My son's middle school had a 'zero-tolerance policy' on a number of things... somehow they all survived.

(06-02-2020 06:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 01:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 10:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 09:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 09:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lie.

Yep.

Lad, I'm sorry but that's just beyond the pale. If that's the level of discourse we can expect from you, then forget it.

******* L-O-L. Similarly hyperbolic crap has been blasted out on the board about those on the left.

That is not a denial of the falsehood. That is a whadabout.

It’s an opinion, OO. Sorry, I forgot you have a hard time distinguishing opinions from stated facts - forgot to add the disclaimer of “IMO” to the post for ya.

If you want to prove me wrong, help to show me how a Republican leaders at the federal level have not been advocating for using the US military to deal with these protests and have been advocating for other methods of confronting these issues.

There are certainly some outliers like Justin Amash that aren’t a black eye. But they seem to be getting fewer and further between.

Not an opinion. It is an outright lie. Even if it was an opinion, it would be a stupid one - a pie in the sky construct made up of whole cloth. It is a blanket comment that cannot be shown to be true.

"commit war crimes"? what war are we in? (In your opinion, I mean)

You jumped the shark with this one, Lad. Just admit and get back to more standard conspiracy theories.

(06-01-2020 10:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 09:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 09:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 08:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The current iteration of the conservative movement is happy and willing to support those who would use military might to squash dissent and commit war crimes.

Lie.

Yep.

Lad, I'm sorry but that's just beyond the pale. If that's the level of discourse we can expect from you, then forget it.

******* L-O-L. Similarly hyperbolic crap has been blasted out on the board about those on the left.

Remember when one of them said we were all happy for 100s of 1000s of people to die if it means Trump doesn't win in November?

(06-02-2020 06:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think you’ll notice many liberal posters specifically call out how problematic the rioters are, and not defend those specific individuals. Personally, my issue comes from y’all conflating protestors with the individuals you just called out (rioters et al) and seemingly being eager to dismiss the excessive response to some of the protests that are being peaceful, solely because others have been violent.

I think that if you were to read with an unbiased eye and listen with an unbiased ear, you would know the "y'all" also distinguish between the peaceful protesters and the rioters. Both the posters here and public officials.

As for the latter part of your statement, I call your attention to my question that you and the rest of the libs have studiously ignored: Why do left wing protests so often end in violence and right wing protests so rarely do?

A response would be appreciated.

Quote:It’s not question that those that are taking advantage of a legitimate pain, a legitimate outrage, and legitimate criticism to lash out and loot, destroy, and cause more pain are wrong and vile. But there are also no questions that some police forces and law enforcement individuals are using excessive force in response and playing out their own twisted fantasies.

Excessive force is a judgement. It is in the eye of the of the beholder. I would say it is excessive when the rioters are quieted and the looters at home, and it continues. Until then it is merely, at most, sufficient. But feel free to give us your definition of excessive force.

You speak f a legitimate pain, etc. If you are speaking to the kneeling on a neck, I would say that is legitimate regardless of the race of the person being kneeled on or the race of the kneeler.

If you are talking about widespread "police brutality" and widespread "systemic racism", I do not consider those legitimate. That is a different discussion.

Quote:The issue to me is that conversations often get twisted and conflated, and turned into a “your side bad” game. In this instance, there is plenty of blame to go around, and it seems that there are bad actors all around.

Rumors of Russians(!), militia, KKK, are very unlikely, and an attempt to deflect blame from the real instigators of the violence. Antifa has reacted in this way to these issues many times before. And they are certainly not a right wing group.

Let's dissect lads screed:

Quote:The current iteration of the conservative movement is happy and willing to support those who would use military might to squash dissent and commit war crimes.

"Happy to use military might" -- are you against the mobilization of National Guard in Minnesota?

I wholeheartedly support that -- unequivocally. As I support the decision to do that from any civil authority if needed to stop the rioting, the looting, the assaults, and the arson.

If the situation escalates, yes, I might support the invocation of the Insurrection Act. And yes, in that case I would absolutely condone the use of Federal troops. It was done so in the Rodney King riots, and that level is approaching.

What problems might you have with people that support that position, lad?

Now lets go where you really start to go into the weeds in your screed. "To quash dissent". Funny everyone I have heard that supports the use of the National Guard presently (almost everyone, are you dissenting from the mobilizations as they satnd, lad?) supports their use in riot control, prevention of assault, prevention of looting, and prevention of arson (i.e. the biggies that go hand in hand with riots.)

Please denote specifically *anywhere* the advocation of the use of military force (hell lets open it up to police-style military force for that matter) specifically for the 'squashing of dissent'?

You have made the charge, buckaroo, now back it up if you will.

Finally, please denote specifically *anywhere* the advocation of the use 'war crimes' (again, lets open it up to police-style military force for that matter, *and* give the 'stupid' pass on the existence of a war herein)?

Thirdly, if you use the pablum that a call for 'no quarter' is such an advocation, please do tell me where the bodies of the volleyball players are, so we can all go prosecute the winning team.

Fourthly, if the really imbecilic step of the call for 'no quarter' is such an advocation, then will you in any way acknowledge that the phrase 'no quarter' has a high usage in regular language that does not actually mean 'murdering your opponents'?

I look forward to your answers lad. You went off the deep end, and now I suggest you back up your statements. Should be simple since it is so plainly obvious. Again, I look forward to a response. Or, might we expect a rounding version of 'Brave Sir Robin' to be warming up in the music queue?

The floor is yours

(06-02-2020 09:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 10:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 09:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 09:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 08:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The current iteration of the conservative movement is happy and willing to support those who would use military might to squash dissent and commit war crimes.

Lie.

Yep.

Lad, I'm sorry but that's just beyond the pale. If that's the level of discourse we can expect from you, then forget it.

******* L-O-L. Similarly hyperbolic crap has been blasted out on the board about those on the left.

Remember when one of them said we were all happy for 100s of 1000s of people to die if it means Trump doesn't win in November?

I don't. But I am the one who thinks that upper level (not "all", as you say. Does that count as a lie? It does when Trump says things like that) high level Democrats focused on the one paramount task of defeating Trump are happy to see the defeat of Trump as a silver lining to the pandemic and to the riots.

I can distinguish between the DNC and the soldier ants.

Cui bono. Just ask yourself, who is benefiting from the pandemic and the riots. Not Trump. Not conservatives. But the former benefits the Democrats by destroying the economy, and the latter may benefit the Democrats by bringing out black voters. I ask again, cui bono?

(06-02-2020 09:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 10:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 09:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 09:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 08:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The current iteration of the conservative movement is happy and willing to support those who would use military might to squash dissent and commit war crimes.

Lie.

Yep.

Lad, I'm sorry but that's just beyond the pale. If that's the level of discourse we can expect from you, then forget it.

******* L-O-L. Similarly hyperbolic crap has been blasted out on the board about those on the left.

Remember when one of them said we were all happy for 100s of 1000s of people to die if it means Trump doesn't win in November?

In fairness, saying something is a 'war crime' is a legal charge... it has a real and specific definition... now the definition may be somewhat subject to interpretation of guilt or not, but the charge is very specific.

It's the difference between saying that Trump (or Hillary) doesn't care about (fill in the blank) people (an opinion or perception without any real definition) versus Trump (or Hillary) commited Treason.

(06-02-2020 10:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 09:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 10:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 09:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 09:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lie.

Yep.

Lad, I'm sorry but that's just beyond the pale. If that's the level of discourse we can expect from you, then forget it.

******* L-O-L. Similarly hyperbolic crap has been blasted out on the board about those on the left.

Remember when one of them said we were all happy for 100s of 1000s of people to die if it means Trump doesn't win in November?

In fairness, saying something is a 'war crime' is a legal charge... it has a real and specific definition... now the definition may be somewhat subject to interpretation of guilt or not, but the charge is very specific.

It's the difference between saying that Trump (or Hillary) doesn't care about (fill in the blank) people (an opinion or perception without any real definition) versus Trump (or Hillary) commited Treason.

No problem if someone wants to argue I jumped the legal shark - it was definitely a hyperbolic post, but one that I felt was within the realm of hyperbolic posts about liberals on this board.

(06-02-2020 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 10:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 09:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 10:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 09:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Yep.

Lad, I'm sorry but that's just beyond the pale. If that's the level of discourse we can expect from you, then forget it.

******* L-O-L. Similarly hyperbolic crap has been blasted out on the board about those on the left.

Remember when one of them said we were all happy for 100s of 1000s of people to die if it means Trump doesn't win in November?

In fairness, saying something is a 'war crime' is a legal charge... it has a real and specific definition... now the definition may be somewhat subject to interpretation of guilt or not, but the charge is very specific.

It's the difference between saying that Trump (or Hillary) doesn't care about (fill in the blank) people (an opinion or perception without any real definition) versus Trump (or Hillary) commited Treason.

No problem if someone wants to argue I jumped the legal shark - it was definitely a hyperbolic post, but one that I felt was within the realm of hyperbolic posts about liberals on this board.

So, back to "whadaboutism". Mommy, he hit me first.

(06-02-2020 09:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I call your attention to my question that you and the rest of the libs have studiously ignored: Why do left wing protests so often end in violence and right wing protests so rarely do?

I guess none of the lefties want to touch this with a ten foot pole. It seems to be a normal response for the lefties that it is OK to ignore questions if the answer would put the left in a bad light.

(06-02-2020 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 09:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I call your attention to my question that you and the rest of the libs have studiously ignored: Why do left wing protests so often end in violence and right wing protests so rarely do?

I guess none of the lefties want to touch this with a ten foot pole. It seems to be a normal response for the lefties that it is OK to ignore questions if the answer would put the left in a bad light.

I imagine the police response to left-wing versus right-wing protesters plays a part here. Maybe left-wing protests bring out younger protestors (still under-developed impulse control) than right-wing protests. Kind of like the behavior that you see (arson, overturned vehicles, smashed windows, etc.) after big sporting event wins/losses.

(06-02-2020 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 10:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 09:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 10:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 09:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Yep.

Lad, I'm sorry but that's just beyond the pale. If that's the level of discourse we can expect from you, then forget it.

******* L-O-L. Similarly hyperbolic crap has been blasted out on the board about those on the left.

Remember when one of them said we were all happy for 100s of 1000s of people to die if it means Trump doesn't win in November?

In fairness, saying something is a 'war crime' is a legal charge... it has a real and specific definition... now the definition may be somewhat subject to interpretation of guilt or not, but the charge is very specific.

It's the difference between saying that Trump (or Hillary) doesn't care about (fill in the blank) people (an opinion or perception without any real definition) versus Trump (or Hillary) commited Treason.

No problem if someone wants to argue I jumped the legal shark - it was definitely a hyperbolic post, but one that I felt was within the realm of hyperbolic posts about liberals on this board.

Thank you for denoting the 'war crimes' issue.

Do you feel the portion of the post dealing with 'using the military to quash dissent' has any basis whatsoever? If so, what is your basis?

Look I say many things in general about the left -- the absolute necessity of even acknowledging an import to the idea of textualism in favor of 'a living Constitution'; the ideal that the left is in the sense of governmental control of the individual far more authoritarian than the right, even having roots in the historical record with the precursors of fascism; and that the left is collectivist and to an extent socialist in their monetary policy.

I am giving you the floor, unimpeded, to denote the backing for 'eagerness by the right to use the military to quash dissent'.

If you define dissent as rioting, arson, looting, and assault -- then yes, the right is 'eager to use force to quash that weird definition of dissent'.

But I would sincerely like to hear your take on that portion of your comment. Or is that hyperbole as you ascribed your comment on 'war crimes'?

As stated earlier, the floor is yours.

(06-02-2020 11:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 10:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 09:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-01-2020 10:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  ******* L-O-L. Similarly hyperbolic crap has been blasted out on the board about those on the left.

Remember when one of them said we were all happy for 100s of 1000s of people to die if it means Trump doesn't win in November?

In fairness, saying something is a 'war crime' is a legal charge... it has a real and specific definition... now the definition may be somewhat subject to interpretation of guilt or not, but the charge is very specific.

It's the difference between saying that Trump (or Hillary) doesn't care about (fill in the blank) people (an opinion or perception without any real definition) versus Trump (or Hillary) commited Treason.

No problem if someone wants to argue I jumped the legal shark - it was definitely a hyperbolic post, but one that I felt was within the realm of hyperbolic posts about liberals on this board.

So, back to "whadaboutism". Mommy, he hit me first.

In this case, yep. Maybe call out your compatriots with the same vigor and I won’t post like this every once in awhile.

(06-02-2020 11:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 10:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 09:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Remember when one of them said we were all happy for 100s of 1000s of people to die if it means Trump doesn't win in November?

In fairness, saying something is a 'war crime' is a legal charge... it has a real and specific definition... now the definition may be somewhat subject to interpretation of guilt or not, but the charge is very specific.

It's the difference between saying that Trump (or Hillary) doesn't care about (fill in the blank) people (an opinion or perception without any real definition) versus Trump (or Hillary) commited Treason.

No problem if someone wants to argue I jumped the legal shark - it was definitely a hyperbolic post, but one that I felt was within the realm of hyperbolic posts about liberals on this board.

So, back to "whadaboutism". Mommy, he hit me first.

In this case, yep. Maybe call out your compatriots with the same vigor and I won’t post like this every once in awhile.

lad, the floor is still open for *any* background from you on the 'eager to use military force to crush dissent' comment.

By the way lad, you might note I 'called out myself' on my own comments. I will by happy to discuss those comments and why they are made. I am more interested if there is *any* non-hyperbolic reason for the above statement.

(06-02-2020 11:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 10:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  In fairness, saying something is a 'war crime' is a legal charge... it has a real and specific definition... now the definition may be somewhat subject to interpretation of guilt or not, but the charge is very specific.

It's the difference between saying that Trump (or Hillary) doesn't care about (fill in the blank) people (an opinion or perception without any real definition) versus Trump (or Hillary) commited Treason.

No problem if someone wants to argue I jumped the legal shark - it was definitely a hyperbolic post, but one that I felt was within the realm of hyperbolic posts about liberals on this board.

So, back to "whadaboutism". Mommy, he hit me first.

In this case, yep. Maybe call out your compatriots with the same vigor and I won’t post like this every once in awhile.

No "maybe" about it. I think you still would.

But I am glad to hear you admit it was a lie. All you have done since then is justify your right to lie. Kind of like the way Anfifa justifies their right to violence.

This statement of your is very much akin to "they are rapists". If one is a lie, the other is a lie. If one is hyperbole permitted under the custom of "he did it first", so is the other. Interesting to see lad imitating Trump.


This is a good example of a lib saying his **** doesn't stink. Still interested to find out what war we are fighting. Is it the War on Minneapolis?

(06-02-2020 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 09:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I call your attention to my question that you and the rest of the libs have studiously ignored: Why do left wing protests so often end in violence and right wing protests so rarely do?

I guess none of the lefties want to touch this with a ten foot pole. It seems to be a normal response for the lefties that it is OK to ignore questions if the answer would put the left in a bad light.

I think it's because they support the outcomes, but not the methods. They don't see the methods as being counterproductive. On the right, we see the methods as being counterproductive, even if we support the outcomes.

I think that's actually pretty natural.... and we're seeing it in a microcosm here. I don't find myself making frequent pedantic corrections to people I agree with... but if I disagree, I'll not only note the meaningful disagreements, but often the trivial ones as well. You've seen me getting on Lad for focusing on the pedantry and ignoring the meat, and being mad at myself for doing it, but it's how I react to things.... sometimes to my own detriment. I don't see it that way when I do it, but I keep getting the same reaction, so obviously I should.

I don't see the right accepting looting of stores and destruction of property etc as being 'productive'.... and I think most on the left understand that... even if they aren't willing to condemn it... but in this case, I think they need to distance themselves from it or even call it out rather than defend those who do it... because we all know it's wrong. Too often we get a 'It's wrong but I understand it'... reaction... and that can't be allowed... just like we can't allow what the cop did to be 'wrong but understandable'.

(06-02-2020 12:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 09:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I call your attention to my question that you and the rest of the libs have studiously ignored: Why do left wing protests so often end in violence and right wing protests so rarely do?

I guess none of the lefties want to touch this with a ten foot pole. It seems to be a normal response for the lefties that it is OK to ignore questions if the answer would put the left in a bad light.

I think it's because they support the outcomes, but not the methods. They don't see the methods as being counterproductive. On the right, we see the methods as being counterproductive, even if we support the outcomes.

I think that's actually pretty natural.... and we're seeing it in a microcosm here. I don't find myself making frequent pedantic corrections to people I agree with... but if I disagree, I'll not only note the meaningful disagreements, but often the trivial ones as well.

Speak for yourself: when it comes to be pedantic corrections, I for one try to be even-handed.

(06-02-2020 11:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 09:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I call your attention to my question that you and the rest of the libs have studiously ignored: Why do left wing protests so often end in violence and right wing protests so rarely do?

I guess none of the lefties want to touch this with a ten foot pole. It seems to be a normal response for the lefties that it is OK to ignore questions if the answer would put the left in a bad light.

I imagine the police response to left-wing versus right-wing protesters plays a part here. Maybe left-wing protests bring out younger protestors (still under-developed impulse control) than right-wing protests. Kind of like the behavior that you see (arson, overturned vehicles, smashed windows, etc.) after big sporting event wins/losses.

It's almost as though, if it weren't for young males, there would hardly be any violence at all.

(06-02-2020 11:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 09:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I call your attention to my question that you and the rest of the libs have studiously ignored: Why do left wing protests so often end in violence and right wing protests so rarely do?

I guess none of the lefties want to touch this with a ten foot pole. It seems to be a normal response for the lefties that it is OK to ignore questions if the answer would put the left in a bad light.

I imagine the police response to left-wing versus right-wing protesters plays a part here. Maybe left-wing protests bring out younger protestors (still under-developed impulse control) than right-wing protests. Kind of like the behavior that you see (arson, overturned vehicles, smashed windows, etc.) after big sporting event wins/losses.

Yes, I remember well all the vandalism and arson we did after beating LSU. Completely trashed the RMC and the Village. Boy did we show the world!!!

But, seriously, thanks for making the effort.

True, I think left wing riots tend to focus on younger people, but they also seem to feel entitled to vandalize and burn, since it is in a "good" cause.

Right wing protests, despite (or maybe because of) people carrying guns, tend to be peaceful, unless they are attacked by left-winger counter protesters.