(01-13-2020 11:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  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.

I did read it. He condemned people on both sides and said both sides also had "very fine people." I agree with Trump that both sides had bad people. I haven't found any evidence to support his statement that there were very fine people at the United the Right rally in Charlottesville that day. I remain open to evidence that there were very fine people on the right.

(01-13-2020 11:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  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.

I don't really know what else to do here. I linked multiple articles demonstrating that the rally was organized by a white supremacist and branded toward white supremacists and racists. Multiple white supremacists spoke at the rally. Advertisements for the rally used obvious Nazi imagery. It wasn't organized by some noble lovers of confederate statues who respect the cultural, historical, and aesthetic properties of the statutes. I have seen no evidence that such people accidentally attended the rally and hung around. through the rally. That simply is not what happened.

You can tell me all you want about what you think happened, but I am trying to tell you what actually happened based on an hour or so of research. I am also repeatedly acknowledging that my research was limited and welcoming anyone to bring countervailing evidence forward. That hasn't happened yet.

(01-13-2020 11:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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.

This is what you seem to not understand.

Saying that someone's policy choices help terrorists, is VERY different from saying that the person helps terrorists, either directly or indirectly. Big difference between saying "I think the policy you support actually helps terrorists" and "I think you help terrorists."

This is the issue I had with Tanq, where you're applying a value or intention to an action.

(01-13-2020 12:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This is what you seem to not [sic] understand.
Saying that someone's policy choices help terrorists, is VERY different from saying that the person helps terrorists, either directly or indirectly. Big difference between saying "I think the policy you support actually helps terrorists" and "I think you help terrorists."
This is the issue I had with Tanq, where you're applying a value or intention to an action.

This is what you seem not to understand.

When your policy choices help terrorists, then, whether intentionally or not, you are helping terrorists by supporting those policies.

(01-13-2020 11:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, first, I am 74 years old. Thought you knew.

I knew you were around that age. My mom turns 74 today, so she's right there with you! Age-wise at least, she's a Democrat who likes Amy Klobuchar the best so maybe that is where the similarities end...

(01-13-2020 11:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  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.

...

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

This whole thing started when you wrote, and I quote - "And people here should not be on the side of the Death to Americans just to oppose Trump." (emphasis added by me). "And people here" means you were singling out a small group of Democrats/liberals on The Parliament. There is simply no other way to interpret that. There are like 4 of us.

You then went on to clarify a bunch of things that you view as supporting the people chanting "Death to Americans" and you list clearly included things Lad and I support (and that you surely knew we supported based on various discussions before your initial comment).

So I disagree. Some of your comments were very clearly directed just toward the people on the left who post here at The Parliament.

(01-13-2020 12:42 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 11:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, first, I am 74 years old. Thought you knew.

I knew you were around that age. My mom turns 74 today, so she's right there with you! Age-wise at least, she's a Democrat who likes Amy Klobuchar the best so maybe that is where the similarities end...

(01-13-2020 11:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  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.

...

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

This whole thing started when you wrote, and I quote - "And people here should not be on the side of the Death to Americans just to oppose Trump." (emphasis added by OO). "And people here" means you were singling out a small group of Democrats/liberals on The Parliament. There is simply no other way to interpret that. There are like 4 of us.

You then went on to clarify a bunch of things that you view as supporting the people chanting "Death to Americans" and you list clearly included things Lad and I support (and that you surely knew we supported based on various discussions before your initial comment).

So I disagree. Some of your comments were very clearly directed just toward the people on the left who post here at The Parliament.

I changed the emphasis from yours to mine. I guess I mis-worded my statement, as I meant all the Democrats/leftists in toto. NOT "just" the small group here, although y'all would be included in the overall grouping. I think a lot of Democratic policies and actions over the eight years of Obama favored the terrorists, and that is why I opposed them. I think a lot of the Democratic choices now are merely to oppose Trump, not to make the best choice.


Happy Birthday to your Mom. Klobuchar is one of the better ones in the field, though not my top choice (if I HAD to pick one of the democrats to lead us for 4 years, she is certainly a much better choice than some of the frontrunners).

Looks like Biden or Sanders though. Biden recently confused Iraq and Iran.
Sanders is...Sanders. A Sanders or Warren nomination is the only thing that can get me to write a check to the RNC.

(01-13-2020 12:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 12:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This is what you seem to not [sic] understand.
Saying that someone's policy choices help terrorists, is VERY different from saying that the person helps terrorists, either directly or indirectly. Big difference between saying "I think the policy you support actually helps terrorists" and "I think you help terrorists."
This is the issue I had with Tanq, where you're applying a value or intention to an action.

This is what you seem not to understand.

When your policy choices help terrorists, then, whether intentionally or not, you are helping terrorists by supporting those policies.

Is [sic] correct in that sentence? Seems more like personal choice than a grammatically incorrect statement.

Why os "seem to not understand" an incorrect statement, and "seem not to understand" a correct statement?

(01-13-2020 12:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 12:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This is what you seem to not [sic] understand.
Saying that someone's policy choices help terrorists, is VERY different from saying that the person helps terrorists, either directly or indirectly. Big difference between saying "I think the policy you support actually helps terrorists" and "I think you help terrorists."
This is the issue I had with Tanq, where you're applying a value or intention to an action.

This is what you seem not to understand.

When your policy choices help terrorists, then, whether intentionally or not, you are helping terrorists by supporting those policies.

On a less grammatical note, what a slippery slope.

Looks like you agree with a lot of liberals who call conservatives racist because, say, they support policies that reduce black voter turnout.

I understand what OO is saying, and think he is flat out wrong to be applying language like that - I see you get similarly up in arms about the projection of intention as mentioned above.

(01-13-2020 11:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 11:03 AM)mrbig Wrote:  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.

I disagree that the word "false" is important to the case. Give it a read. To quote the Fourth Circuit:

Quote:As alleged, the rumor was that Parker, a female subordinate, had sex with her male superior to obtain promotion, implying that Parker used her womanhood, rather than her merit, to obtain from a man, so seduced, a promotion. She plausibly invokes a deeply rooted perception - one that unfortunately still persists - that generally women, not men, use sex to achieve success. And with this double standard, women, but not men, are susceptible to being labelled as "sluts" or worse, prostitutes selling their bodies for gain. [citations omitted].

(01-13-2020 12:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  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.

What is the evidence she explicitly exchanged sexual favors for personal advancement? If there is nothing explicit then it seems like you are projecting some assumptions onto her conduct. Which is exactly what the Fourth Circuit says was wrong. Even if the woman in the Fourth Circuit case had actually had an affair with a supervisor, under my reading of that opinion, calling her a skank or slut or prostitute or whore would have most certainly still constituted sexual harassment.

(01-13-2020 01:11 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 11:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 11:03 AM)mrbig Wrote:  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.

I disagree that the word "false" is important to the case. Give it a read. To quote the Fourth Circuit:

Quote:As alleged, the rumor was that Parker, a female subordinate, had sex with her male superior to obtain promotion, implying that Parker used her womanhood, rather than her merit, to obtain from a man, so seduced, a promotion. She plausibly invokes a deeply rooted perception - one that unfortunately still persists - that generally women, not men, use sex to achieve success. And with this double standard, women, but not men, are susceptible to being labelled as "sluts" or worse, prostitutes selling their bodies for gain. [citations omitted].

(01-13-2020 12:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  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.

What is the evidence she explicitly exchanged sexual favors for personal advancement? If there is nothing explicit then it seems like you are projecting some assumptions onto her conduct. Which is exactly what the Fourth Circuit says was wrong. Even if the woman in the Fourth Circuit case had actually had an affair with a supervisor, under my reading of that opinion, calling her a skank or slut or prostitute or whore would have most certainly still constituted sexual harassment.

Willie Brown makes or breaks you as a democrat politician in California. He is the ultimate kingmaker. It is pretty well established that she carried on an affair with him during a time when her career advanced rapidly. You may not see the connection, but I think most people do.

And comments made in a workplace context are vastly different from those made in a public forum about a public figure.

You may think she is a fine upstanding human being. That's your right. I don't.

(01-13-2020 12:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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.

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.

What a weird hill to defend. Trump said there were very fine people on both sides. The right (including Tanqtonic) has defended Trump's statement by arguing that he was referring to protesters on the right who were merely protesting the removal of a confederate monument. I pointed out that the rally was explicitly organized by an explicit white supremacist and the rally was advertised by listing the names of various white supremacist speakers and using Nazi imagery. I have also noted a lack of photographic or video evidence of these "very fine" protesters on the right.

From what I can tell, you seem to have morphed that traditional conservative defense into something different. You are arguing that some of the avowed white supremacists, nazis, and anti-semites were "very fine people" because they shouldn't be judged based just on their participation in the Unite the Right rally in Chartlottesville. You are arguing that the guys that Trump repeatedly condemned are actually the "very fine people" he was referring to. I honestly haven't seen this defense before.

Usually, the argument is "we aren't defending the racists, we are defending the other guys" (even though the other guys aren't in any pictures or videos). But you are actually defending the racists! Why are they "very" fine people?

I'm right with you on defending the rights of people to peacefully assemble and protest, even the racists. I never said they shouldn't have been allowed to assemble or protest (which you seem to suggest). I also never suggested that you are personally defending the doctrine of racism. I know you are not doing that. To put it another way, you are defending the racists. You are not defending their racism. You are saying their is maybe more to them then just the racism. So I get the argument you are making ... but you are still defending the racists themselves (not just their right to assemble or protest).

(01-13-2020 01:23 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 12:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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.

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.

What a weird hill to defend. Trump said there were very fine people on both sides. The right (including Tanqtonic) has defended Trump's statement by arguing that he was referring to protesters on the right who were merely protesting the removal of a confederate monument. I pointed out that the rally was explicitly organized by an explicit white supremacist and the rally was advertised by listing the names of various white supremacist speakers and using Nazi imagery. I have also noted a lack of photographic or video evidence of these "very fine" protesters on the right.
From what I can tell, you seem to have morphed that traditional conservative defense into something different. You are arguing that some of the avowed white supremacists, nazis, and anti-semites were "very fine people" because they shouldn't be judged based just on their participation in the Unite the Right rally in Chartlottesville. You are arguing that the guys that Trump repeatedly condemned are actually the "very fine people" he was referring to. I honestly haven't seen this defense before.
Usually, the argument is "we aren't defending the racists, we are defending the other guys" (even though the other guys aren't in any pictures or videos). But you are actually defending the racists! Why are they "very" fine people?
I'm right with you on defending the rights of people to peacefully assemble and protest, even the racists. I never said they shouldn't have been allowed to assemble or protest (which you seem to suggest). I also never suggested that you are personally defending the doctrine of racism. I know you are not doing that.

I haven't seen much evidence of fine people on either side. Then again, I haven't studied the issue thoroughly.

Odds are, there were some non-evil people drawn in on both sides, these things have a way of happening that way.

(01-13-2020 01:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 12:42 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 11:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, first, I am 74 years old. Thought you knew.

I knew you were around that age. My mom turns 74 today, so she's right there with you! Age-wise at least, she's a Democrat who likes Amy Klobuchar the best so maybe that is where the similarities end...

(01-13-2020 11:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  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.

...

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

This whole thing started when you wrote, and I quote - "And people here should not be on the side of the Death to Americans just to oppose Trump." (emphasis added by OO). "And people here" means you were singling out a small group of Democrats/liberals on The Parliament. There is simply no other way to interpret that. There are like 4 of us.

You then went on to clarify a bunch of things that you view as supporting the people chanting "Death to Americans" and you list clearly included things Lad and I support (and that you surely knew we supported based on various discussions before your initial comment).

So I disagree. Some of your comments were very clearly directed just toward the people on the left who post here at The Parliament.

I changed the emphasis from yours to mine. I guess I mis-worded my statement, as I meant all the Democrats/leftists in toto. NOT "just" the small group here, although y'all would be included in the overall grouping. I think a lot of Democratic policies and actions over the eight years of Obama favored the terrorists, and that is why I opposed them. I think a lot of the Democratic choices now are merely to oppose Trump, not to make the best choice.


Happy Birthday to your Mom. Klobuchar is one of the better ones in the field, though not my top choice (if I HAD to pick one of the democrats to lead us for 4 years, she is certainly a much better choice than some of the frontrunners).

Looks like Biden or Sanders though. Biden recently confused Iraq and Iran.
Sanders is...Sanders. A Sanders or Warren nomination is the only thing that can get me to write a check to the RNC.

You're concerned that Biden confused Iraq and Iran?

What Trump should have said instead is, "There were some very bad people on both sides." Oh, wait, he did.

(01-13-2020 01:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What Trump should have said instead is, "There were some very bad people on both sides." Oh, wait, he did.

And what Trump shouldn't have said was that there were very fine people on both sides...

Not hard to say that one shouldn't give any credence to a march full of literal Nazi's and Klansmen that ended up killing someone. But hey, here we are.

Big....

I do find it interesting that you take issue with using unnecessary inflammatory language towards Sarah Palin and Kamala Harris, but you insist on proof that there wasn't one single decent person on 'both' sides to accept Trump's absolute and unequivocal condemnation of the white supremacists, but support for presumption that there are some decent people who simply don't want their history erased.

For me personally, I absolutely believe that there are a whole lot of decent conservative people who could be talked into attending a rally (or making a donation) initiated by a group like the Klan under the banner or preserving history.

just as there are a whole lot of liberal people who could be talked into attending a rally or making a donation initiated by an eco-terrorist group under some false pretense. It literally happens every day.




As to FO and his rant against twitter, whether he recognizes or likes it or not, Twitter is a HUGE part of every current politicians means of communicating, including those who have remained silent on the Iranian protests. Of course they don't need to tweet it and nobody has suggested that... merely that tweets are the easiest way to make a statement about something they feel needs to be addressed. It doesn't require the support or acquiescence of anyone and while it can be challenged, unlike an interview or a press conference, there is no expectation of a dialogue. You get to say what you want to say without any filter or spin....

and they've said nothing

Now if you'd like to point out other forums where they've addressed the issue, that would be meaningful

(01-13-2020 01:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 01:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What Trump should have said instead is, "There were some very bad people on both sides." Oh, wait, he did.

And what Trump shouldn't have said was that there were very fine people on both sides...

Not hard to say that one shouldn't give any credence to a march full of literal Nazi's and Klansmen that ended up killing someone. But hey, here we are.

And you return to the syntactical canard that a 'march' killed someone, or that a march full of Nazis ended up killing someone.

But hey, here we are.

(01-13-2020 03:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 01:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 01:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What Trump should have said instead is, "There were some very bad people on both sides." Oh, wait, he did.

And what Trump shouldn't have said was that there were very fine people on both sides...

Not hard to say that one shouldn't give any credence to a march full of literal Nazi's and Klansmen that ended up killing someone. But hey, here we are.

And you return to the syntactical canard that a 'march' killed someone, or that a march full of Nazis ended up killing someone.

But hey, here we are.

So let's break this down.

Was the march/demonstration full of literal Nazi's and Klansmen? Yes.

Did one of the Nazi's or Klansmen at the march/demonstration kill someone? Yes. Heather Heyer was killed by James Alex Fields Jr. In testimony for Fields' trial, evidence pointing towards him being a Nazi included:

Quote:a classmate of Fields had testified that during a high school trip to a German concentration camp, Fields had remarked: "This is where the magic happened." Prosecutors said they were told Fields was "like a kid at Disney World" during that trip.

Quote:They had earlier said that Fields had revered Adolf Hitler, keeping a picture of him next to his bed.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jam...d-n1024436

Or let's see how he was described by the AP:

Quote:An avowed white supremacist was sentenced to life in prison plus 419 years Monday for deliberately driving his car into a crowd of anti-racism protesters during a rally in Virginia, killing one woman and injuring dozens.

https://apnews.com/08c7dbeb08ef4ad5874cd719e7cfc6b3

I don't think anybody denies that there were Nazi sympathizers and white supremacists in the march against destruction of the statues. What I haven't seen is anyone willing to admit that there were evil people on the other side.

This was not good vs. bad. It was bad vs. bad, with maybe some hangers-on on both sides.

(01-13-2020 04:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't think anybody denies that there were Nazi sympathizers and white supremacists in the march against destruction of the statues. What I haven't seen is anyone willing to admit that there were evil people on the other side.

This was not good vs. bad. It was bad vs. bad, with maybe some hangers-on on both sides.

I highly doubt that, given how many times we've talked about this, and there clearly were some awful people representing the other side that were just looking for a fight.

I think people have likely pushed back about saying it was just bad vs bad, or that one side was more in the right than the other, but not been unwilling to say that ****** people were part of the counter protest.

(01-13-2020 01:11 PM)mrbig Wrote:  you are projecting some assumptions onto her conduct. Which is exactly what the Fourth Circuit says was wrong.

OK for Big to project some assumptions on the marchers, but not this?