nice try though.
When I refuted your point? No absolutely not.
1. Wrong.
2. It is a fact.
3. Nope. Try again. Or did you forget what point you were trying to make?
4. NOthing is always effective. Making a point that something is not always effective is... really stupid.
5. The drug war is not limited to addicts. For someone who is so... concerned about language that I use, you are oddly slopply with it.
6. You are being an asshole.
Right.
Nope opinion.
Yep I think you got lost because you lack intelligence. This is common among conservatives.
Exactly it is being fought not just by addicts by by police. Thank you for helping prove my point.
No not really. I am not the one who dismisses words.
1. Wrong.
2. Your denial is not credible.
3. Nope. Your refusal to clarify is noted.
4. You made a point about the Drug War involving the police? Wow. What a waste of time for you. And me.
5. Yes, you. An asshole. STOP DOING THAT.
True.
Nope it is an opinion nothing more. I can prove fire will burn you. That is not my opinion it is a fact. You can't prove pot smells worse than cigarettes.
Yep your denial is strong. Common among conservatives.
So then why do you act as if only addicts kill people as a result of it?
Okay then start being consistent in your logic.
1. False.
2. You know it does.
3. i'm not in denial, y0ou are.
4. I don't. You are very strange.
5. Blah, blah, blah.
True.
Where is your fact to back this? I am waiting.
No the in denial one is you. This is common among conservatives.
You did.
Okay then so you do not want to be civil then?
1. False.
2. Keep waiting. I'm not going to play a silly game trying to prove that a dead skunk stinks.
3. Pure gaslighting and stonewalling.
3. Nope. That was you imanging shit. Please stop doing that. It makes any serious discussion impossible. Oh, wait, that is your whole thing. No wonder you do it.
4. Dude. you are teh one acting rude. I'm just responding appropriately.
True.
Okay so then you have no fact to back you. Which proves my point that it was only your opinion.
Nope the one who gaslights here is you.
No I am not. You are the one who was rude first.
You exaggerated by assuming that every left leaning person screams about racism. I never did that.
shareYou haven't done it YET. And note how your individual behavior, clashing with my generalization was no problem for me. Or our discussion.
you are having a fit about it, BUT, it (my generalization) has not prevented us from discussing or exploring anything.
Indeed, it is your continued hissy fits about various pretend issues, such as my use of generalizations, that have bogged us down into senseless circles.
YOU are the one with the issue, not me.
No you claimed you wanted good faith discussions. Well speaking to people in condescending ways is not the way to foster good relations. I never mocked you about the drug deal now did I? You would not have liked it had I instantly lobbed insults in a making manner about your camp demonizing marijuana use. I guarantee you would not have appreciated it.
shareI would expect that a liberal who was operating in good faith would accept if not support mocking people that use false accusations of racism as a political weapon.
That is me assuming the BEST about you, not the worst. You failed to live up to my hopes.
Now, you are just harping on YOUR interpretation of the event, so that you have an excuse to marginalize me and thus not have to address any points I make, because on some level, you understand that serious honest discussion, makes it clear that many of your positions are indefensible.
I do not support false racism claims. You are just mad that I did not join in with you when you brought it up. Had you actually been civil and not lobbed that at all liberals in a condescending manner perhaps I would have. You lobbed that as an insult to basically say all liberals do it. This is what I am talking about when on how this is not a good way to inspire good faith discussions.
You made assumptions about the left which were negative. How is that you assuming the best? I lean left obviously.
No I just called out your behavior and you want to be a jerk and have it fly by. You act rude and you will be called on it period.
1. Not mad at all. That was a pointless thing for you to say.
2. I clearly did NOT say anything about all libs saying that, because I was hoping that you would join in, in mocking them too. It would have been some nice common ground.
It is telling how all your misunderstanding of me, seem to be about putting me or my words, in teh worst possible light. What a strange coincidence. MMMMMMMMMMMM.................
3. My point was clear. That was already explained. Repeatedly. Why are you pretending it was not?
4. Your "calling me out" was irrelevant. Your interpretation was wrong as I have explained. That you insist of, AGAIN, of dismissing my stated intent for YOU to harp on this, is you being.... disingenious.
Yeah I felt the need to call out it out since you showcased condescending behavior.
Had I made a joke about in mocking conservatives being against weed would you have joined in?
Your point was clear and it showcased you being rude.
No I don't believe my interpretation was wrong. I think I saw through your behavior.
1. Blah, blah, blah. Again, all you want to talk about is ME.
2. I don't share your views on that, the way you claim to share my view on false accusations of racism. As I have already explained. This is a pretty simple point. The situations thus are completely different. it is difficult to credit that you don't understand that.
3. Blah, blah, blah. Again, all you want to do is talk about ME.
4. Of course you would say that, becuase that gives you an excuse to keep harping about ME. Because that is all you want to talk about, ME. Also, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
Perhaps because you acted poorly.
Timeout. You do agree that smoking weed in your home should be fine. You openly stated that. So okay lets change the question. Would you join in on mocking conservatives that think smoking weed even in your own private home should be illegal? I have a strong feeling you would not do that. Also I can spit that right back at you. Do I think false racism claims occur? Yes like anything. However you do not bother to investigate you generalize and assume that all claims are false if it is against any race other than whites. You would dismiss someone who has a legit claim because it does not fit into your generalization. So no I do not fully agree with you on that.
Enough with your childish behavior. Grow up man seriously.
No I have no issue debating you. I just do not think you are a genuinely nice person. That is not the feeling I get from talking to you. We do not need to talk about you at all. However do not deflect when you get disproven on a point.
1. Blah, blah, blah, all you want to talk about is me.
2. That was a lot of shit there. How about trimming it down to something more reasonable.
3. And again, all you want to do is talk about me.
4. Blah, blah, blah, all you do is twist away from any real issues to talk about how bad a person you think i am. That is you avoiding issues, because you are afraid to discuss them.
Nope I just saw through your bad behavior. Do not worry though I see how you are so going forward I know to be on the defense.
Would you join in on mocking people who are against the legalization of smoking pot in your house?
No I actually want to discuss things.
You deflected when I disproved you. This is you being a delusional fart waffle.
1. Nonsense.
2. No.
3. LOL!!
4. At best, you are hysterically blind.
True actually.
Why not? You said you believed weed should be legalized to those who want to smoke it in their house.
false.
Just becuase I disagree, doesn't mean I feel they need mocked. I mean, I've explained that quite clearly multiple times before. Why would you need to ask me that again? Are you just playing silly games or something?
True.
Okay this swings both ways. Just because I disagree with false racism claims does it mean I feel it needs to be mocked. So since you would not mock those who think smoking weed in your home should be illegal I will not people who mock people who make false racism claims. See how that works? This is my whole point. You only want to mock stuff you feel strongly about. So no you do not want common ground. You want everyone to mock the things which irritate you.
False.
Sure. You disagree, but not strongly enough to mock them, despite how vile and divisive it is.
Seriously dude. What is wrong with you? That you needed to make a point about that.. that you needed to discuss it... BORING. and sad.
True.
You also disagree about weed being illegal to smoke in your house. However not strong enough to mock them. Despite how many lives charging people with that ruins. Boom checkmate! Coming at you with the same logic you use. You like those apples? How does it taste?
false.
Whoope dee freaking do.
Seriously dude. That should have been understood by you immediately.
True.
So then do not get all salty when you did the same thing you got all upset at me for. You are a hypocrite. I thought you wanted to reach common ground? Was that a lie?
1. False?
2 Salty? What are you even talking about? You are like a crazy person.
True.
You were hypocritical. You want people to join in on mocking what you dislike but you will not do the same in return. I thought you wanted to reach common ground? Was that a lie?
I've explained my reasoning mutlipe times. Asking me about it again, is you being disengenious. If you have something to say, just say it. Also, it would be nice if what you say, is not based on pretending to not know shit.
shareYour reasoning makes no difference. It was hypocritical and I called you on it. You lied about wanting common ground. You only want to mock the things you dislike.
share1.Yes. You refuse to address my actual point.
2. Three points. I clearly did not JUST reference law but also noted policy and practice. AND, The law was mostly followed and enforced. The law and the policy and the practice defined this nation for generations. AND even if I had only cited law, you would have had to shown that the law was WIDELY ignored, say on a level of the weed laws. You have not even tried to do that. You are utterly failing to defend your position.
3. I was not hysterical about anything. You asked me a question and your side's riots was part of the answer. My point stands. This lack of trust in the election process is not new AND not limited to our side, thus your use of it to attack us, is a fail.
4. What you should have done there, was demand I explain my point. Instead you inventned your own answer to that question, and then attacked me as based on the assumption that I have to think just like you. When you can clearly see i do not. That was very self serving of you. It gave you an excuse to evade serious discussion and to go on the attack. Such evasive tactics are very common in people who know that they are losing a debate. Well, dishonest people that are losing a debate. I am above such dishonest tactics.
5. If you say so. So, why are you holding loyal to a set of positions and beliefs that you know you have to use dishonest and evasive tactics in order to defend? Can you not see that the fact that the Truth is your enemy, means that you have sided with the Bad Guys?
I used a counter example you could not refute. You originally said the right does not suppress or hide information. I debunked this by showing you that they hid the medical benefits of marijuana. You had no retort to this.
Practice and policy mean nothing if the law is not being followed. Lol the weed law showcases that obviously that was not followed. Funny thing is I am not even claiming wacism occurred I just reject your position that if something is a law, or policy that it means there was none. It is a lazy way to dismiss claims of racism. You even openly admitted you would not call something racist if it came from a leftist source even if it were true. This shows you will only claim something to be racist if one of your right wing sources says it is. Notice how I did not do that? This shows I am willing to call a spade a spade. A fact is a fact regardless of where it comes from. The only racism you see is if it is against you. You do not care about racism against another group only your own. I care about racism against anyone. Notice again how I was not the one to cry wacism first? That was you. You deserve to be mocked.
Yep you were. Your side riots as well as proof of that was the storming of the capitol. So you don't get to use that excuse anymore.
When you make an accusation just because I disagree with you, I do not really care about your explanation. Lol you said I was against America and for the lefty agenda simply because I disagree with you. You are literally doing the exact thing you are accusing me of doing. If anyone disagrees with you, they are a brainwashed leftist. Get out of that echo chamber please. That tactic was dishonest so no you are not above anything spare me that holier than thou attitude I see through it.
How am I using evasive tactics? I addressed your first point multiple times and you pretended like I did not.
1. You used a counter example that did not address my point at all. As I have repeatedly explained. That you insist on playing stupiod on this, is an evasion tactic, commone among lefties who are afraid of honest discussion.
2. You keep playing stupid games. IF? Why don't you have the balls to just claim that the law was not followed? Because you know that you can't. AND, the law and the policy and practice are all a list of supporting histoical facts, not dependent on each other. You are just doing what you can to avoid admitting the truth.
3. No, I wasn't. You misunderstood my point. Convientantly as it gives you an excuse to derail the discussion AGAIN. lol. Do you think you are fooling anyone?
4. I clearly indicated my reason for making that accusation and it was not simple disagreement. BUT, by pretending to miss that, you get to pretend to have a hissy fit and pretend to have some moral high ground, all the while avoiding real discussion of the point.
5 Why are you so afraid of the Truth coming out?
It does address your point by calling out a claim you made. You said the only group to suppress and hide information was the left. I proved that to be false with the right by proving that point. This shows you will allow the right to slide on things you do not allow the left to.
Oh I can easily provide cases where the law is not being followed. Lets go back to this did Derek Chauvin follow the law when it came to George Floyd? You openly ran from this point as well. Was Derek Chauvin following the law? When I asked you this you said you did not care. The reason you do not care is because you know it goes against your agenda.
Yep you were. Since that excuses the right from hysteria that also excludes the left. Thank you for that. You want to cry wacism but get upset when others do it. You deserve to be mocked constantly. So apparently crying wacism applied to a conservative as opposed to a leftist in this case now didn't it?
No you did not. Anyone who does not agree with you, you label a leftist. You are not fooling me it might work elsewhere but not here.
I am not afraid of the truth coming out. It is why I do not stress at all about them investigating to see if the election was stolen. Do all the investigating you need to. The election was not stolen.
1. One source saying something does not silence other sources. What you just claimed, was senseless. It had the form of a counter point, but did not actually counter my point. YOu seem to not understand taht words need to REFLECT reality to have weight, instead you seem to think that SAYING shit, changes reality to what you want. Which is literally insane of you.
2. A few individual cases do not mean that the law is not being followed. If that was the case one could argue that MURDER is acceptable, because some murders happen, and even sometimes the murders don't get caught. That is a sensless position. Once again, your post had the FORM of a counter point, but failed to actually countetr my point.
The fact remains, that this country has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for blacks since the mid 60s, supported by the vast majority of citizens, as reflected in elections, democratically enacted laws, policies, both government and private and practice by nearly all major organs of society. You're denial of this documented historical reality, is just you being... a shit talker.
3. The way that you take what I say adn then assign meaning to it, despite me expressly stating was not my intent, is you being insane.
4. Blah, blah, blah. Your nonsequitor post is dismissed.
5. Of course you are. ALL you are doing is using various forms of evasion to avoid real discussion of any issues. THIS point was about why you are holding so firm to positions you know are wrong. Instaed of answering honestly you are trying to change the subject. That is you running from the truth.
Um when they purposely leave out information of the medical benefits of marijuana that is silencing. They refused to report the medical benefits of marijuana and they would use the it is a gateway argument for years. This is misleading the public and hiding information. This mirrors the complaint you had. The fact that you can't see it shows how much denial you are living in.
You are saying no racism occurred because of the laws. That is as stupid as saying no murders occur because it is against the law. You have not even investigated the majority of claims of racism yet expect me to just go off your word that most of the claims are false? Not in this lifetime smart guy.
Lol I never denied that history taking place. I rejected your manipulative tactic of dismissing the majority of racism claims. Nice attempt to twist words. Remember I never claimed wacism against anyone. I just do not believe you when you say the majority or racist claims are false. Why should I believe that? Just because the laws are not racist does it mean racism does not occur. Utter foolishness coming from you. Seriously I do not say this lightly you are so ignorant it is painful. Seek help you need it. I used to think like you but then I got educated.
Someone who shoots at someone 40 times can claim their intent was not to kill them. When your words are not matching up with your actions your words become meaningless. You mock leftists for crying about wacism then turn right around and do it yourself. Pot meet kettle.
Your denial is noted and consider it dismissed.
Nope what is running from the truth is playing for a team. Do not align yourself with a team it makes you cover up for corruption as opposed to being objective. You ran from the point about Derek Chauvin. You did that because you know I am right. Do you know Derek Chauvin's history as a police officer? Do you believe what he did to Floyd was legal or moral? Watch you will dodge these.
1. No, it's not. You are just saying shit that makes no sense now. Or again.
2. I said nothing like that. You are putting words in my mouth. Are you telling me that you spend weeks hung up on this point becuase you seriously thought I was claiming that ZERO RACISM occurred? You are clearly not stupid enough to believe that, so you are now just talking shit. Sophist shit.
3. Laws AND policy AND practice supported by the vast majority of hte people as demonstrated by all national elections. This nation has been greatly and increasingly hostile to any white racists since mid 60s to the point that even an unsupported or clearly false accusation is enough to destroy a man's life. Yet people on your side regurally claim that this is a racist nation, if not a "WHITE SUPREMACIST nation", which is so clearly false an insult to the intelligence of EVERYONE it is said to.
That is the reality of this country. All you have been doing for weeks is talking shit to avoid dealing with that honestly.
4. I was not shooting at someone. I was pointing out that your pretense that the republican action was some new and dramatic escalation, was simply not true. YOU assinged the worst possible intent to my words, ignoring context to do so, so that you could dodge admitting that your previous point was bullshit. Does it bother you that ALL your rhetorical skils have been based on evading the Truth?
5. See the differencce is, when I do that, it is called for. When you do it, it is not.
6. False choice logical fallacy. You are pretending that the being objective vs subjective is a switch all one way or another. That is clearly nonsense. We both are clearly on teams, opposing teams, the only difference is that you are lying to someone about it, perhaps yourself. As to Floyd, I'm not sure. I do know that I seriously doubt that Chauvin got a fair trial.
No your denial is beginning to show up once again.
You are using that as a means to dismiss most claims of racism. Which shows me that even if someone could factually prove something racist occurred you would revert to your generalization as a means to dismiss the claim. A rather underhanded tactic.
I do not have a side. You are wanting me to answer to arguments to which I never made. See how you place words in my mouth? I personally never claimed this to be a racist nation nor did I claim it to be white supremacist. Therefore none of this garbage applies to me. You did however claim wacism first and you deserve to be mocked for it. Every race is treated equally by in large.
Yeah you were. I saw your intent it was blatantly clear. You mocked anyone who is left claiming wacism yet it is acceptable for you to do so. That is hypocritical. I am mocking you for your hypocrisy.
Lol your denial is noted and dismissed yet again.
Nope I am not on a team that is you. You have no idea about Floyd? The facts are there and I know you have looked at them. Quit dodging the question. Convenient how you know nothing about Floyd but know Chauvin did not get a fair trial. That is suspicious.
1. Your words are senseless.
2. My point was a general point. I supported it with generations of documented history showing a nation deeply dedicated to equality for blacks. Of course a few examples would not counter that. If you want to push back against my position or supporting argumetn, you need to push back either against my conclusion or my supporting argument. You have not tried to do that. Probably because you know that I am completetly correct.
3. You are arguing against my claim that most accusations of wacism are false. I cited a few examples of common accusations for discussion purposes. I did not say that you said it. If this nation is NOT a wacist nation, than vast numbers of the accusations of wacism, are shit canned right there, a huge victory for my position. That was my intent, my point, your fake outrage over my supposedly putting words in your mouth, is ironically putting words in MY mouth. lol.
4. The Left has made fools of themselvse spouting false accusations of wacism like a freaking firehose. The Right has not. THus, it makse sense that I would mock lefties who cry wacism, while treating rights more civiliy. Different treatment based on the different behavior of different groups. That is not hypocrisy, but just dealing with the reality of what shitty behavior we have seen from lefties.
5. You clearly are on a side. What is suspicious about it? The Law is very complex and obtuse, while I can see the media lynch mob that clearly cares not for due process.
No your denial is what is senseless.
It was not a point but a generalization. All I have to do is point to exceptions to the rule and it means we can't just go with the generalization and call it a day. If you do that you are bound to be wrong in certain scenarios. I did push back against it. If you truly believe that just because something is practiced simply because it is a law or a policy you are an ignorant person. My weed point stands it undercuts your point.
Lol no your manipulation is no good here. Just because something is not racist as a whole does it mean there is no racism at all. And actually you just cut your own throat. So if America is not wacist as a whole that means it is not wacist against whites either. Thanks for that victory right there. Therefore your claim of wacism is also false. Think before speaking. You truly exemplify the bad traits of conservatives. This is typical of conservatives though they only think their camp is the victim. Answer me this are you a person that says all lives matter? Answer that, I am honestly curious.
The right has done that also. All I hear about is how America is racist against the white man. It is hypocrisy. America as a whole is not racist and that includes against whites lets go with your general claim. Sound good? So therefore since it is not wacist as whole any claims of wacism will be mocked. That includes you. Do not bring it up again.
It is suspicious because when it comes to defending a police officer you immediately jump to he did not get a fair trial. However when it comes to Floyd you run away and have nothing to say. That screams suspicion. This to me shows you do not care about what happened to Floyd. Typical though. I asked you if Chauvin was in the wrong you would not answer. See you will not answer because you know I am right. You care more about protecting your political ideology than you do about someone's life. That is rather disturbing. Seek help. What he did there was black and white it was on video yet you still refuse to comment. Pathetic and disgusting. Your credibility is shot.
1. Dude. Stop being weak.
2. My conclusion was about the vast majority of accusations. It is not credible for you to be so stupid as to not be able to understand that a few examples does not challenge my point at all. So, stop with the playing silly games.
3. My point was specifically about old school anti-minority racism. Hence my point about equality for blacks. REVERSE RACISM, ie racism against whites, is a complete different conversation. Sure that was clear. Did you really not get that?
4. Racist discriminatino against whites is legal and culturally celebrated and policy and practice from the federal government all the way down to individual behaviors. Your claim otherwise is nonsense.
5. I did not claim that he did not get a fair trial. Try again. This time, with more consice with less filler and more accurate.
Then do not dismiss my rebuttal. The right lies they are not exempt from lying like the left. This is a fact whether you like it or not. This includes suppressing information as well.
The vast majority of accusations you openly admitted you have not researched. Which means you are going off of a generalization simply because it is a law. By that same logic most people do not smoke weed since it is illegal. Weed is practiced smoking I guarantee you that. The law had little to no affect on stoners smoking weed. There are cases of discrimination which is veiled and are not right out in the open.
Minority racism still occurs. Racism can occur in any day and age whether it is against minorities or whites.
Nope you do not get to say that and have me buy your claim. By in large by the majority racism does not exist in America. This goes for any race.
You questioned if he did. Funny why are you not at all concerned about the Floyd scenario? Don't care?
1. My point was not about lying.
2. So, you are again pretending to not know that "law" was only one itme of a list of historical events? That's dumb. You are clearly not dumb. Drop the silly.
3. MMm, yeah. I never said otherwise and that has nothing to do with anything I said on the previous post. So...why are you even saying that? I mean, do you understand what the term "vast majority" means?
4. I again cited generations of policy, law, practice, culture. Your pretense otherwise, is really silly.
5. Thank you for admittting that. So you CAN read. Good. My point stands. You are clearly on a side, ie the Lefties.
Yeah it was since you mentioned how they suppressed information.
No I am stating that simply because laws change does it mean that you can dismiss racism simply because it is a law. That is like saying weed does not get smoked because it is illegal.
Yet you dismiss most claims based on a generalization.
In the past but currently as you stated there is no racism currently.
What point? Answer my question why are you not concerned about Floyd? Don't care? I am not on the side of lefties. I just do not think one side is all evil like you do.
1. And it was a lot more than just saying something you consider a lie. So, your constant pretense that you have not had that explained to you, over and over and over again, is you being silly.
2. And now you are pretending that I have not addressed that point over and over and over again. That is you being silly.
3. Citing generations of national consensus, policy, law, culture, and practice, is hardly a "generalization". You are being silly.
4. Not what I said at all. Are you pretending to be illiterate? Stop being silly.
5. You are clearly on the side of lefties. You clearly are on the side of the bad guys and know it, based on your behavior. Floyd? What about Floyd?
Which is why I also mentioned them suppressing information just like the left did. You want to paint the right as saints when they are anything but that.
You addressing it does not debunk it. It is against the law to discriminate someone based on race. Bottom line you use the law or policies and pretend like they are generally followed and practiced. It is a perfect way to ignore exceptions to a generalization.
You citing those is a way to dismiss someone claiming discrimination occurs even if they were telling the truth and it was an exception to the rule. You would deflect to that and ignore their claims. I proved this.
So no racism occurs currently I am glad we got that settled. Since that is the case do not bring it up anymore.
Nope I unlike you will call out bad deeds done by any group that includes left or right. Was what happened to Floyd wrong yes or no?
1. You can say it, but it's not true.
2. I pretend nothing. I expressly stated that it was "practiced". Did you really not notice me stating that over and over again? LOL. BULLSHIT.
3. I did not and you did not.
4. Not what I said at all. Silly boy.
5. I don't believe you. AND, even if you were being truthful, it would not change the fact that overall, generally speaking, lefties are sheep that circle the wagons like mindless sheep.
It is true. Your denial is rearing it's ugly head again.
Yeah you do. You would ignore someone's claims of discrimination because of the law policy and practice. You would ignore it even if their claim was true and an exception to the rule.
Yep you did and yes I did. Remember when i asked you if you would believe a discrimination claim if it were true but it came from a leftist source? You would not answer. If I heard a fact come from a right wing source I would believe it. Facts are facts. Apparently facts are only facts to you when they come from your right wing source.
So then America is racist then?
Generally speaking conservatives are brainwashed thugs who will do anything their leader says without question. Like you know claim the election was stolen.
1. No, you're just talking nonsense. I'm not sure why you think you can get away with that.
2. Are you admitting "The Rule" now? Or are you remaining vague so you can talk in circles and avoid having do defend your clearly false position?
3. Being skeptical of a source that has proven itself to be untrustworthy, is common sense. That you expect me to pretend that known liars, should be trusted, is you being silly.
4. As I said America has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for blacks (and other minorities) since the mid 60s, expressed democratically though national policy, laws, culture and practice. Also, during that same time, America has had a bi-partisan consensus on discriminating IN FAVOR OF BLACKS, against whites, to make up for past discrimination. Racially discriminating against a group, based on race, is RACISM. What part of this do you not understand?
5. Brainwashed thugs? FUnny then that during the Trump years, we had ONE riot and your side had over 400. Do you understand that one is LESS THAN 400? It is almost like what you just said, was the exact opposite of the TRUTH.... Exactly like that, in fact. LOL!!!!!!!!
No I am showcasing how your side is guilty of the same thing.
Never changed my position. I stand by the fact that you would ignore someone's legitimate claims of discrimination just because it does not fit into the generalization you adhere to.
You did not listen to how I worded it. All you hear is leftist bad, your brain shuts down the moment you hear leftist! If a leftist source reported a fact, let me say it again a FACT! Would you deny it just because it came from a leftist source? Yes or no?
What about the generations of minorities still alive which were affected by that discrimination? Anything to say about them? What about people still alive who benefited from that discrimination? I bet if this were flipped your stance would be different. I smell hypocrisy.
Did your side claim the election to be stolen? Why did they do this? Oh yeah because their deity told them it was stolen therefore it must be true. The same guy who claimed Obama's birth certificate was fake... Yeah he is totally credible.
1. No, you're not. You're talking nonsense.
2. ARE YOU ADMITTING THE RULE?
3. In your scenario, how would I know it was a fact?
4. Ask A question and don't give an answer AND your response before I even get to respond.
5. Funny a second ago you wanted to talk about thuggery. Now suddenly you want to change the subject. I guess you DO understand the difference between ONE and FOUR HUNDRED.
Not that you ADMITTED that your previous point was bullshit, you just moved on to another, as per the dishonest and cowardly tactic of CIRCULAR DEBATING.
https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-08-04
Your denial is rearing it's head again.
Answer my question.
A fact is a fact. Is the sun hot? If a leftist source claimed the sun to be hot would you believe it?
Okay go ahead and answer the questions.
They are thugs. I never denied the left being thugs either. Two wrongs do not make a right. Just because something might be worse does it excuse your groups actions. Not how this works. So nope your point gets destroyed. Pick up the pace this is getting boring.
1. Silly boy.
2. ARE YOU ADMITTING THE RULE?
3. In your scenario, how do I know that it is a fact?
4, Ask it like you're seriously asking a question and not being a propaganda spewing child.
5. You used the ONE riot to define conservatives "generally speaking". That makes no sense. It was ONE incident, by a few hundred people, not supported, not repeated. To use that to define conservatives as a group, makes no sense. Your side on the other hand, are indeed, generally thugs or supportive of thugs. Remember "mostly peaceful"? LOL!!!!
Don't be in denial it is not becoming.
I believe I already answered that.
If I said the sun was hot is that a fact since it is coming from me?
What about the generations of minorities still alive which were affected by that discrimination?
Nope I did not even mention the riot in this scenario I mentioned them believing him about the election being stolen. Remember how you guys respected the peaceful protest of Kaepernick? Oh wait that was not respected lol.
1. Without a hint of irony...or self awareness.
2. Not that I noticed. You play it very vague on your end, giving yourself room to dodge and weave and evade. ARE YOU ADMITTING THE RULE? YES OR FUCKING NO?
3. Are you saying that that is what the lefty source is reporting in your scenario? Because my question was how would I know, NOT what were they saying. The way that you never give a straight answer...that is not something to be proud of, do you realize that?
4. We were discussing my claim about the vast majority of claims, though I did not specify, I thought I was clearly discussing current events. Did you truly not catch that? So, to specifically answer your question...."what about them?", I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you asking me what about if they make a claim from something that happened in the 1950s? Or if they make a claim about somethign that happened today? How are this group of people relevant to the discussion we were/are having?
5. You made an unsupported accusation that my side were "brainwashed thugs". You didn't support that at all, so I had to guess what the hell you were talkinga about. If you were thinking of something else, just fill me in on it now, and we will move on. And just becasue a protest is peaceful, doesn't mean that the message or hte person is not shit. Just because you have the freedom to say something, doesn't mean that other people have to agree with it. I support his right to say that, (since his employers give him premission after the fact) but that does not mean I don't think he is a piece of shit, and his message is bullshit.
Your denial is showing. I proved my point when mentioning the lies they spread about the drug war. Your refusal to accept this is you doing the stonewalling.
Yet you are folding like a pretzel to protect Trump or your party at all costs. So I have a hard time believing you there. I was able to point out several wrongdoings your party is guilty of. Yet you only want to point the finger at the left.
And I do not believe you when you say you have never met an Alex Jones follower. I was joking when I said I met 100 because I was mocking your anecdotal claims.
1. Your stonewalling is still noted. I know that you are afraid that your position cannot stand up to scrutiny.
2. The left, today, is certainly The Bad Guy. You demonstrating that the Right is not perfect, does not require much comment.
3. What do you base your claim of his having significant impact on?
Your denial is showing again. Lies were spread about the drug war by the right. This is an indisputable fact.
Nope I am not buying that nonsense. If I was to take that approach with the right you would take issue. There are some things right wingers are right about and some things leftists are right about. You inability to see this is sheer ignorance on your end.
Did Alex Jones have a large following online? Yes or no? Did he make good money spreading the lies he did? Yes or no?
1. Irrelevant and off topic.
2. By and large the Left has decended into violent, radical madness. Ignoring that is allowing the evil anti-Americans to continue their work to destroy US all.
3. Not sure what you consider "Large". Making good money? Is that how you measure whether someone is mainstream or fringe, depending on how much money they made? LOL.
Nope it proves the right lies just like the left.
You do not get to demonize one side and let the right get away with corruption. I can link you to many corrupt things the right has done that is absolutely disgusting. There are good right wing people and bad just like the left. You claiming otherwise shows your arrogant entitled attitude. You think you are better than someone just because of your political stances. I could not ever hang around a person like that. I have right wing friends who are not closed minded like you are.
If someone makes good money off their followers that is an indicator that they have a pretty large following.
1. Have you seen any of the House hearings on the Twitter scandal?
2. It was clearly a general statement. Isolated incidents to the contrary do not disprove a general statement. That is the type of shit I should have to explain only to a small child. That you decided to use "pretending to be really stupid" as a rhetorical defense, is your brain dealing with the fact that you know I am right.
3. Or it could be that very marginalized ie fringe people have very few places that cater to them. In other words, you've got NOTHING to support your position that Alex Jones is relevant.
I have not followed it. It would make no difference. The point stands the right is not exempt from lying and suppressing information and neither is the left. Drop this the right are saints act you are not fooling anyone.
I do not go off generalizations. They can be correct but they can also be wrong. You hiding behind a generalized statement as though there are no exceptions is cowardly and illogical. You realize that is how certain prejudices are formed right. Rather than examine a case you just go by the generalization. You really think that is a way to be?
Lol absolutely not. There were plenty of places to support Alex Jones. You said it could be, which means you said that the scenario you posted was possible but not a fact. My point stands if someone gets tons of money or attention online that proves they have a big impact. Your snide comment and trying to demean me is dismissed. Him getting loads of attention and money online is all the proof I need to show he had a big impact. You not accepting that fact is a personal problem, not one on my end.
1. It is far more than just "lying" as I have repeatedly explained. That way that your brain keeps privoting your perceptions so that you are arguing a point that is not the point? That is your emotional committment overriding your logic. To a side that you know is the Bad Guys.
2. Dude. you're making no sense. They can be right or they can be wrong? You can say that about ANYTHING. That is no reason to reject an whole... concept. You might as well say that food can be healthy or unhealthy, so you've decided to not eat. You are talking nonsense to avoid real discussion, because on some level, you know that your position(s) are wrong.
3. "Places"? Name the biggest or most important "place" that supports him. And that idea that him being regularly referenced as an example of a fringe joke is "proof" on him being having an impact, is absurd.
Anything you accuse the left of doing the right has done the same. They are not exempt from their own form of corruption just like anyone else is. Stop with the tribalism it is rather annoying.
So then we should go off generalizations on people then correct? Is this what you are asserting?
I do not have to. He made gobs of money from people online. That is all the proof I need to show he has a big impact.
1. We do not have the philosophical basis for the group think and group action that we see in the Twitter Scandal. What you people are doing, is something we have not done and are not capable of, even if we wanted to. Note the way that ALL you are doing, is running from my actual point. ALL your energy has been spent on obfuscating the discussion, not actually discussing.
2. It is clearly a matter that requires JUDGEMENT from the people involved. And preferably GOOD FAITH. Just dismissing any reference to any generalization because generatlization "Bad" is... not reasonable.
3. Couldn't come up with one that didn't actually support my point, by being NOT a good example for you?
Oh please yes they do. Plenty of people who works for Foxnews were claiming to be anti vaccine despite many of them being vaccinated. Also I could keep going we have the January 6 storming of the capitol. Remember violence only ever happens on the left? Yeah that ordeal completely debunked that stupid claim you guys used to constantly use. How about the election being stolen crap your glorious guy attempted to push? You have to love the logic. If Trump loses it is stolen if he wins he won it fair and square. He has lost over 60 court cases yet you guys still think whatever he says is truth. It is like he is immune from criticism.
I am going to ask the question again. So it is okay to go off generalizations then? A generalization is a generalization. Generalizations are what lead to racist views or prejudices. You did not get taught very well did you?
All I need to prove my point is show how much money he made from people online. He had a huge following it is time to admit that.
claiming to be anti vaccine despite many of them being vaccinated
January 6 storming of the capitol
1. You don't know what you are talking about. Lefties in the FBI called up Twitter and asked them to censor people based on the weakest shit reasons and the twits just accepted it, and put their joint herd lefty thougth ahead of their professional and ethincal responsibilities to the shareholders and customers. That would not happer with righties. We don't have the philosophical basis for putting our political beliefs ahead of everything else.
2. A generalization is not a generalization. Some are reasonable, some are not. That some generalizations led to racism, does not mean that we have to warp our thinking to NOT learn about general... ideas or facts. That is, possibly, literally insane. And that bit where you cried wacism? Meant nothing, just noise.
3. Your stonewalling on your fail, is noted.
Again I am not dismissing shady things the left has done. You however are pretending like the right has never done anything wrong. Also I do not believe you that it would not happen with the right. I am not buying that.
Who decides what is a reasonable generalization? Seems you are getting into dangerous territory. Some people think insane generalizations are reasonable. Nowhere did I say you can't learn about general facts or ideas but when you operate only off generalizations it is bad. I did not cry racism. I said generalizations lead to prejudice and can lead to racism. Nice attempt to twist words. The one who cried about wacism was you.
Your ability to not retort or refute my point remains noted.
1. I've referenced a conspiracy between Lefties in Government, and Big Tech, to lie to the American publics, to the point that they managed to successfullly smear the TRUTH as a LIE, ie Russian MIsinformation. To "Balance" that, you point to some right leaning reporters whom you claim behaved hypocritically. That is not balance. You are... living in denial. At best.
2. You are shovelling crap with both hands. To pick ONE piece out of your Gish Gallope Logical Fallacy, nothing I have said, anything about "operating only off of generalizations". Disproving that, disproves all your list of weak points.
3. Your stonewalling is noted.
I also referenced lies told by the right. The fact that you only want to address lies by the left is you living in denial not me.
No it shows that you think you are the one who can determine if a generalization is reasonable or not.
Your ability to not refute my point remains noted.
1. Said the lefty who is afraid of discussing my point.
2. Well, I know I am of Good Faith and reasonable. You certainly do NOT appear to be that.
3. Stonewaller.
I did discuss the point.
Lol you have been anything but that. If that were the case you would address lies by the right not just the left. I noticed you got real quiet once I mentioned the election being stolen.
Liar.
1. No, you didn't. Not even close.
2. Don't be a liar. You are the one being evasive and dodgy, not me. That I don't address every piece of crap you throw against the wall, to see if something sticks, is me trying to keep you on point, instead of wandering off into the b.s. weeds.
3. Nope. Adn you are still a stonewaller.
Yes I did. You just did not like when I was able to debunk your points.
No that would be you. Who brought up wacism first oh yeah that was you. Who avoided a question which I asked that was you.
Liar.
1. You are either deep, deep in patholocial denial, or lying. You did not address my point, not even close.
2. I vaguely remembering referensing it. So what? How is that relevant to anything? You act like that matters? Seriously, you are just talking shit, because that is the only way you can "win" a debate. To bog it down in shit.
3. Nope, and you are still a stonewaller.
Present it again and I will debunk it. You have the floor even though I already addressed it.
It matters because anytime a leftist brings that up you mock them. Therefore you should be mocked for bringing up wacism.
Liar.
Once again your denial is showing. You need to keep that in check.
I will answer it again yes. However simply because something is a rule or a generalization is it a grounds to dismiss exceptions to the rule. You act as if generalizations are facts you are bound to be wrong in certain scenarios. It is why it is foolish to go off that in a blanket term and call it a day. Life just is not that simple. Also clean up the language and keep it classy. I have not used foul language against you. Lets not starting copping an attituded because I am winning the debate. This is typical conservative behavior though.
Wow I thought I made this clear. Okay a lefty source states that the sun is hot. The sun we know is hot that is a fact. Since a leftist source says that would you dismiss it because it is from a leftist source or would you admit that was a fact?
I was talking about today. Even if someone currently who was a minority had a legitimate claim and could prove discrimination you would dismiss it. That is underhanded and you know it.
Nope I provided a fact. Did your group believe the election was stolen? Who told them this? It was Trump. Obama's birth certificate being fake who told them this? It was Trump. They believed it because he said so. Both of those are facts. I did not just state they were brainwashed without providing facts to back me up. Nice try but your denial is dismissed. I specifically mentioned the election being stolen lie they bought into so no you did not need to guess. Do not play dumb. Nowhere did I state you had to agree with any protest. However that was a peaceful protest. No law was broken and nobody was physically harmed. Your group if they were in charge would not even allow that. Too bad you guys are not in charge of that huh? A shame you can't throw people in jail for voicing their opinion huh? You would like that wouldn't you?
1. You are the one out of touch with reality.
2. Thath is not how generalizations work. By their very nature, a generalization allows for exceptions. That you would assume that a generalization means no exceptions is... A. utterly senseless and B. very, very common among lefties.
3. I would respond by, "huh, isn't that interesting, that source that I know are liars felt comfortable telling the truth about something." And move on with my life. As I have actually done many times. That you think that would be an issue for me or my world view, is very strange.
4. So, an old persons today makes an accusation about wacism today. Why would you think that their age changes anything?
5. That's quite a list. Some people on my side believe the election was stolen. You seem to think that the reason for that is because Trump them that. Trump has nothing to do with this. Trump came late to the party. YOu are not understanding anything.
No I am afraid that is not the case. You are not used to people disagreeing with you.
Correct so that is why when you operate off them as if they are facts it i foolish. Operating off of a generalization is how lots of prejudices form. You ignore personal experiences or exceptions and adhere to the generalizations. Typical conservative behavior.
Funny if it is not an issue why were you so apprehensive about answering it? Notice how I stated from the jump I would accept a fact no matter where it came from? You did not do that initially I wonder why.
I did not say an old person I said a minority. Also you never answered my question. What about the old people who were affected by racism who are still alive today?
Oh plenty of your group believes that because Trump stated that. Like how they believed him about Obama's birth certificate being fake. So looks like I did bring facts with me when it came to your group. So your group are not the angels you paint them as. I am glad you are forced to acknowledge that now.
1. ? I'm completely used to people disagreeing with me. What are you even talking about now?
2. You missed the point where I just laid to rest your complaint about generalizations. YOU are the one confused about how they work, not me.
3. Because some sources have proven themselves to be unreliable. You seem to be unaware that unlike your Sun example, most claims require some trust in the source becuase the fact or NOT factness of the claim, is not easily apparent. In that case, anything said by succh a source, should be taken with a whole sack of grains of salt. Or just dismissed if it looks really self serving, until it has been repeated by a source that is more trustworthy.
4. I'm not following your point. You were talking about old people and then you weren't and then you were again. The fact remains, that this country has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for black people since the mid 60s, and the vast majority of accusations of wacism are false.
5. No, that is your misunderstanding of the situation. For example is it believable that the election was stolen because we have seen how liberals politicize any organization they infiltrate and abuse any trust they are given to advance their vile political agenda, no matter what or who they hurt. NOT becuase Trump said so.
Angels? I said nothing about us being angels. I discussed how your side are the bad guys, and you are. We are the Good Guys, relatively speaking. Not perfect but far better than you .
It does not seem like you are. This is showcased by your denial showing up consistently.
I know how they work you seem to not. Can a generalization be wrong? If the answer is yes and you know it is it means it is not something you can put total and complete faith in. You keep relying on generalizations I will look deeper into the matter than simply generalizing and walking away.
Ha no. If a right wing source tells me 2+2=4 I do not need to make sure it is true by confirming it to be true by waiting for a leftist source to confirm it for me. That is how you basically are operating. A fact is a fact regardless of where it comes from.
I said you would brush aside a minorities claim of discrimination even if it were true. You would do this since it does not fit into the generalization. I asked you what would you say about a person who is alive today that faced discrimination in their lifetime? Answer the question.
Yeah no. It is why Trump has lost over 60 court cases in trying to prove the election was stolen. Your group truly is brainwashed. If Trump wins he won fair and square if he loses it is voter fraud and the election was stolen. Your camp would come unglued if a leftist took this approach and you know it. The right has an agenda just like the left does. Difference is I am not denying the left has an agenda you act as if the right does not. Once again your denial is rearing it's ugly head.
No you are not I just demonstrated the corruption on your end and you could not even deny it. The fact remains there are good right wing and good left wing people, it is not as simple as generalizing which is your favorite thing to do. You have no moral high ground so you can drop the holier than thou attitude.
1. Your ability to preceive others, and understand them is clearly lacking.
2. Your assumption that I put complete and totaly faith in a generalization, is you failing to understand how generalizations work.
3. Why are you pretending that it is easy to tell what is a fact or not?
4. "Faced discrimination"? That's pretty vague. Give me a better example.
5. You people have politicized everything you have touched. Thus we have lost faith in them/you because you have demonstrated that you are willing to put your political affiliations ahead of your legal or ethical responsibilities. You gave no thought to the cost of your actions. Well, here they are. WE don't trust you.
6. All human endevors are imperfect. That does not change the fact that you people are holding and defending and enacting policies that you know are harmful to America and Americans and that makes you the BAD GUYS.
No that is projection on your end. I understand people just fine.
You do put faith in them. It is why you will blindly dismiss any claim of discrimination by a minority. You would dismiss it even if it was legitimate.
Listen to what you said a fact. Do I need to go over the definition for you? 2+2=4 that is a fact correct? Why would it matter if a leftist or a right wing source stated this? What difference would it make? Would it change that fact?
Okay lets so Emmit Till's mother Mamie Till. She lived way past the 60's. We all know the tragedy she faced. Does she deserve any compensation for what happened or is it tough luck and move on? I mean after all it is over with.
You are speaking to me not some brainwashed individual. I do not shill for a side, that is your gig not mine. Your entire point here get dismissed since there are many things I disagree with both sides about.
What policies am I enacting? Not the left me. Go ahead enlighten me. Since you want to lump me into category I can do the same to you. You believe in the war on drugs. That has caused damage to society and the country.
1. No, you don't.
2. Your assumptions are supported solely by your pretense of not understanding how generalizations work.
I'm not kidding. YOur misunderstanding of a common english word, is the basis of your argument. The only basis.
3. The way that you are pretending that facts are easy to tell from lies, is you being afraid to discuss the point seriously or honestly. Becuase on some level, you know you are in teh wrong.
4. Why are you completely changing the subject from modern accusations being mostly false, to something that happened well before either of us were born?
5. You made a point blaming Trump for our lack of faith in our institutions and organizations. I was correctly pointing out that it was not Trump's words, but hte actions of libs inside those organizations that caused our lack of faith. Your refusal to admit that, is you shilling for them.
6. Here you pretended to not understand teh concept of a list, ie "holding and defending and enacting" to avoid honestly or seriously addressing my point. Such evasive tactics are common in people that know they have lost the debate.
Yes, I do.
I understand how they work. Thing is I do not operate that way. I look deeper than a generalization where as you do not.
I told you the case of an obvious fact. Obvious facts are facts regardless of where they come from.
Because you said they are going out of their way to compensate by treating blacks better than whites. So in Mamie Till's case did she deserve compensation? Or should she just accept it move on and go well hey it is in the past? Answer the question.
Nope not when they follow suit with all of his claims. That birth certificate being fake was believed because it was a fuse he lit. After demanding Obama show it. So no you are wrong.
Which is why you accused me of something I never took part in. Tell me do you believe in the war on drugs? Your group does so since you are part of the right that means you believe in that war also correct?
1. You know there are studies showing that lefties are teh WORST at understanding other people, especially conservatives.
2. But most facts are not obvious. Such as a claim that a certain laptop is fake, misinformation by Russian Intelligence. In that case, trusting a source that is known to lie, A LOT, especially on matters that hurt the lefty agenda, would be foolish in the extreme.
3. My point was that society as a whole are discriminating against whites, in favor of blacks (A.A. ECT) to make up for past injustices. That society has or has not specifically address the Till case, does not...address that at all.
4. He might have lit that specific fuse, but HE is not why it was beleived.
5. I did not accuse you of taking part in the policies. Here you are pretending to not understand the meaning of the word "and". You specifically as an individual, I have seen right here, "hold" these positions and "support" them. The way that you had to pretend to not understand what I was saying, in order to dodge my point and instead launch a silly attack BASED on your pretense of what I said? That is you knowing that your position is WRONG, and holding to it anyways. That is MORALLY WRONG of you.
I am supposed to take your word for that? It is hard to understand conservatives since they constantly contradict themselves.
Which is why I asked about the facts that are obvious. Notice how you still had to make sure it was a right wing source? Because right wing sources never lie right? That is exclusive to the left. I am glad you enlightened me.
I heard your point and I just undercut it. So did Till's mother deserve any compensation for what happened to her son? I also asked about the folks who faced the injustices of discrimination that are still around today. Notice you had no retort to that. You do not want any compensation for anyone even those who went through those injustices. Then you expect people to feel sympathy towards you when you care nothing about that? Good luck with that rhetoric.
Oh he is totally why that was believed. You are lying and you know it.
No I understood you perfectly. You dodged my point again. Do you believe and support the drug war? Yes or no? You dodging my points is deceptive. That is morally wrong on your end. Tell us what you truly support. The drug war is a right wing policy. Therefore you stand by it right?
1. https://theindependentwhig.com/haidt-passages/haidt/conservatives-understand-liberals-better-than-liberals-understand-conservatives/
2. I said nothing on right wing sources never lying. My point was about sources that prove themselves to lie A LOT.
3.My point was about most accusations today, being false. Discussion old incidents from well before the bi-national consensus I talked about, is moot to that point.
4. No, I don't know it. The people I know who support Trump, they have been trending this way for quite some time, LONG beore Trump and the force that has pushed them even further that way has not benen Trump's words, but the hysterical, and murderous and treasonous overreaction of the Left, to the idea that people like US would ever have a voice.
5. I'm aware that the way we are addressing the drug issue now is not working. I am open to new ideas on how to deal with it, from medicalilizing treatment to death penalties for dealers to sealing the border with the military.
My goal is the best interests of America and Americans.
You on the other hand, hold and support policies that you know are bad for America and Americans. That is why YOU personally have been CONSTANTLY evasive in this thread. Because you konw that the policies you support are BAD FOR US, but you support them anyways, even if you don't know why.
Lol referencing Reagan is a quick way to lose me. He is not the saint they paint him out to be. I raise my eyebrow at studies like that when you know they are biased.
So then this is not exclusive to left wing sources. Therefore do not try and paint that picture anymore.
It is not moot because the people still alive today may still be being affected by things in the past. You are not interested in that though. You act as if once the 60's was over all justice was served and everyone was treated totally fair. Tell that to Till's mother.
Yep you do know it. He lit the fuse. There is no denying that. You like most Trump worshippers are making excuses for him. He is a lying scumbag and you know it.
If your interest was in the best interest of America you would not fight against the legalization of marijuana. Marijuana has been proven to not be as bad as opioids or alcohol. Yet you want to demonize it as if someone killed someone whenever someone smokes it. I find it funny that the most dangerous thing about marijuana is being caught with it.
You have no idea which policies I support. Which is why when I asked you, you dodged it. So lets go again what policies do I support?
1. I read the book. The researcher in question was liberal when he did most of the work. Liberals are the worst at understanding others, especially conservatives. That is the science. Denying it, is being anti-science.
2. Back to stonewalling.
3. I did no such thing. My point was fairly simple. You disagreed, and then when we get into why, you make an argument against a point I did not make. This is again, evasion on your part. My point stands. Teh vast majority of accusations of wacism, are false.
4. I clearly agreed that he lit the fuse. My point was that he was not believed becasue of... loyalty to him the man, but becuase of hte way we have seen our institutions politicized and weaponized by people like you. You people never seem to think of the COSTS of your actions.
5. I have not fought against that. I do NOT want stinky potheads at my bars or in public, but peopel smoking in private would be fine with me. And I do believe it is bad for you. iMO the real reason that has not happened is that the dems consider all the potheads their property and don't feel they need to put ANY work into getting their votes.
But Crack? Meth? I want to crush them and the people that make/sell it. I would not mind mass execututions.
6. You clearly support the policy of discriminating against whites in favor of blacks to make up for past wrongs. I could make a good guess on others, if you would like?
Of course you read the book. Anything which gives you confirmation bias you will read. The science of who the researcher? Why should I believe this research was completely fair? I will make a claim myself. Conservatives are the worst at understanding anyone including themselves. I can do that same type of thing ready? https://www.psypost.org/2018/06/conservative-syndrome-help-explain-link-religiosity-lower-intelligence-51589
Nope telling the truth.
Nope I am not believing your anecdotal claim. You by your own admission have not researched most of the claims. So no we are not using a generalization as a fact. Just remember you were the one to bring up wacism first not me. You deserve to be mocked for it. Since you mock anyone else who brings it up I am going to always smear that in your face. It is okay for you to claim it but others can't. Nice logic there you hypocrite.
No they believed him because they have loyalty to him. You are lying here and you know it. Trump did not like Obama and therefore had to make up lies about him.
Not your choice. That is like saying I do not want stinky cigarette smokers at my bars or in public. I do not smoke that stuff either. However they are allowed to smoke outside and then go into the bar. It being bad for you is irrelevant. Smoking cigarettes' is worse for you and drinking alcohol consistently is bad for you also. So is eating doughnuts, twinkies, cheesecake etc. I never once said it was healthy but it is better for you than cigarettes' yet it is demonized by your group.
You want to crush them? Then end the drug war. That is what gives the cartels their power is the black market. You end the drug war it takes away their power.
Nope you twisted my words. I asked you if Till's mother deserved any compensation for what was done to her. You had no answer. I asked you about people who dealt with discrimination or were affected by those laws in the past still being hindered today you had no answer. I myself get no handouts or freebies from the past. I do not expect them since I was not personally affected by those things in the past or currently hindered by those things today. However some people were and you dodging it proves my point. So you are wrong about that. Go ahead throw other false accusations at me. What else do I support?
1. I've always been interested in how people think. Some excerpts I saw made me want to see the rest of the book. The bit about libs being terrible at understanding was not the point of the book, it was more about how different groups have different frameworks they operate from.
BUT, libs like yourself do suck at understanding conservatives.
2. It would be stupid to trust a source you know to be dishonest.
3. It is my choice. Smell is not something that keeps to your person, it impinges on me. I don't want potheads turning public places disgusting.
4. What do oyou mean? END the drug war? You want to legalize crack? Meth?
5. The point of discussion is my assertion that hte majority of accusations of racism are false. Discussing something from 70 years ago, is not relevant to the current era, YOU are the one being evasive.
Yet you used it as a means to put down liberals. I saw what you were doing. I lean left by I am by no means a textbook liberal. I did not even vote for Joe Biden. I just unlike you do not think one side is pure. I think that is why our country is in a mess. Rather than look at a person's character in a case by case basis we look at labels. You look at a label and run with it.
Not when the fact is obvious. You would not question the source that stated 2+2=4. That is an obvious fact regardless of where it comes from.
Nope it is not. We as people still have to deal with the smell of people who smoke cigarettes'. Even though they are not allowed to do it in public spaces they do it outside and that smell lingers on them. They then go in bars, stores etc where we all have to smell it. So by your logic they should not be allowed to be in public either. Not the way it works.
Drug addiction should be treated as a mental illness rather than a legal issue. Only time drugs should be a legal issue is when it is hindering someone else. If someone wants to go in the desert and do meth by themselves it should not be a legal issue. Now if they do it in a building where it affects others that is when the law should step in. If meth was legal tomorrow would you do it? If the answer is no what does this prove? It proves that those who would do drugs currently would still do them if they were legal or not. The law does not deter people from doing drugs. I do not do drugs because I am educated on the health risks. I do not need the law to tell me what to put in my body. That is what my brain is for.
It is totally relevant when someone today who survived through the wrongdoings in the past is being hindered by things in the past. Some of the people affected by that are still alive today. You denying this?
1. No, my point was to get you to realize that you need to be less certain of your assumptions of others. Especially conservatives.
2. True. It would take a poor liar to try to lie about that. Most liars know that a good liar has to be plausible. Such as Russians putting out disinformation to divide America. They are our enemy and that is the type of thing that they would do. It was a plausible lie. ANd it worked, becuase people foolishly trusted the media.
3. Pot smells like dead skunks. You want to get stoned? Do it at home. That's my position on the issue.
4. I understand your position, but as we see from Prohibition, legalization DOES leadd to increased consumption. Ironically, you just did what you slammed Nixon for doing, ie not "learning from history". When you read that you will have a flash of discomfort as you realize that you are wrong. Studies show that you will instead of learning, double down on your erronous position.
5. I don't deny the existence of old people. My point was that the vast majority of accusation of racism in America are false. You clearly disagree, yet your arguments to support your disagreement strangely do not address that subject at all.
Do you realize that that reveals that on some level you know that I am right?
Same goes to you about your assumptions of liberals. All you have done is spout out assumptions. This is what I am talking about. It is okay for you to do these things but others can not.
This does not apply to me since I do not trust the media.
Cigarettes' reek also, should they only be allowed to do it at home since it stinks? You need to be consistent with your logic here.
Alcohol became more dangerous to consume because of the black market. Even if drug abuse went on the rise the pros would outweigh the cons. I want more room in prisons for child predators, rapists and murderers rather than drug users. It would also foster better relations between the police and citizens. Cops could go out and be more focused on finding real crime as opposed to busting someone for something they do to their own body.
You use that generalization as I said to dismiss any claim of discrimination. If a minority had a legitimate case you would dismiss it based on that generalization. Even if I were to agree with that generalization I am not convinced you are using that for genuine reasons. I think you are using that as a means to dismiss claims of racism entirely. That is my issue.
You are not right when you want to dismiss a claim based on generalizations. You would not like that being done to you.
1. If I make an assumpt based on limited data, I do keep that in mind. You libs are the ones that have twisted yourself up so much that you don't know how normal thinking works.
2. Well, what do YOU then do, when they assert a factual claim that is NOT obvious?
3. No, pot is far worse. Potheads stink like skunks. They are disgusting.
3. How many more do you think would get addicted to crack or meth or opiods?
4. That is your assumption. And you are thus dismissing MY words, entirely. Meanwhile, you know that I am right. That is why you have not even TRIED to actually address that point.
5. You are not right when you want us to accept claims of racism, that hurt people adn society greatly, without ANY consideration of whether or not they are true.
I do not believe you do keep that in mind. You do not get to lump all libs together. If you get to do that I can do the same with conservatives.
Obviously you question it. That was not my original point though.
Your opinion. I would much rather smell pot than cigarette smoke.
Not as many as you think. Also as I said the pros would outweigh the cons.
No I am seeing you do it. It is why you say nothing about the folks who are still affected by those past discriminations currently. You do it as a means to dismiss all claims of racism regardless if they are true. You think you are slick, I see what you are doing.
Yep good thing I never did that huh? I never did so that gets dismissed and consider it out of hand. Never once did I say you should believe every claim someone made. You should not dismiss every claim either though. It goes both ways.
1. Well, I'm telling you I do.
2. So, what is your... issue with what I said then?
3. Objectively, potheads reek like dead skunks.
4. I think you are wrong. I think it would be measured in the MILLIONS. MILLIONS of people, killed or ruined.
5. Not once have you mentioned any need of EVIDENCE to support any of these claims.
6. Did you believe Jussiet Sommlet?
I do not believe you.
I asked you if you would believe an obvious fact from a left leaning source and you would not answer. You said I would wait for it to come from a believable source. Do you need a trustworthy source to tell you 2+2=4?
Objectively cigarette smokers stink also. They reek like a stinky ash tray. Therefore they by your logic should not be allowed in public either.
You take away the cartel's power it would save millions of lives in the process.
I do not need to. I have yet to hear you acknowledge any form of current racism against minorities. It is why you ran away from the George Floyd point.
Nope because upon further investigation it was shown that he lied. However just because he lied does it mean everyone lies. It as I originally said it is a case by case basis.
1. Your paranoria is your personality flaw.
2. Which is not nearly as bad as a dead skunk.
3. While millions of others are ruined. I want a better answer.
4. Well, I said that the vast majority of accusations are false. That indicates that a minority of them are true. I did NOT say that they were ALL false. Does that make you feel any better?
5. Clearly I was asking about the initial reports. It is sad that you dodged that. I repeat did you believe him?
No I think I am a pretty good judge of character.
Your opinion, I think it is worse.
So back to my original question then. If drugs were legal tomorrow would you do them?
Okay better. Funny how you were so condescending in bringing it up though. Saying wacism and all of that crap. You were the one to bring it up yet you accuse the left or being obsessed with wacism? You want change do not act condescending anymore got it?
I answered you already. I did not know until I did further investigation. I did not know whether to believe him or not. I told you it is a case by case basis. Unlike you I wait until the facts come out to make a definitive decision on what I believe.
1. Science says you would say that, and be wrong.
2. I don't believe you.
3. Me personally? Maybe. If quality and safety was increased, I might try certain party druges. My concern more are the poor young people who would get addicted to crack or meth.
4. Not better. It was always there. You were just ignoring it for some reason.
5. "FACTS"? That is the first you've mentioned facts. How do "facts" figure into whether or not to beleive accusations of racism.
No actually wrong. I do not fit the demographic your little chart wants to box me into. Nice try though.
Lol does not matter. Someone can think cigarette smoke smells worse than pot. This is an opinion. So where is the cutoff then when it comes to smell? Even if you think pot smells worse you can't lie and tell me cigarette smoke does not give off a smell and lingers on someone. So where is the cutoff in terms of smell where we determine it is okay or not to be in public?
I would not because I know better. I know better than to do meth, or crack no matter how pure it might be. I know the ramifications. I do not need the law to do the thinking for me.
No you as I said before you used it as a manipulative tool to dismiss any claims of discrimination.
Um someone says a claim how do you determine the truth? You investigate it. You see if the claim holds up to scrutiny. His claim did not. I had no idea upon first claim because I had not done my research.
1. Correct, you are wrong.
2. I am fully within my rights to vote according to my "opinion".
3. Millions would do otherwise, and millions would suffer as a result. That is a cost of your policy.
4. You say that, but my words say otherwise. So, you are just assuming. And you are wrong.
5. Very few people have any ability to do any investigations. I certainly don't.
Incorrect I am right.
And so am I. By your logic cigarette smokers should not be allowed in public either.
I do not believe you are correct. As I stated the pros would outweigh the cons.
Words and actions mean separate things. I do not believe you were being genuine especially when you said wacism. This showed me you are a condescending person.
Um to look over the case of stuff you can verify online? I am not claiming you need to be a detective. Court documents? Court hearings can be seen online.
1. WRONG.
2. The democratcially enacted law says otherwise.
3 I think otherwise.
4. The level of... idiocy when it comes to how we as a society treat retarded accusations of wacism seroiusly, mockery is NEEDED.
4. Do you believe that Trump said that w.s. were very fine people?
Right.
Which shows you only favor the law when it supports what you want. Are you consistent with your logic or not?
Well I disagree with you.
No it is not. Not if you want to influence change. You did it to me when I never brought it up. Had I brought it up I could understand it somewhat, thing is I never did.
I have not looked into that. I do not believe he would say that. Even though I think he is a garbage president.
1. Wrong.
2. Operating from a single data point. Good statistically analysis.
Not.
3. I think if you look back, I was careful to use it when disccussing generally. I try to be care to not mock people until they demonstrate they deserve it.
4. I am impressed. Good call. It was a trap. Obviously. BUt the vast majority of lefties cannot resist it.
Right.
Be consistent with your logic.
You mocked me about it despite me never bringing it up. That was uncalled for. Admit it.
I dislike Trump but I do not need to spread lies. He messes up enough I do not need to lie. He digs his own grave without anyone having to lie about how awful he is.
1. Wrong.
2. I am.
3. I don't think I did.
4. Glad to hear it.
Right.
No you are not. Why is smell not ok for pot but it is for cigarettes.
Yes you did. You brought it up first. You brought up wacism in a mocking manner. I never brought up race you did.
I got plenty of dirt on Trump why would I have to lie?
Where was this definition?
If that even happened, which is just as likely to be Republican BS, it would only be because malicious Republicans screwed the word immunity up on social media as you clowns try to do every day. Thank goodness the only people who listen to you are each other - and I bet most of you are whine about the vaccines have taken it and are lying about it.
A political party didn't create the vaccine you moron. Scientists did. If covid vaccines are really as dangerous as the lefties are claiming then why isn't Biden banning them?
share