(01-14-2020 01:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'm quite certain that many who attended these marches or at least didn't side with those wanting to remove the statues, did so without any knowledge that the Klan organized the event.

You are quite certain, but have literally zero evidence. Great. I was quite certain the Saints were going to beat the Vikings. I was quite certain that Bloomgren was going to immediately get better results than Bailiff. Quite certain died in the face of evidence to the contrary.

(01-14-2020 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  [quote='mrbig' pid='16609843' dateline='1579015107']
Kamala, a 20-ish first year fledgling associate DA started boffing Willie, the Speaker of the House CA. At that time the most powerful politician in California.

Amazing how part-time state commission positions to the tune of 120k/yr can flow to a 1st year wet behind the ears noob associate DA who happens to to be schtuffing the California Speaker of the House.

I'm kind of tired of being the facts police on stuff that really doesn't matter to me. But here goes. Harris was ~26 when she started working at the DA's office. She started dating Willie Brown about 4 years later when she was almost 30. This was also her age when he appointed her to the state commission of which you write. So she wasn't a "20-ish first year fledgling associate DA" when they started a relationship. She wasn't a "1st year wet behind the ears noob associate DA" when she was appointed to commissions.

(01-14-2020 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Being more crass, and first hand from people who worked in the office and with whom I later worked, both Willie's sexual organ and Kamala were referred to by the same phrase by her compadres.

Think Speaker Brown's first name in the possessive, then Speaker Brown's last name put together.

Wow, so extremely sexist of her compadres. Truly disgusting. Since I am still fairly young, stuff like this really helps elucidate how crappy things were for women a few decades ago (not that things are perfect today).

All this said, there is zero evidence that she slept with him for any reasons other than she enjoyed his company and/or liked having sex with him. There is also zero evidence that she was appointed to those commissions because of the sex and not because, independent of the sex, Willie Brown thought she was an intelligent and gifted woman. As noted by someone else, Willie Brown helped a lot of Democratic politicians in different ways. Presumably he didn't have sex with all of them, so why are you assuming his help for Senator Harris was based on the sex and his help for all the others was based on something else?

As noted in that Fourth Circuit decision, it is a sexist trope to make the assumption that the appointments were because of sex. Yeah, I get your immediate "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck" response. Whatever. Go ahead and call a female Senator a skank, prostitute, whore, or slut if that is how you want to conduct yourself (or yourselves, I can't tell if anyone else is joining 69/70/75). I promise you that I will think less of you for doing so, but to keep OO happy, I'll make sure it is one of many different data points I will consider.

(01-14-2020 04:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess the bottom line is this: I will judge people as I do, and y’all can judge according to your yardstick.

Can't we all just agree to judge people by Willie Brown's yardstick?

In your cases 'certain' is a prediction. Quite different than the argument you are trying to make. Funny, when you think about it, your evidence is on whom *sponsored* or *promoted* as aspect of an event.

You yourself have zero evidence as to *all* the participants. Certainly doesnt stand in the way your big brush painting job, though....

Using your (flawed) methodology, I could similarly say a statement that 'all progressives are simply at their core nothing but redistributionist, power hungry individuals who would gladly burn the real words in any law or in the Constitution to get to their stated goal de jure.'

But, the sensible part of me understands that while that is the visible part of the ideology, there are probably at least some who are not; more than likely a very good number of them.

So, the next time you launch into *anybody* for painting with too wide a wide brush, it may not really mean as much based on your analysis that 'no one at the march was good, and all were bad.'

(01-14-2020 05:13 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  [quote='mrbig' pid='16609843' dateline='1579015107']
Kamala, a 20-ish first year fledgling associate DA started boffing Willie, the Speaker of the House CA. At that time the most powerful politician in California.

Amazing how part-time state commission positions to the tune of 120k/yr can flow to a 1st year wet behind the ears noob associate DA who happens to to be schtuffing the California Speaker of the House.

I'm kind of tired of being the facts police on stuff that really doesn't matter to me. But here goes. Harris was ~26 when she started working at the DA's office. She started dating Willie Brown about 4 years later when she was almost 30. This was also her age when he appointed her to the state commission of which you write. So she wasn't a "20-ish first year fledgling associate DA" when they started a relationship. She wasn't a "1st year wet behind the ears noob associate DA" when she was appointed to commissions.

(01-14-2020 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Being more crass, and first hand from people who worked in the office and with whom I later worked, both Willie's sexual organ and Kamala were referred to by the same phrase by her compadres.

Think Speaker Brown's first name in the possessive, then Speaker Brown's last name put together.

Wow, so extremely sexist of her compadres. Truly disgusting. Since I am still fairly young, stuff like this really helps elucidate how crappy things were for women a few decades ago (not that things are perfect today).

All this said, there is zero evidence that she slept with him for any reasons other than she enjoyed his company and/or liked having sex with him. There is also zero evidence that she was appointed to those commissions because of the sex and not because, independent of the sex, Willie Brown thought she was an intelligent and gifted woman. As noted by someone else, Willie Brown helped a lot of Democratic politicians in different ways. Presumably he didn't have sex with all of them, so why are you assuming his help for Senator Harris was based on the sex and his help for all the others was based on something else?

As noted in that Fourth Circuit decision, it is a sexist trope to make the assumption that the appointments were because of sex. Yeah, I get your immediate "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck" response. Whatever. Go ahead and call a female Senator a skank, prostitute, whore, or slut if that is how you want to conduct yourself (or yourselves, I can't tell if anyone else is joining 69/70/75). I promise you that I will think less of you for doing so, but to keep OO happy, I'll make sure it is one of many different data points I will consider.

I suggest you look at the positions, and note how many very green associate DA's got those types of positions. The population is low. Really low. Asrtonomically low.
Kind of limited to those who were boffing Willie.

Yeah, lets just ignore that why dont we.

Cha cha cha. You are getting adept at that move.

I am sure while Kamala was doing a Willie-ride, Brown was only thinking about how awesome that tail would be on the insurance board.... and also thinking that, when that expired, the other one.... Yeah, that must be the case.

Cmon man, you really should let some real life sensibility drift into that defense......

Not the first time in the world someone traded a piece of ass for professional advancement, or screwed a powerful figure to get a power boost. You act as though that *never* happens, and stunningly that it would *never* happen to good, sweet, never trying to get a leg (and other parts) up Kamala.....

(01-14-2020 05:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In your cases 'certain' is a prediction. Quite different than the argument you are trying to make. Funny, when you think about it, your evidence is on whom *sponsored* or *promoted* as aspect of an event.

You yourself have zero evidence as to *all* the participants. Certainly doesnt stand in the way your big brush painting job, though....

Using your (flawed) methodology, I could similarly say a statement that 'all progressives are simply at their core nothing but redistributionist, power hungry individuals who would gladly burn the real words in any law or in the Constitution to get to their stated goal de jure.'

But, the sensible part of me understands that while that is the visible part of the ideology, there are probably at least some who are not; more than likely a very good number of them.

So, the next time you launch into *anybody* for painting with too wide a wide brush, it may not really mean as much based on your analysis that 'no one at the march was good, and all were bad.'

You may be right about me painting with too broad of a brush in this instance. You are also correct that I do not have evidence or knowledge of every single person at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville was a racist, white supremacist, nazi, "bad", or not a "very fine person."

I also said I was disengaging from this specific discussion, so I'll stop there. I did want to at least acknowledge these points though.

What I find funny is that you extend, in the case of Kamala bunny bumping her way, *every* benefit of doubt in your defense of her bedride up.

As for 'all marchers' bad, you extend zero benefit of doubt.

Interesting stances.

(01-14-2020 05:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I suggest you look at the positions, and note how many very green associate DA's got those types of positions. The population is low. Really low. Asrtonomically low.
Kind of limited to those who were boffing Willie.

Yeah, lets just ignore that why dont we.

Cha cha cha. You are getting adept at that move.

I am sure while Kamala was doing a Willie-ride, Brown was only thinking about how awesome that tail would be on the insurance board.... and also thinking that, when that expired, the other one.... Yeah, that must be the case.

Cmon man, you really should let some real life sensibility drift into that defense......

Not the first time in the world someone traded a piece of ass for professional advancement, or screwed a powerful figure to get a power boost. You act as though that *never* happens, and stunningly that it would *never* happen to good, sweet, never trying to get a leg (and other parts) up Kamala.....

I tried to find a list of people appointed to those 2 boards other than Kamala Harris, but can't find a list. Where can I find the list to see who else was appointed to those commissions to compare their credentials to Harris's credentials at the time? In my research I have seen multiple articles noting the appointment to those commissions (and a few others in California) were patronage positions that were abused by politicians like Brown appointing friends (and in this instance a girlfriend). That's bad practice.

I never said that Harris didn't get appointed to those Boards because of her relationship with Brown. They have both basically admitted it. I think the circumstantial evidence suggests she did. But her getting appointed because of Brown and her starting a relationship with Brown with the goal of furthering her career are two different things.

69/70/75 and apparently you are assuming the 2nd - that the purpose of the relationship from Harris's side was to improve her professional standing and that she was willing to have sex to do so. I think it is sexist trope to make this assumption and I haven't seen any evidence of the intent on Harris's side, which is what 69/70/75 was arguing when justifying calling her a skank, prostitute, whore, and slut. Even if her intent was to improve her professional standing, I still think it would be sexist to call her what 69/70/75 called her.

Again, I don't know why people keep going down this rabbit hole. Call Harris whatever you want. I will think less of you for calling any woman those words, regardless of what you think she did or what she actually did (with the limited exception of someone who is literally a prostitute, but the other 3 words are complete no-no as far as I'm concerned). Ladies of the night in Nevada are prostitutes, I am OK with that.

(01-14-2020 05:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What I find funny is that you extend, in the case of Kamala bunny bumping her way, *every* question of doubt in your defense of her bedride up.

As for 'all marchers' bad, you extend zero questions of doubt.

Interesting stances.

I don't really find them that interesting.

When someone is at a protest marching between a guy carrying a nazi flag, a guy chanting "Jews will not replace us" and a guy chanting "blood and soil", then the vast, vast majority of people will make assumptions about the nameless marcher who isn't carrying the sign or chanting those slogans. I find it kind of shocking that none of the conservatives here are making any assumptions about that person. If I found myself in that situation, I'd immediately get the heck out of dodge (and not just because I'm 1/4 alaska native and would fear physical harm). If you march with those people, then I assume they march with those people because they generally agree with the tone of the march. Otherwise, why be there?

When someone has consensual sex with someone else, I assume they did so because they wanted to have sex. Otherwise, again, why be there? Why do you assume Harris was having sex with Brown just to improve her professional career? If she had not gotten appointed to those commissions and Brown had never helped any of Harris's campaigns, would that have exonerated her in your mind?

When I was in college, I joked to friends (including my future wife) that I wanted to marry someone with money some day. My wife earns more than twice as much as me. When I decided to propose to my wife, she was in med school and I knew she was highly, highly likely to make more money than me for most of our careers. Am I a prostitute, skank, slut, or whore? Would it change your mind if my wife had said that I was the bigger money earner? I feel like I made a good point, maybe Fountains can give me a mic drop gif? I don't know where to find all the cool gifs ... I'm too old for that.

(01-14-2020 04:42 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 01:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'm quite certain that many who attended these marches or at least didn't side with those wanting to remove the statues, did so without any knowledge that the Klan organized the event.

You are quite certain, but have literally zero evidence.

Same as you. You have evidence the way people had evidence the sun rotated around the earth.

(01-14-2020 05:14 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 04:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess the bottom line is this: I will judge people as I do, and y’all can judge according to your yardstick.

Can't we all just agree to judge people by Willie Brown's yardstick?

You can. Seems like you do.

(01-14-2020 05:35 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 05:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In your cases 'certain' is a prediction. Quite different than the argument you are trying to make. Funny, when you think about it, your evidence is on whom *sponsored* or *promoted* as aspect of an event.

You yourself have zero evidence as to *all* the participants. Certainly doesnt stand in the way your big brush painting job, though....

Using your (flawed) methodology, I could similarly say a statement that 'all progressives are simply at their core nothing but redistributionist, power hungry individuals who would gladly burn the real words in any law or in the Constitution to get to their stated goal de jure.'

But, the sensible part of me understands that while that is the visible part of the ideology, there are probably at least some who are not; more than likely a very good number of them.

So, the next time you launch into *anybody* for painting with too wide a wide brush, it may not really mean as much based on your analysis that 'no one at the march was good, and all were bad.'

You may be right about me painting with too broad of a brush in this instance. You are also correct that I do not have evidence or knowledge of every single person at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville was a racist, white supremacist, nazi, "bad", or not a "very fine person."

I also said I was disengaging from this specific discussion, so I'll stop there. I did want to at least acknowledge these points though.

Yeah, I am done too. Tired of talking to the fence post.

Mutual Assured Disengagement

MAD

(01-14-2020 06:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 04:42 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 01:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'm quite certain that many who attended these marches or at least didn't side with those wanting to remove the statues, did so without any knowledge that the Klan organized the event.

You are quite certain, but have literally zero evidence.

Same as you. You have evidence the way people had evidence the sun rotated around the earth.

I am making assumptions based on circumstantial evidence. I get your point that I am making assumptions. But they are assumptions supported by a lot of facts, including significant numbers of photos and videos, articles, knowledge of how the rally was organize, and a dash of common sense.

I have repeatedly asked for, and would welcome, evidence to the contrary and will happily admit that I was incorrect if anyone can find such evidence. I assume I would have found evidence if it was easily findable. Point me to the group of "very fine people" at the protest that Trump was talking about. Maybe I am wrong and there were 5 of them that got mixed up in something. Maybe there were 50 of them. Maybe there were 500 "very fine people" who were not racists, white supremacists, anti-semites, or nazis and were just there to peacably protest the removal of confederate statues.

Based on the pictures and videos you have seen, what percentage of the rally attendees do you believe were white supremacists, nazis, anti-semites, or otherwise fall into the same general group of individuals? Is it OK to call them "bad" since that is what Trump said?

What percentage of the counter-protesters on the left looked like they were seeking out violent encounters? Is it OK to call them "bad" since that is what Trump did? Are those percentages remotely close enough to each other to justify Trump's bothsiderism?

Actually, don't answer those questions. Just think about them. I have once allowed myself to get sucked in and I said I would stop. Responding to this topic has all the benefits of bashing myself over the head with a brick.

(01-14-2020 06:30 PM)mrbig Wrote:  ]

I am making assumptions based on circumstantial evidence.

Yes, the circumstantial evidence like the how the sun rising in the east and setting in the west supported the theory of geocentrality.

Everybody ever sent to prison on circumstantial evidence was guilty.

I read one article, years ago, of a kid who came to protest the removal of the statues, nothing more. I guess you can make the assumption I am a liar.

(01-14-2020 06:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I read one article, years ago, of a kid who came to protest the removal of the statues, nothing more. I guess you can make the assumption I am a liar.

Please stop. This isn't about some random protest about the removal of confederate statues.

(01-14-2020 06:50 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 06:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I read one article, years ago, of a kid who came to protest the removal of the statues, nothing more. I guess you can make the assumption I am a liar.

Please stop. This isn't about some random protest about the removal of confederate statues.

I applaud your determination.

(01-14-2020 06:50 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 06:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I read one article, years ago, of a kid who came to protest the removal of the statues, nothing more. I guess you can make the assumption I am a liar.

Please stop. This isn't about some random protest about the removal of confederate statues.

I appreciate the insight into how a liberal mind thinks. Shut them up, shout them down.

(01-14-2020 12:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Should it not be illegal to not hire someone because they’re black?

That's a tough sentence! :)

(01-14-2020 07:13 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 12:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Should it not be illegal to not hire someone because they’re black?

That's a tough sentence! :)

Gotta keep ‘em on their toes.

(01-14-2020 06:07 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 05:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What I find funny is that you extend, in the case of Kamala bunny bumping her way, *every* question of doubt in your defense of her bedride up.

As for 'all marchers' bad, you extend zero questions of doubt.

Interesting stances.

I don't really find them that interesting.

When someone is at a protest marching between a guy carrying a nazi flag, a guy chanting "Jews will not replace us" and a guy chanting "blood and soil", then the vast, vast majority of people will make assumptions about the nameless marcher who isn't carrying the sign or chanting those slogans. I find it kind of shocking that none of the conservatives here are making any assumptions about that person. If I found myself in that situation, I'd immediately get the heck out of dodge (and not just because I'm 1/4 alaska native and would fear physical harm). If you march with those people, then I assume they march with those people because they generally agree with the tone of the march. Otherwise, why be there?

When someone has consensual sex with someone else, I assume they did so because they wanted to have sex. Otherwise, again, why be there? Why do you assume Harris was having sex with Brown just to improve her professional career? If she had not gotten appointed to those commissions and Brown had never helped any of Harris's campaigns, would that have exonerated her in your mind?

When I was in college, I joked to friends (including my future wife) that I wanted to marry someone with money some day. My wife earns more than twice as much as me. When I decided to propose to my wife, she was in med school and I knew she was highly, highly likely to make more money than me for most of our careers. Am I a prostitute, skank, slut, or whore? Would it change your mind if my wife had said that I was the bigger money earner? I feel like I made a good point, maybe Fountains can give me a mic drop gif? I don't know where to find all the cool gifs ... I'm too old for that.

As I noted before, you extend *every* benefit of the doubt to Kamala.

You extend zero benefit of the doubt to marchers.

By the way, you do know the term 'Blood and Soil' is *not* specifically a racist statement? It actually refers to those who served in the Confederate forces.

Or does anything that even *hints* at the Confederacy mean racism to you? I can tell you undoubtedly the term you so proudly highlight actually means something very different to those who can actually trace roots to the south, and can trace roots to the Confederate forces.

But if you want to knee-jerk the statement into a purely racist slogan because of any tie to the Confederacy whatsoever (which you seemingly do), then, to be bluntly honest, I now understand your 'all marchers == bad' stance. Since *anything* that hints or has ties to any vestige of the Confederacy is racist, then I would assume that a statute of any person who fought in that conflict is by definition racist in that mindset. And, how *dare* anyone even contemplate being a marcher to preserve that.

If that is the mindset (I hope to hell it isnt), then you are correct; we dont have much common ground on the subject. If it isnt your mindset, then I hope you now understand why your 'shout out' on 'Blood and Soil' isn't all its cracked up to be --- and perhaps why your view might be tilted to a decent degree. Honestly, the term is not racist to the core --- when your gd understand the term 'Blood and Soil' refers to the blood spilt on the soil ---- by the soldiers themselves.

As noted, I hope that you arent a kneejerk 'if it refers to the Confederacy it means racist' types -- that type is just as ignorant as the viewpoint as the real racists, to be honest.