From NBC:

"President Donald Trump authorized the killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani seven months ago if Iran’s increased aggression resulted in the death of an American,"

"After Iran shot down a U.S. drone in June, John Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser at the time, urged Trump to retaliate by signing off on an operation to kill Soleimani, officials said. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also wanted Trump to authorize the assassination, officials said.

But Trump rejected the idea, saying he’d take that step only if Iran crossed his red line: killing an American. The president’s message was “that’s only on the table if they hit Americans,” according to a person briefed on the discussion."

Chaser:

(01-13-2020 06:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Also, ironic that you don’t remember calling people who happened to question POTUS’ judgement on the strike as terrorist sympathizers.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-16...id16591399

Speaking of which I am still awaiting *your* answers to two very easy 'yes/no' questions. If you are going to reignite this, please answer those questions.....

First, I would like to thank lad for his responses. I think many of them support me, even if that was not his intent.

And that, of course, is the crux of my "terrorist sympathizer" argument: When you do things that support or are seen to support certain groups, you are in effect a (group) supporter, perhaps indirectly, perhaps inadvertently. The left takes this position when they claim that Trump's actions (and before him, Bush's) help the terrorists recruit. So it is not just us horribles who think this way.

I think when the leftists snort and hoot at the thought that some on the side of the marchers were fine people they are in fact basing that judgment on one and only thing, and that thing is in fact perceived. If it is based on anything else , tell me what.

Some people were in Charlotteville spoiling for a fight. If anybody has any evidence that they were all on one side, please let us in on it. But I think the ones wanting violence are much worse than those guilty of only having bad beliefs. I think even those with bad beliefs are allowed by the Constitution to march and proclaim those beliefs. Am I wrong in that?

Not just in the "mighty fine" debate, but in any debate with a leftist, just an accusation of racism is enough to shut down the discussion. Because of my views on immigration, I have been accused of hating brown people, something the brown people in my extended family might find surprising.

I have known some very good people who were antisemitic or antiblack. Of course, these people were all born in the years before 1920, and had their attitudes shaped by a different experience. Never knew one to burn a cross or attack a person of color - in fact, some of them were POCs themselves. For example, my former father-in-law, who thought N____s should stay in their place, which was NOT at his daughter's school. Lifelong straight ticket Democrat, although he did indicate that he would stay home if the Dems nominated jesse jackson. I don't think he voted in the 2008 election, though if he did, it was straight ticker democrat. He was a man who believed in the Bible and went to church and went to work and paid his bills and helped his neighbors. I didn't like him much, but still, in a lot of ways, he was a fine person. Damn sight better person than a couple of his grandkids, my nephews, who became addicts and thieves and serial failures. But probably not racists.

Being racist (or labeled as such) definitely put people in Hillary's basket of deplorables. What else did that?

I am not sure what the definition of "skank" is. It may well be there is no person in the world who is a skank. But if anybody fits the definition, then it should be OK to say so.

Looked it up

"Anything that is particularly foul, unhygienic or unpleasant."

Turns out I have known a lot of skanks.

(01-13-2020 06:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 06:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 06:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Built a nice straw man there, suggesting that racism is the only characteristic of a person that determines the character of a person.

Actually, that is just the opposite of what he is suggesting. He is suggesting that it is only one of many that determine character.

But it seems to be the only one that many on the left seem to care about. And it's one that they interject at the drop of a hat into any argument, particularly one that they seem to be losing.

Do you live for fighting OO’s battles?

From OO:

Quote: As I said, for me it takes more points of reference: is an anti Semite who takes care of his widowed mother, pays his taxes, contributes to charities, etc, “horrible”, while a person who is unprejudiced racially but commits fraud and theft “fine”?

How is that not a straw man? Did anyone here suggest that someone who wasn’t racist yet committed multiple crimes was fine? OO is literally resulting to making up a position no one has taken, and asked it to be defended.

I will make it simpler for you:

Some racists are, overall, fine people.

Some non racists are, overall, not fine people.

JMHO.

Do you disagree?

(01-13-2020 05:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  This terrorist supporter thing is so old now I don't remember the post that set you off, but was it directed at you personally or was it a generic charge that you took personally? If the former, I would appreciate the post number.

I mean ... it was a week ago. This post of mine summarizes your progression (I block quote you in my post). As I note in a follow-up post, you literally called people on this board (which I took to mean mostly Lad and myself since we tend to respond more substantively, as opposed to Fountains and Foff) the following:

• "on the side of" the people chanting "Death to America"
• "favoring terrorists"
• indirectly support terrorists
• "support policies and choices that work to the benefit of terrorists"
  

(01-13-2020 05:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Who called who a skank? Not this

69/70/75 called Senator Harris a skank. Regarding your link, a Gillum supporter who was not part of the Gillum campaign called his Democratic opponent a skank. A left-leaning advocacy group called on Gillum to denounce this. He denounced name calling and noted that the supporter was not part of his campaign. So good on the left-leaning advocacy group, good on Gillum, and on the idiot who called someone else a skank. I guess your point is what, that a Democrat realized when a supporter crossed a line and denounced them, while 69/70/75 doubles- and triples-down on his calling Senator Harris a skank and we get crickets from the other conservatives on The Parliament?

(01-13-2020 10:15 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 05:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  This terrorist supporter thing is so old now I don't remember the post that set you off, but was it directed at you personally or was it a generic charge that you took personally? If the former, I would appreciate the post number.

I mean ... it was a week ago. This post of mine summarizes your progression (I block quote you in my post). As I note in a follow-up post, you literally called people on this board (which I took to mean mostly Lad and myself since we tend to respond more substantively, as opposed to Fountains and Foff) the following:

• "on the side of" the people chanting "Death to America"
• "favoring terrorists"
• indirectly support terrorists
• "support policies and choices that work to the benefit of terrorists"
  

(01-13-2020 05:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Who called who a skank? Not this

69/70/75 called Senator Harris a skank. Regarding your link, a Gillum supporter who was not part of the Gillum campaign called his Democratic opponent a skank. A left-leaning advocacy group called on Gillum to denounce this. He denounced name calling and noted that the supporter was not part of his campaign. So good on the left-leaning advocacy group, good on Gillum, and on the idiot who called someone else a skank. I guess your point is what, that a Democrat realized when a supporter crossed a line and denounced them, while 69/70/75 doubles- and triples-down on his calling Senator Harris a skank and we get crickets from the other conservatives on The Parliament?

Yes, I am old and tired and busy and worried. No need to make fun of my memory issues. You will be my age someday (we both hope).

But you still did not go back to my OP. Go back to where you originally took issue with what I said. I just want to see if I attacked you personally or if you just took it that way.

I posted the Gillum thing, which I ran across in the search for "skank", just for general interest. Apparently "skank" is a broad term a lot of people of all kinds use. I remember now that 69 used it for Harris. If his allegations are true, perhaps it fits. I doubt that any of the Presidential hopefuls are spotless. Well, maybe Yang. But the Dems won't nominate HIM.

(01-13-2020 06:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  "some very fine people on both sides"

Be sure not to omit the word "some" from the quote, because that word clearly implies that there were also some on both sides who aren't/weren't "very fine." It's pretty clear that there were people on both sides who came wanting a rumble, and it's pretty clear that's what they got.

Suppose Trump had said instead, "there were some terrible people on both sides." Would you agree or disagree with that? I would agree, and that is in effect what he said if you read the entire statement. IIRC the preceding comments talked about the bad people on both sides, and this was more in the context of noting an exception. The "there were some very fine people on both sides" comment has clearly been taken out of context, and misleadingly so.

Trump's bombastic style leaves him open to having things he says taken badly out of context, and I think this is one of those times.

Where are the "some" people? I keep asking and I keep getting generic responses. I understand the freaking argument, you don't need to explain it to me ad nauseum. But the argument only works if there were actually "some very fine people" marching with the white supremacists, nazis, and anti-semites. Based on the limited research I did, I haven't seen evidence of the "very fine people" on the right. Based on my limited personal experience with the issue in New Orleans, the "very fine people" who protest the removal of confederate monuments, people who definitely exist and who are definitely not racist or white supremacist or anti-semitic, would never march alongside the people who were in Charlottesville at this rally. If I am incorrect, I am happy to look at any evidence that such very fine people were at the rally at issue.

Actually, I think I used "slut" before "skank" to describe Harris. As I understand the facts of the situation (she slept her way to the top with the powerful Willie Brown, who was married to another woman) and the meanings of those words, they fit. As would "whore" or "prostitute." Harris is also known for seeking and obtaining unreasonably harsh sentences for minor drug crimes as a prosecutor, at the same time she was using marijuana herself. On the facts, Harris comes across as a vicious, dishonest, scheming, evil woman who would do anything--legal or illegal, moral or immoral--to advance her career--the last thing we need in the white house, or the senate, for that matter.

The differentiation between Harris and Gwen Graham is that I know of nothing in Graham's life story that would support the use of the term "skank" (or any of the others) to describe her. Therefore Gillum was correct to denounce the person who called her that.

I am not using the terms to apply derisively to all women, merely to those for whom the shoe fits. I would not use it to describe, for example, Hillary or Pelosi, because I know nothing about either of them to support the use of that term.

FWIW, I believe that Hillary operates on a considerably higher moral level than does Harris.

(01-13-2020 10:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yes, I am old and tired and busy and worried. No need to make fun of my memory issues. You will be my age someday (we both hope).

But you still did not go back to my OP. Go back to where you originally took issue with what I said. I just want to see if I attacked you personally or if you just took it that way.

I wasn't trying to make fun of your memory issues and I was not trying to be insensitive to your age. I didn't know you have memory issues and I apologize if I offended you. I was a little surprised that you refused (and apparently continue to refuse) to go back a few pages, find your own post that you are asking about, and then quote your own post.

The problem is that it developed over a number of posts so I can't quote a single post. That's why I summarized your posts on the topic that lead to me being offended.

You did not attack me personally. Here is the very quick progression of what you said (sometimes in response to questions from Lad):

1. "And people here should not be on the side of the Death to Americans just to oppose Trump."
2. "The ones who oppose strong action against terrorists. ... The ones who support the Iranian nuclear deal. The ones who would prefer to see a softer, more apologetic approach to Mid East relations - more Obama like, lessTrump like. ... If none of this applies to anybody here, then I am not referring to them." [ you know that Lad and I an others support the Iran deal from prior discussions ]
3. "If somebody opposes getting out of the Iran Permission Deal, then IMO they are supporting terrorists."
   

(01-13-2020 10:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I posted the Gillum thing, which I ran across in the search for "skank", just for general interest. Apparently "skank" is a broad term a lot of people of all kinds use. I remember now that 69 used it for Harris. If his allegations are true, perhaps it fits.

I think "skank" is a sexist term that shouldn't be directed at a woman in any circumstance. You can disagree, 69/70/75 certainly disagrees. I just don't see what it gains anyone, other than offending people. Why purposefully use hurtful language toward others? I took a friend (who was a Bernie supporter) to task during the 2016 primary for using similar language on Facebook about Hillary. I never used that kind of language about Palin when she was on the Republican ticket in 2008 (or since) and I would never use it toward Haley (or any other woman running for President) in the future. Guess I am just old fashioned.

(01-13-2020 10:51 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I think "skank" is a sexist term that shouldn't be directed at a woman in any circumstance. You can disagree, 69/70/75 certainly disagrees. I just don't see what it gains anyone, other than offending people. Why purposefully use hurtful language toward others? I took a friend (who was a Bernie supporter) to task during the 2016 primary for using similar language on Facebook about Hillary. I never used that kind of language about Palin when she was on the Republican ticket in 2008 (or since) and I would never use it toward Haley (or any other woman running for President) in the future. Guess I am just old fashioned.

It's an English word that as a well-understood meaning, and Harris fits that meaning. Technically, I suppose "whore" or "prostitute" fits better, but they all fit. Harris had no hesitancy to ruin the lives of drug users who had done noting more than what she was doing herself. There needs to be a special place in hell for people like that. She needs offending, and deserves it.

I would never use that language to describe Hillary or Palin or Haley or Pelosi or Susan Collins or any woman without Harris's history.

(01-13-2020 10:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Actually, I think I used "slut" before "skank" to describe Harris. As I understand the facts of the situation (she slept her way to the top with the powerful Willie Brown, who was married to another woman) and the meanings of those words, they fit. As would "whore" or "prostitute." Harris is also known for seeking and obtaining unreasonably harsh sentences for minor drug crimes as a prosecutor, at the same time she was using marijuana herself. On the facts, Harris comes across as a vicious, dishonest, scheming, evil woman who would do anything--legal or illegal, moral or immoral--to advance her career--the last thing we need in the white house, or the senate, for that matter.

The differentiation between Harris and Gwen Graham is that I know of nothing in her life story that would support the use of the term "skank" (or any of the others) to describe her. Therefore Gillum was correct to denounce the person who called her that.

I am not using the terms to apply derisively to all women, merely to those for whom the shoe fits.

I don't know why you keep defending yourself. You aren't going to convince me it is OK to publicly refer to any woman as a slut, skank, or whore. Those terms are used almost exclusively to derogatively refer to women. There is no counterpart to refer to a man in the same way that bears the same negative connotation and they are almost never directed at men which is why they are sexist. I say "almost never" and "almost exclusively" because you might be able to dig up limited uses directed towards men. But we all know those words are historically directed towards women.

Maybe I should put it differently. If you worked in a business and a woman in that business had sex with a man above her within the business and she was later promoted, what would happen to you if you called her skank, slut, or whore? What would happen to the business if you were a supervisor/manager who did this? The Fourth Circuit has something to say on the topic.

(01-13-2020 11:03 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I don't know why you keep defending yourself. You aren't going to convince me it is OK to publicly refer to any woman as a slut, skank, or whore. Those terms are used almost exclusively to derogatively refer to women. There is no counterpart to refer to a man in the same way that bears the same negative connotation and they are almost never directed at men which is why they are sexist. I say "almost never" and "almost exclusively" because you might be able to dig up limited uses directed towards men. But we all know those words are historically directed towards women.
Maybe I should put it differently. If you worked in a business and a woman in that business had sex with a man above her within the business and she was later promoted, what would happen to you if you called her skank, slut, or whore? What would happen to the business if you were a supervisor/manager who did this? The Fourth Circuit has something to say on the topic.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree. Harris is clearly a public figure, and there is truth to the allegation/implication. As for your 4th Circuit case, the word "false" is prominent there.

If it will suit you, I will in the future refer to her as "Harris (who slept her way to the top with Willie Brown and viciously prosecuted drug users while using drugs herself)" instead of "Kamala the slut/skank/whore/prosecute." How about that?

I think we have let political correctness run total amok. And I think Kamala Harris is a thoroughly despicable human being.

(01-13-2020 09:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  From NBC:

"President Donald Trump authorized the killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani seven months ago if Iran’s increased aggression resulted in the death of an American,"

"After Iran shot down a U.S. drone in June, John Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser at the time, urged Trump to retaliate by signing off on an operation to kill Soleimani, officials said. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also wanted Trump to authorize the assassination, officials said.

But Trump rejected the idea, saying he’d take that step only if Iran crossed his red line: killing an American. The president’s message was “that’s only on the table if they hit Americans,” according to a person briefed on the discussion."

This actually makes me feel a lot better about the decision (if true). At least it wasn't something impulsive. But then why was the administration justifying the decision by suggesting there was an imminent threat? Why not just say, "The President made the decision that if Iran or Iranian-backed forces killed another American, then the United States would respond militarily. An American contractor was killed a few days ago by such forces and this was the response to that attack."

OO - you are going to great lengths defending racists. I have zero interest in defending racists. I will concede your argument that some racists do many, many things that are not bad. But you are trying to engage in some hypothetical discussion about how much racism is too much racism (or the corollary hypothetical discussion of whether someone with a whole lot of racism can still be a good person despite that racism). I was talking about Trump's "very fine people on both sides" comment and Tanq's bothsidesism defense of that comment. We don't need to engage in your hypothetical to discuss Trump's comment. You can certainly engage in your hypotheticals, but I just don't have time to so I'm sticking to the narrower issue of Trump's comment and the people actually marching in Charlottesville.

OO, 69/70/75, and Tanq - I cited a few different articles explaining why there were not "very fine people" at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. In addition to the couple articles I linked, I also read quite a few other articles. All these contained pictures and/or video. In addition, I am drawing upon my memory of other pictures and video from that rally (and the night before where the dudes were marching with torches). I have put forward evidence that there were not "very fine people" at that rally on the right. I think everyone admits that there were some "very fine people" on the left because everyone has seen videos and photos that included the peaceful protesters on the left (like the girl who died). If you believe there were actually "very fine people" rallying alongside the white supremacists, nazis, and anti-semites that we all seem to agree were at the rally, then I am just asking if you have any evidence to support your belief. Trump's "very fine people on both sides" comment isn't evidence. I don't have anything else to say on the specific issue unless someone presents actual evidence. Maybe I'll be forced to eat crow, it has happened plenty of times before. I'm world-class at eating crow and falling on my sword.

Humorously, I have played in a fantasy baseball league for 16 straight years with my team name as "Skankin' Owls". Of course, in that context "skankin'" is referring to the style of dance one engages in when listening to ska music. The 3rd wave of ska originated in Orange County, California. So your easy out is to just say that you thought Senator Harris was a reel big fish or mighty mighty bosstones fan and you called her a skank because you thought she liked ska music and you believed it was a socially acceptable term to use towards fans of ska music.

As we have engaged in this discussion, it has helped me clarify my beliefs a little. If it wouldn't be OK to call a subordinate at work by the term (cracker, skank, prostitute, whatever), then you shouldn't do it in public either. Just my opinion, no need to respond.

Regarding Harris prosecuting drug crimes while using drugs ... the correct word for that is hypocrite (not skank). A nice non-sexist word. I've already stated my position against hypocrites. Of course, prosecutors are supposed to enforce the law, regardless of their personal beliefs on whether the law in question is good policy or bad policy and regardless of whether they have ever broken the same law. I have no problem with anyone calling Harris a hypocrite, notwithstanding the underlying circumstances. Almost everyone has been a hypocrite at some point, I just advocate we all try to avoid it as much as possible. (changing one's mind about an issue later based on new evidence or changed beliefs does not make a person a hypocrite)

(01-13-2020 11:23 AM)mrbig Wrote:  OO, 69/70/75, and Tanq - I cited a few different articles explaining why there were not "very fine people" at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. In addition to the couple articles I linked, I also read quite a few other articles. All these contained pictures and/or video. In addition, I am drawing upon my memory of other pictures and video from that rally (and the night before where the dudes were marching with torches). I have put forward evidence that there were not "very fine people" at that rally on the right. I think everyone admits that there were some "very fine people" on the left because everyone has seen videos and photos that included the peaceful protesters on the left (like the girl who died). If you believe there were actually "very fine people" rallying alongside the white supremacists, nazis, and anti-semites that we all seem to agree were at the rally, then I am just asking if you have any evidence to support your belief. Trump's "very fine people on both sides" comment isn't evidence. I don't have anything else to say on the specific issue unless someone presents actual evidence. Maybe I'll be forced to eat crow, it has happened plenty of times before. I'm world-class at eating crow and falling on my sword.

I you read Trump's complete statement, instead of just one sound byte taken out of context, he basically condemned bad people on both sides, and the quoted part was sort of offered as recognizing that not every person was evil. I actually think that was probably the case.

What I think happened is you had what was originally conceived as a protest in favor of keeping the statues (not an evil position, whether you agree or not) that the KKK (who are certainly evil people) latched onto, and the alt-left in the form of Antifa (who are also IMO evil) decided to show up and have a rumble. My guess is that there some essentially good people who got caught up on both sides, as that would be par for the course in such situations. Some non-racist persons who opposed destruction of the statues were almost certainly dragged in on one side, and non-violent persons who favored destroying the statues were almost certainly dragged in on the other.

Trump did a poor job in that he allowed a sound byte that was too easily taken out of context. As I asked before, what if he had said there were "some bad people on both sides"? I'm quite certain that's a true statement, and probably closer to what he meant to say, but he can clearly be President Malaprop.

(01-13-2020 10:51 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 10:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yes, I am old and tired and busy and worried. No need to make fun of my memory issues. You will be my age someday (we both hope).

But you still did not go back to my OP. Go back to where you originally took issue with what I said. I just want to see if I attacked you personally or if you just took it that way.

I wasn't trying to make fun of your memory issues and I was not trying to be insensitive to your age. I didn't know you have memory issues and I apologize if I offended you. I was a little surprised that you refused (and apparently continue to refuse) to go back a few pages, find your own post that you are asking about, and then quote your own post.

The problem is that it developed over a number of posts so I can't quote a single post. That's why I summarized your posts on the topic that lead to me being offended.

You did not attack me personally. Here is the very quick progression of what you said (sometimes in response to questions from Lad):

1. "And people here should not be on the side of the Death to Americans just to oppose Trump."
2. "The ones who oppose strong action against terrorists. ... The ones who support the Iranian nuclear deal. The ones who would prefer to see a softer, more apologetic approach to Mid East relations - more Obama like, lessTrump like. ... If none of this applies to anybody here, then I am not referring to them." [ you know that Lad and I an others support the Iran deal from prior discussions ]
3. "If somebody opposes getting out of the Iran Permission Deal, then IMO they are supporting terrorists."
   

Well, first, I am 74 years old. Thought you knew. Not as sharp as, say, a young whippersnapper like Owl69 because I have a couple of diseases that will someday either put me on a transplant list or a slab. Thought you knew, but no problem. I did not take it seriously, so no apology needed. I also am somewhat of a Luddite, so not very good with the computer, especially the search feature. Even you say "I can't quote a single post." If you cannot, I have no hope.

But this is what I wanted to know: "You did not attack me personally." At some point "personal attacks" has been mentioned. Not sure if it was you. But my thoughts are not directed toward any one or two persons. They are toward the left as a whole.

My thoughts are that sometimes support is given to issues that help terrorists, and all too often I think that support is directed just to oppose Trump. This idea in the first clause is not unique to me or to the right. But let's go back to the Bush Administration, when the left was widely claiming that holding prisoners at Gitmo was helping terrorists by helping their recruiting. Since I supported holding terrorists at Gitmo, it could reasonably be inferred by those holding that view that I was supporting policies that aided terrorists.

More recently, people on the left have claimed that Trump's strike on the terrorist leader would do nothing but help terrorist recruiting. If one believes that, and knows I supported the strike, then they can logically infer that indirectly, and inadvertently, I have supported terrorist recruiting. I think they are wrong, but I can see their point.

Thing is, I don't think those people, then or now, were making personal attacks on me.

I still think that some of the actions of the Obama administration helped terrorists far more than they helped the USA. JMHO. I felt Obama was weak, and I prefer a strong foreign policy. JMHO.

(01-13-2020 06:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Built a nice straw man there, suggesting that racism is the only characteristic of a person that determines the character of a person.

No, I am suggesting that for many liberals, racism is the only characteristic that determines the character of a person.


Ironic that the "only" guy is accusing me of setting up a straw man. How droll.

(01-13-2020 11:38 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Humorously, I have played in a fantasy baseball league for 16 straight years with my team name as "Skankin' Owls". Of course, in that context "skankin'" is referring to the style of dance one engages in when listening to ska music. The 3rd wave of ska originated in Orange County, California. So your easy out is to just say that you thought Senator Harris was a reel big fish or mighty mighty bosstones fan and you called her a skank because you thought she liked ska music and you believed it was a socially acceptable term to use towards fans of ska music.
As we have engaged in this discussion, it has helped me clarify my beliefs a little. If it wouldn't be OK to call a subordinate at work by the term (cracker, skank, prostitute, whatever), then you shouldn't do it in public either. Just my opinion, no need to respond.
Regarding Harris prosecuting drug crimes while using drugs ... the correct word for that is hypocrite (not skank). A nice non-sexist word. I've already stated my position against hypocrites. Of course, prosecutors are supposed to enforce the law, regardless of their personal beliefs on whether the law in question is good policy or bad policy and regardless of whether they have ever broken the same law. I have no problem with anyone calling Harris a hypocrite, notwithstanding the underlying circumstances. Almost everyone has been a hypocrite at some point, I just advocate we all try to avoid it as much as possible. (changing one's mind about an issue later based on new evidence or changed beliefs does not make a person a hypocrite)

Harris is a person of low moral character who has exchanged sexual favors for personal advancement. You can use whatever term you want to describe that.

(01-13-2020 11:23 AM)mrbig Wrote:  OO - you are going to great lengths defending racists. I have zero interest in defending racists. I will concede your argument that some racists do many, many things that are not bad. But you are trying to engage in some hypothetical discussion about how much racism is too much racism (or the corollary hypothetical discussion of whether someone with a whole lot of racism can still be a good person despite that racism). I was talking about Trump's "very fine people on both sides" comment and Tanq's bothsidesism defense of that comment. We don't need to engage in your hypothetical to discuss Trump's comment. You can certainly engage in your hypotheticals, but I just don't have time to so I'm sticking to the narrower issue of Trump's comment and the people actually marching in Charlottesville.

OO, 69/70/75, and Tanq - I cited a few different articles explaining why there were not "very fine people" at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. In addition to the couple articles I linked, I also read quite a few other articles. All these contained pictures and/or video. In addition, I am drawing upon my memory of other pictures and video from that rally (and the night before where the dudes were marching with torches). I have put forward evidence that there were not "very fine people" at that rally on the right. I think everyone admits that there were some "very fine people" on the left because everyone has seen videos and photos that included the peaceful protesters on the left (like the girl who died). If you believe there were actually "very fine people" rallying alongside the white supremacists, nazis, and anti-semites that we all seem to agree were at the rally, then I am just asking if you have any evidence to support your belief. Trump's "very fine people on both sides" comment isn't evidence. I don't have anything else to say on the specific issue unless someone presents actual evidence. Maybe I'll be forced to eat crow, it has happened plenty of times before. I'm world-class at eating crow and falling on my sword.

Just proves my point that fine/not fine is decided on the basis of one data point by the left.

Actually you have put forward NO evidence, just supposition and assumptions.

I think we cannot make a blanket statement that nobody on the march is a good person. We don't know their lives. I agree, not everybody on the left are good people. Some pretty bad people there fighting against racism.

Even racists are allowed to march. Disrupting that with violence is not something I would defend, and I oppose racism.

I am not defending the doctrines of racism. I am defending the Constitutional right of anybody to protest. I had hoped people would understand my example of the ACLU and the Nazis.

I am not saying everybody on the march were fine people. But I think it likely some were. Certainly possible. Can't prove it, any more than you can prove they all were not.

I guess you can believe in your absolutist view, and i will believe that they are innocent until proven guilty. IOW, we agree to disagree.