Halifax2TheMax said:

show previous quotes

cincybearcat said:

Jesus Christ when did it become ok to label other poster with labels like sex ist when you disagree with them? 

If you disagree you get a label. You get the “false equivalency” junk, you get all kinds of the words of the day. 

It’s clear some are ok with minor crimes as long as it’s their team. I get it, it’s frustrating. Id be tempted. But it’s not right. Hugh is correct and from what I’ve seen on this forums is far from a sexist. So just stop the nonsense labels.

When is it okay to label posters as advocating for violence when the person who posted did nothing of the sort and then accuse them of hiding behind something. Yea it’s fucking old when certain posters complain about the same shit they themselves do and whine about it. There’s a difference between disagreeing and coming across as sexist. That’s lost on some however.

Shall I repost all the “labels” I’ve been labeled? 

cincybearcat said:

show previous quotes

mrussel1 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mrussel1 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mrussel1 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mrussel1 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mrussel1 said:

Merkin Baller said:

If I didn't know better, I would think certain people are much more concerned with right wing talking points than they are with a president whose behavior is appearing more and more treasonous with every passing day.

But hey, to each his own.

It's a good thing you know better then.  But the reality is that I live in a world that is not a bubble.  I see how moderates, indys and conservatives think and take in information.  I work in financial services which is fiscally conservative by nature, but socially moderate.  I read National Review, Reason, Amcon, and others.  I care about winning elections.  If you think destroying downtown San Jose helped the cause in 16, you're wrong.  If you think destroying Minneapolis advances the cause, you're wrong.  And if you're not advancing it, your're hurting it. 

There's a huge difference in standing up for a principle and resorting to wanton destruction.  Stand up for Kap.  Stand up to China and the NBA.  Stand up for what's right vs wrong.  But destroying property isn't right and if you think a riot is a positive thing, you've lost your damned mind. 

Ok, so here’s the thing: I checked National Review, and Reason, and neither one of those outlets is reporting that Minneapolis got destroyed. Nowhere have I read about wanton destruction of property and truth be told I’m not finding too many reports using the word “riot” in reference to what happened in Minneapolis two nights ago. 
I DID read about the following: 
*some isolated skirmishes and reports of punches being thrown, including one trump supporter being called a Nazi and getting punched in the back of the head - all completely unacceptable 
* a trump supporter being spat on - completely unacceptable 
* reports of objects being thrown at police when they attempted to disperse the crowd - completely unacceptable (USA Today reported one incident of urine being thrown, but no other outlets are reporting it - completely unacceptable if true)
* one report of a trump supporter having his maga hat stolen off his head - completely unacceptable if true
* reports of maga hats and flags being burned in the street ***
*reports of a mostly peaceful day that went sideways at the end forcing police to disperse the crowd w/ pepper spray
*several reports of a single (1) arrest and a single (1) citation for disorderly conduct being issued 
(the local Fox News affiliate was one of the websites I searched for information about this story) 

None of these things, or even all of them combined, come close to “destroying Minneapolis” or “wanton destruction.” (If you used that last term only in reference to maga hats being burned in protest, you’re reaching) Also, none of this even comes close to what happened in Charlottesville, if we’re going to go down the road of comparing this to other major protests in recent years. 

I welcome any links you can share that may further enlighten me as to what happened Thursday night. Based on what I’ve read however, your comment appears to be little more than hyperbolic nonsense. Hyperbolic nonsense that serves Trump’s agenda by spreading misinformation about the fictional destruction of Minneapolis by “the left.” 

I fully support the arrests and prosecution of anyone who broke laws Thursday night. I don’t condone violence or destruction from any political activists, regardless of their allegiance. I also don’t condone the misrepresentation of incidents through the use of hyperbole or exaggeration. If we can’t accurately discuss an incident, how can we respond proportionately? 

But hey... congrats on not living in a bubble, I guess.  

***I don’t support or advocate the burning of the flag, but my opinion is irrelevant considering it’s protected speech. I would imagine the same applies to the maga hats, provided they weren’t stolen. If they WERE stolen, I fully support the arrest & prosecution of the offenders. 

Nowhere did I say that Reason or NRO was reporting on this particular story.  I'm saying that I do my best to stay out of the bubble by reading publications that I don't necessarily agree with.  Regarding my "hyperbolic nonsense", I'm using terms that get used on the right when given the excuse.  And you went straight to my point of defending the non peaceful (better?) protests by comparing to C'ville.  It doesn't matter that C'ville was marginally worse than San Jose and much worse than Minny.  If you find yourself making that argument, then you've lost the moral high ground.  And today the left has the moral high ground.  It needs to be protected.  

“It’s ok for us to compare Minneapolis to San Jose, but you’re wrong and just playing into our hands by comparing it to Charlottesville in response”

”it’s ok for us to use hyperbolic nonsense and spread misinformation about what happened Thursday’s night, the left just needs to be better at not giving us things to lie and spread misinformation about.”

That’s some bubble you aren’t living in. 

I'm sorry, did you just fake quote me, declare me as a right winger and then say I'm living in a bubble?  WTF kind of argument skills are you employing?  Are you so disingenuous that you have to make up things?  SMH.  

No apology necessary I thought it would have been obvious I was paraphrasing you, not making things up. Unlike for example suggesting the city of Minneapolis got destroyed Thursday night. Now THAT would be making something up... oh, I’m sorry, you were just “using the terms that get used on the right when given the excuse.” (Aka - right wing talking points) 

I apologize for the misuse of quotation marks, I should have made it more clear I was paraphrasing your arguments. If you want me to edit my original comment I will. 

Your paraphrasing is inaccurate as well.  

I don't understand how it's controversial to say that it's a bad idea to condone violence, even when committed by your team.  Seems like pretty common sense to me. 

Likewise, I don’t understand your use of hyperbole from the get go muddying up the conversation. Dismissing it as saying you were “just using the terms that get used on the right” is a cop out. 

Accurately representing something you’re suggesting is a bad idea seems like pretty common sense to me. 

Im not reporting the damn news.  Im making a point that riots, assaults and the like allows the Republicans to claim equivalency.  And then the marginally engaged voter throws up their hands and says "they're all the same".  That's the point.  It's not about nuanced arguments and preaching to the choir.  It's about maintaining the clear moral high ground and capturing the soft votes.  That's how you win.  Not by taking hats from people.  

I’m not sure why this is a difficult concept to get. 

Halifax2TheMax said:

show previous quotes

HughFreakingDillon said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

cincybearcat said:

Jesus Christ when did it become ok to label other poster with labels like sex ist when you disagree with them? 

If you disagree you get a label. You get the “false equivalency” junk, you get all kinds of the words of the day. 

It’s clear some are ok with minor crimes as long as it’s their team. I get it, it’s frustrating. Id be tempted. But it’s not right. Hugh is correct and from what I’ve seen on this forums is far from a sexist. So just stop the nonsense labels.

When is it okay to label posters as advocating for violence when the person who posted did nothing of the sort and then accuse them of hiding behind something. Yea it’s fucking old when certain posters complain about the same shit they themselves do and whine about it. There’s a difference between disagreeing and coming across as sexist. That’s lost on some however.

Shall I repost all the “labels” I’ve been labeled? 

i know I'm 6 pages late, but this is hilarious:

Halifax2TheMax said:
"And no I’m not advocating violence, just pointing out that sometimes violence is necessary to enact the change you want to see"

I'm not going to keep arguing your sexist bullshit because that's exactly what it is, and it seems many here agree that you're totally off  base with that.  I guess the crazy notion of voting for someone based on merit and not gender is sexist to some. or was it because I found AOC to be annoying or something of the like (which I later actually changed my mind on)? I don't know. 

Maybe AOC an Omar are sexist now too since they are endorsing Sanders instead of Warren? 

Regarding AOC, you slammed her not on policy, and as you are an admitted father of daughters, I found your slam sexist and offensive because the way you slammed her, seemed to be solely on her gender and in a way that seemed her gender was the only thing responsible. My response to your post was something along the lines, “is that how you would talk to your daughters or would you have the same expectations of them as women?” And you threw a hissy fit and accused me of making you out to be some unfit parent or some shit. And then there was your deleted post. That’s hilarious because you're the one who brought it back up, after claiming the virtues of the ignore feature.

Regarding violence, as a privileged white male, I don’t feel the need to advocate for or act violently for the change I want to see. I can’t say that for others, particularly oppressed minorities. You seem to have difficulty drawing distinctions between top down advocacy for violence, Team Trump Treason style, his minions and their lack of condemnation of same and bottom up, organic or not, what has been deemed, on here anyway, “the left.” One is authoritarian and “state” sanctioned and the other is "knuckle heads" acting up. Again, you claimed both sides are the same or that by doing so, they would be. And yes, sometimes violence perpetrated by the downtrodden and oppressed is necessary for things to change. Particularly when peaceful and lawful means have resulted in zero change. Those MAGA hats elicit a pretty strong emotional response from me but not one that would lead me to swipe it off someone's head, spit in their face or otherwise do anything violent or intimidating. I can't say the same for someone who had a family member beaten in a Charlottesville parking garage or detained or their relative kids separated at the border or their pussy grabbed. To think violence isn't sometimes necessary, or justified, is to ignore history. I can understand the distinction, can you?

AOC and Omar are throwing their support behind the candidate that most closely aligns with their beliefs. Or maybe its sexists?

HughFreakingDillon said:

show previous quotes

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

cincybearcat said:

Jesus Christ when did it become ok to label other poster with labels like sex ist when you disagree with them? 

If you disagree you get a label. You get the “false equivalency” junk, you get all kinds of the words of the day. 

It’s clear some are ok with minor crimes as long as it’s their team. I get it, it’s frustrating. Id be tempted. But it’s not right. Hugh is correct and from what I’ve seen on this forums is far from a sexist. So just stop the nonsense labels.

When is it okay to label posters as advocating for violence when the person who posted did nothing of the sort and then accuse them of hiding behind something. Yea it’s fucking old when certain posters complain about the same shit they themselves do and whine about it. There’s a difference between disagreeing and coming across as sexist. That’s lost on some however.

Shall I repost all the “labels” I’ve been labeled? 

i know I'm 6 pages late, but this is hilarious:

Halifax2TheMax said:
"And no I’m not advocating violence, just pointing out that sometimes violence is necessary to enact the change you want to see"

I'm not going to keep arguing your sexist bullshit because that's exactly what it is, and it seems many here agree that you're totally off  base with that.  I guess the crazy notion of voting for someone based on merit and not gender is sexist to some. or was it because I found AOC to be annoying or something of the like (which I later actually changed my mind on)? I don't know. 

Maybe AOC an Omar are sexist now too since they are endorsing Sanders instead of Warren? 

Regarding AOC, you slammed her not on policy, and as you are an admitted father of daughters, I found your slam sexist and offensive because the way you slammed her, seemed to be solely on her gender and in a way that seemed her gender was the only thing responsible. My response to your post was something along the lines, “is that how you would talk to your daughters or would you have the same expectations of them as women?” And you threw a hissy fit and accused me of making you out to be some unfit parent or some shit. And then there was your deleted post. That’s hilarious because you're the one who brought it back up, after claiming the virtues of the ignore feature.

Regarding violence, as a privileged white male, I don’t feel the need to advocate for or act violently for the change I want to see. I can’t say that for others, particularly oppressed minorities. You seem to have difficulty drawing distinctions between top down advocacy for violence, Team Trump Treason style, his minions and their lack of condemnation of same and bottom up, organic or not, what has been deemed, on here anyway, “the left.” One is authoritarian and “state” sanctioned and the other is "knuckle heads" acting up. Again, you claimed both sides are the same or that by doing so, they would be. And yes, sometimes violence perpetrated by the downtrodden and oppressed is necessary for things to change. Particularly when peaceful and lawful means have resulted in zero change. Those MAGA hats elicit a pretty strong emotional response from me but not one that would lead me to swipe it off someone's head, spit in their face or otherwise do anything violent or intimidating. I can't say the same for someone who had a family member beaten in a Charlottesville parking garage or detained or their relative kids separated at the border or their pussy grabbed. To think violence isn't sometimes necessary, or justified, is to ignore history. I can understand the distinction, can you?

AOC and Omar are throwing their support behind the candidate that most closely aligns with their beliefs. Or maybe its sexists?

I said I found her annoying on twitter. THAT. WAS. IT. and you took that all the way to me being sexist, which, as we know, is absolute bullshit. and how many months ago was that? jesus, come up with some new material.

I also don't give a fuck what gender you are when I vote. man better than woman? I vote man. woman better than man? I vote woman. voting for a woman based on nothing but her gender is sexism. chachi. 

what deleted post? sorry, I don't keep forum notes. 

I didn't have a "hissy" fit. I took issue with you taking a jab at me (and coming from the biggest "you disagree with me so I'm going to call you names/labels" whiner on the forum, that's rich). yes, I have mentioned I have daughters. That doesn't give you carte blanche to start making personal statements about them or me. I was annoyed, yes, but I don't get triggered by your bullshit anymore. 

never claimed both sides are the same. never. never as much as implied it. but keep saying it. someday you might get your wish and it will magically make it true. I didn't get an attendance sheet, but I haven't heard of any of the people there at that rally committing assault had been, or had family members, in charlottesville. 

violence is only necessary when personally threatened with such. Not just because someone is wearing shitty read hats. 

mickeyrat said:

  https://www.rollcall.com/news/whitehouse/dems-say-trump-meltdown-syria-meeting-calls-pelosi-third-rate-politician?fbclid=IwAR3p6jq4jh3DfITUlghh5A0b1pOrDc3wq-76twJpHN5ATi9bOB41MRgJycI