(07-29-2019 10:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 09:55 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 08:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 07:52 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Those of you who consider vulgar language a disqualification for public office - are you really that sanctimonious and puritanical in general, or only when finding fault with Trump?

Frizzy... big time straw man there.

When did I say that vulgar language was a disqualification for public office???

Well, then what are you saying - in other words, as I asked, what's the purpose of this sidebar on Trump's vulgarity? Was it just to change the subject? What line did you mean when you asked where to draw the line?

I mean what is the point that right wing posters on this forum will they say "OK... he has crossed a line here. He should apologize for that language. That's unacceptable from a president (presidential candidate)."

Funny he did apologize for it.

Live on CNN

Quote:"I said it, I was wrong and I apologize,"

Did you notice? Did you care?

Quote:I have read a bunch of justification for pretty bad (IMO) things that he has said or tweeted. I wondered if something so completely over-the-top such as "grab them by the *****" was at all a point of reckoning for the Trump supporters on here. I guess not. They seemingly echo Trump that this particular comment was just "locker room talk among the guys".

It was pretty crass. Vulgar. Exceptionally so, in fact.

I've had clients that have expressed the same. I'm not shocked that a New York developer would say this --- I have heard some NY legal partners express this as well.

I have had some clients say far, far worse racial comments, tbh. But then again they were actually self-avowed white nationalists.

Not condoning it at all. But, I am not going to banish someone who had said it in the far past either, simply because it was said in the far past.

If you are shocked that someone has said this in the last 15-20 years, you have a weird view of the planet as a whole.

But this is the issue with progs -- one thing uttered 200 years ago and you get your statute torn down today, right? I mean, just look at the castigation and villification of Kate Smith and her rendition of God Bless America for proof of that.

Oh, that is except when you are a Democratic governor of a purple state. Then all is forgiven in record time. As well as forgotten.

I mean, there is a reason why the progressive movement is equated to Maoism by some at this stage.

But turning back to the Trump statement, it added to why I did not vote for him. I find it odd that you continuously seem to forget that none of OO, #s, nor myself voted for the man.

But, given his judicial appointments and his 'utter destruction of regulation' (as some have expressed apoplectic horror about), I may very well vote for him if need be. The biggest attraction to a possible vote for Trump from my end would be the alternatives that will seemingly be offered up by the Democrats.

(07-29-2019 10:23 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:07 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  What do you mean by "point of reckoning?"

By the way, he's already apologized for the *****-grabbing speech. I don't think his apology carries much weight or makes much difference. Do you?

He had no choice but to apologize given the circumstances of the presidential election. I don't know if the apology carries weight. The only way to know is to have insight into whether he actually tried to learn from this situation and change his behavior. I don't have any way to say if that happened or not.

The Oklahoma SAE racist apologized as well after his video came out. Did that apology "carry much weight"?

If you agree that a Trump apology doesn't mean much than what would be the point of a Trump supporter saying he should apologize. You should note that people here are not defending his remarks or vulgar language, but condemning those who deliberately misrepresent what he says to further their agenda.

The way I see it, one false accusation of racism based on twisting a man's words is 1000x more evil than those words themselves no matter how vulgar or offensive. I don't care how prim and proper a Democrat's speech, if it's malicious slander it offends me more than a string of explicatives would.

(07-29-2019 10:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 09:55 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 08:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 07:52 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Those of you who consider vulgar language a disqualification for public office - are you really that sanctimonious and puritanical in general, or only when finding fault with Trump?

Frizzy... big time straw man there.

When did I say that vulgar language was a disqualification for public office???

Well, then what are you saying - in other words, as I asked, what's the purpose of this sidebar on Trump's vulgarity? Was it just to change the subject? What line did you mean when you asked where to draw the line?

I mean what is the point that right wing posters on this forum will they say "OK... he has crossed a line here. He should apologize for that language. That's unacceptable from a president (presidential candidate)."

Funny he did apologize for it.

Live on CNN

Quote:"I said it, I was wrong and I apologize,"

Did you notice? Did you care?

I noticed. I also noticed that he tried to justify his comments by pointing out that Bill Clinton had abused women. Nice.

Like I said... he had ZERO choice but to put out a public apology. Should I care? Did you care? Did his apology make you feel better about the situation?

(07-29-2019 10:37 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:23 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:07 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  What do you mean by "point of reckoning?"

By the way, he's already apologized for the *****-grabbing speech. I don't think his apology carries much weight or makes much difference. Do you?

He had no choice but to apologize given the circumstances of the presidential election. I don't know if the apology carries weight. The only way to know is to have insight into whether he actually tried to learn from this situation and change his behavior. I don't have any way to say if that happened or not.

The Oklahoma SAE racist apologized as well after his video came out. Did that apology "carry much weight"?

If you agree that a Trump apology doesn't mean much than what would be the point of a Trump supporter saying he should apologize.

I wouldn't have demanded an apology were anybody to ask me. The PR team-produced "apologies" that we see from politicians don't do much for me.

*edit* I see your point was in response to my asking where the line was drawn. I stand corrected.

Quote: You should note that people here are not defending his remarks or vulgar language, but condemning those who deliberately misrepresent what he says to further their agenda.

Tanq is sort of defending those remarks, is he not?

Quote:[quote]

The way I see it, one false accusation of racism based on twisting a man's words is 1000x more evil than those words themselves no matter how vulgar or offensive. I don't care how prim and proper a Democrat's speech, if it's malicious slander it offends me more than a string of explicatives would.

I would honestly like the left to be more judicious in general when throwing around accusations of racism. OTOH, as we have seen what should be considered racist is quite subjective.

(07-29-2019 10:44 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 09:55 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 08:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Frizzy... big time straw man there.

When did I say that vulgar language was a disqualification for public office???

Well, then what are you saying - in other words, as I asked, what's the purpose of this sidebar on Trump's vulgarity? Was it just to change the subject? What line did you mean when you asked where to draw the line?

I mean what is the point that right wing posters on this forum will they say "OK... he has crossed a line here. He should apologize for that language. That's unacceptable from a president (presidential candidate)."

Funny he did apologize for it.

Live on CNN

Quote:"I said it, I was wrong and I apologize,"

Did you notice? Did you care?

I noticed. I also noticed that he tried to justify his comments by pointing out that Bill Clinton had abused women. Nice.

Like I said... he had ZERO choice but to put out a public apology. Should I care? Did you care? Did his apology make you feel better about the situation?

I asked you,

Quote:Well, then what are you saying - in other words, as I asked, what's the purpose of this sidebar on Trump's vulgarity? Was it just to change the subject? What line did you mean when you asked where to draw the line?

and you responded,

Quote:I mean what is the point that right wing posters on this forum will they say "OK... he has crossed a line here. He should apologize for that language. That's unacceptable from a president (presidential candidate)."

and yet you say the apology is meaningless.

Sorry, but I have to ask again, what's your point?

(07-29-2019 10:58 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:44 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 09:55 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Well, then what are you saying - in other words, as I asked, what's the purpose of this sidebar on Trump's vulgarity? Was it just to change the subject? What line did you mean when you asked where to draw the line?

I mean what is the point that right wing posters on this forum will they say "OK... he has crossed a line here. He should apologize for that language. That's unacceptable from a president (presidential candidate)."

Funny he did apologize for it.

Live on CNN

Quote:"I said it, I was wrong and I apologize,"

Did you notice? Did you care?

I noticed. I also noticed that he tried to justify his comments by pointing out that Bill Clinton had abused women. Nice.

Like I said... he had ZERO choice but to put out a public apology. Should I care? Did you care? Did his apology make you feel better about the situation?

I asked you,

Quote:Well, then what are you saying - in other words, as I asked, what's the purpose of this sidebar on Trump's vulgarity? Was it just to change the subject? What line did you mean when you asked where to draw the line?

and you responded,

Quote:I mean what is the point that right wing posters on this forum will they say "OK... he has crossed a line here. He should apologize for that language. That's unacceptable from a president (presidential candidate)."

and yet you say the apology is meaningless.

Sorry, but I have to ask again, what's your point?

See edit above.

(07-29-2019 10:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:37 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:23 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  [quote='Frizzy Owl' pid='16215815' dateline='1564456073']
What do you mean by "point of reckoning?"

By the way, he's already apologized for the *****-grabbing speech. I don't think his apology carries much weight or makes much difference. Do you?

He had no choice but to apologize given the circumstances of the presidential election. I don't know if the apology carries weight. The only way to know is to have insight into whether he actually tried to learn from this situation and change his behavior. I don't have any way to say if that happened or not.

The Oklahoma SAE racist apologized as well after his video came out. Did that apology "carry much weight"?

If you agree that a Trump apology doesn't mean much than what would be the point of a Trump supporter saying he should apologize.

I wouldn't have demanded an apology were anybody to ask me. The PR team-produced "apologies" that we see from politicians don't do much for me.

*edit* I see your point was in response to my asking where the line was drawn. I stand corrected.

Quote: You should note that people here are not defending his remarks or vulgar language, but condemning those who deliberately misrepresent what he says to further their agenda.

Tanq is sort of defending those remarks, is he not?

Quote:

Quote:The way I see it, one false accusation of racism based on twisting a man's words is 1000x more evil than those words themselves no matter how vulgar or offensive. I don't care how prim and proper a Democrat's speech, if it's malicious slander it offends me more than a string of explicatives would.

I would honestly like the left to be more judicious in general when throwing around accusations of racism. OTOH, as we have seen what should be considered racist is quite subjective.

Not exactly. Politicians who employ charges of racism also claim the right to apply the label without challenge. Their use of the term is subjective, not it's definition. After all, the accusation needs to be damning in order to have effect, and if the definition becomes subjective the accusation becomes meaningless. Racism still clearly means hate or bias on the basis of race.

Ok, that's weird. Mine and 93's post seem to have gotten merged somehow.

The sentence beginning with "Tanq is..." and above is Rice93's post.

What's below is my post.

How did that happen?

(07-29-2019 11:11 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Not exactly. Politicians who employ charges of racism also claim the right to apply the label without challenge. Their use of the term is subjective, not it's definition. After all, the accusation needs to be damning in order to have effect, and if the definition becomes subjective the accusation becomes meaningless. Racism still clearly means hate or bias on the basis of race.

So the people who are calling this history of Trump seemingly using these dehumanizing terms to describe places where mainly POC reside... and never doing so when it comes to locales where you have mostly white people... wouldn't that be bias on the basis of race?

I'm not saying that I'm in the group calling Trump racist over this issue but I understand their POV on this.

(07-29-2019 11:15 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Ok, that's weird. Mine and 93's post seem to have gotten merged somehow.

The sentence beginning with "Tanq is..." and above is Rice93's post.

What's below is my post.

How did that happen?

The formatting on here SUCKS.

Staff upheaval at DCCC

The Democrats are the party obsessed with race. Apparently the problem was not that any staffers were incompetent, it was that they were the wrong color.

And hasn't there been some talk lately about turnover in Trumps staff and Cabinet?

(07-29-2019 11:20 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 11:11 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Not exactly. Politicians who employ charges of racism also claim the right to apply the label without challenge. Their use of the term is subjective, not it's definition. After all, the accusation needs to be damning in order to have effect, and if the definition becomes subjective the accusation becomes meaningless. Racism still clearly means hate or bias on the basis of race.

So the people who are calling this history of Trump seemingly using these dehumanizing terms to describe places where mainly POC reside... and never doing so when it comes to locales where you have mostly white people... wouldn't that be bias on the basis of race?

I'm not saying that I'm in the group calling Trump racist over this issue but I understand their POV on this.

This is already been covered. A reference to a rat-infested inner city neighborhood represented by a Democrat will almost invariably be a reference to a neighborhood populated by POC, because few if any such neighborhoods exist that are not populated by POC. That's a fact - a depressing fact given the history - and it's an inconvenient truth, but it is the truth, and truth is not racist.

(07-29-2019 10:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Tanq is sort of defending those remarks, is he not?

Not especially, just pointing out your broad brush of "*completely* unacceptable" doesnt take into account a whole slew of situations. You know, like when you said 'when is the phrase 'short bus' *ever* acceptable'.

You have an amazing ability to make *your* point of view the absolute gold standard for the world, if you happened to notice.

It actually is a very subjective standard (albeit one that cuts a wide sswath on one side) when one actually stops and thinks about it, yet you feel the power to make it objective.

(07-29-2019 11:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 11:15 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Ok, that's weird. Mine and 93's post seem to have gotten merged somehow.

The sentence beginning with "Tanq is..." and above is Rice93's post.

What's below is my post.

How did that happen?

The formatting on here SUCKS.

Have to keep count of matching [ quote ] and [ / quote ].

Kind of like keeping track of { and } when programming in c++ and Java.

It happened because 93 left a single floating [ quote ] hanging around in his edit.

(07-29-2019 10:58 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:44 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 10:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-29-2019 09:55 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Well, then what are you saying - in other words, as I asked, what's the purpose of this sidebar on Trump's vulgarity? Was it just to change the subject? What line did you mean when you asked where to draw the line?

I mean what is the point that right wing posters on this forum will they say "OK... he has crossed a line here. He should apologize for that language. That's unacceptable from a president (presidential candidate)."

Funny he did apologize for it.

Live on CNN

Quote:"I said it, I was wrong and I apologize,"

Did you notice? Did you care?

I noticed. I also noticed that he tried to justify his comments by pointing out that Bill Clinton had abused women. Nice.

Like I said... he had ZERO choice but to put out a public apology. Should I care? Did you care? Did his apology make you feel better about the situation?

I asked you,

Quote:Well, then what are you saying - in other words, as I asked, what's the purpose of this sidebar on Trump's vulgarity? Was it just to change the subject? What line did you mean when you asked where to draw the line?

and you responded,

Quote:I mean what is the point that right wing posters on this forum will they say "OK... he has crossed a line here. He should apologize for that language. That's unacceptable from a president (presidential candidate)."

and yet you say the apology is meaningless.

Sorry, but I have to ask again, what's your point?

It's obvious: the point is 'Orange man bad; saying 'crime infested' when describing a high crime area is "dehumanizing", but really *only* when Orange man says it. And when pushed, will change the subject to other statements.'

That is the germane point on this episode, isnt it?

edited to add: I will grant you 93 didnt say 'infested' means racist. But lad certainly did. But 93 certainly did try and change the issue to the more damning statement.

Jeez...

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-ai...=64634140]

*edit* I'm all-in on "Orange Man Bad" when it comes to this stuff. Less so on the inflammatory tweets.

(07-30-2019 08:07 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Jeez...

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-ai...=64634140]

*edit* I'm all-in on "Orange Man Bad" when it comes to this stuff. Less so on the inflammatory tweets.

The link doesn't work.

Has the story been retracted? (/jk)

(07-29-2019 10:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I mean what is the point that right wing posters on this forum will they say "OK... he has crossed a line here. He should apologize for that language. That's unacceptable from a president (presidential candidate)."

I'll give you a hint. Calling a disgusting, rat- and rodent-infested mess a, "disgusting, rat- and rodent-infested mess," isn't it.

(07-30-2019 08:23 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 08:07 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Jeez...

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-ai...=64634140]

*edit* I'm all-in on "Orange Man Bad" when it comes to this stuff. Less so on the inflammatory tweets.

The link doesn't work.

Has the story been retracted? (/jk)

I wish.

Here's another try: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-ai...d=64634140

(07-30-2019 08:37 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 08:23 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 08:07 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Jeez...

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-ai...=64634140]

*edit* I'm all-in on "Orange Man Bad" when it comes to this stuff. Less so on the inflammatory tweets.

The link doesn't work.

Has the story been retracted? (/jk)

I wish.

Here's another try: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-ai...d=64634140

Quote:The language that winds up in Trump’s speech ultimately does not include the direct references to the Gulf leaders but does include a nod to the requested sentiment – expressing his desire to “work with our Gulf allies to develop a positive energy relationship as part of our anti-terrorism strategy.”

Oh, the horror!