(07-04-2025 10:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-03-2025 01:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-03-2025 12:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-03-2025 12:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-03-2025 12:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Oh, the brown people thing again. At least you didn’t call them “little” like your friend.

Didn’t realize that all illegals were one color, or even that all Mexicans were one color. Should be news to Claudia Sheinbaum too.

Man, you just haven’t been paying attention- I know I have mentioned my ethic background and life experiences here before. Maybe you shouldn’t be mimicking Joy Reid.

I mentioned how they might be referred to by others. I certainly didnt call *them* that. As you admitted. Now you just apparently want to make up stuff that goes against both what I said, and what you admitted I said.

Maybe *you* should actually be consistent with the context on what I said, and be consistent with how you previously characterized I said that. Nothing like promulgating a crass deception for you now. Cool cool.

Just amazing.

Tanq - you said it. period. Claiming that it was taken out of context sounds like something some politicians would claim.

I find your dishonesty more and more wearying OO.

I typed it out -- specifically denoting what a typical bunch of jacktards would say in the role.

As you noted in our previous back and forth on the issue. And yes, that context is important.

Apparently you feel the need to overlook that context wholly.

Quote:But since you are here, do you concur with what X said about the Trump Admistration’s intentions for brown people, like my grandmother and cousins?

Since you are here, why would I bother discussing any deflection with someone who feels the overriding need to ignore context in order to be a post what you continuously do, OO?

To be clear, I will answer your missive. I think that the Trump administration is far more racist than any one that I have witnessed. Starting out with the missive of 'they eat dogs'. And the constant attempts to equate every single illegal alien with the murder of Lincoln Riley. That line of 'othering' seems very much in their main go-to playbook.

Quote:I find his racism wearying, and his shrill irrational claims boring.

*His* racism? Lolz. Seriously? Double lolz.

And honestly, I am sick and tired of *your* shrill irrational claims about my single usage of that phrase without *any* attempt at denoting the content just as wearying. But -- you be you.

Just as you studiously ignore and alter the use of the related phrase by him to your preferred victim schtick.

His stating 'They're laughing in the place they built right quick to hold brown people who they hope will try and escape so they get eaten by alligators' is simply denoting *how* a racist piece of jerk would say it -- not stating it as his belief of them *being* (merely) little brown people.

So if you want to get royally charged, and I am sure you will do so, simply point to my making use of that term twice more above (three times if you count that it was copied as part of the chain) -- since, I assume in your mind the mere repeating the phrase is the same as my stating it as my belief.

Quote:I have no problem with the detention of illegals of any race or nationality, if they are truly illegal. I don’t care if they are the whitest, blondest Swede, send them back.

Class 10 deflection above. (slow clap)

I can't believe we are still doing this.

Let's be clear here.

Tanq used the phrase "little brown people" to denote what he saw as the attitude of some right-wingers towards immigrant workers. It was clearly meant to signal the disdain and racism that some have when it comes to immigrants.

OO then decided to accuse Tanq of calling Hispanics "little brown people". Which was a ridiculous interpretation of Tanq's post.

Despite multiple attempts to clarify the use of this term and Tanq making his intentions clear, OO continues to pound his favorite straw man.

It's pretty despicable but it is in keeping with OO's turn towards bad-faith arguments and deliberate misrepresentations. Tanq’s point was about exposing racist attitudes, not perpetuating them. This kind of tactic (twisting someone’s words to score cheap points) shuts down any chance of real discussion.

OO’s refusal to engage honestly is sad to watch.

When Tanq said that, I was amazed that a person of his background would use that language in any manner at all. He knows as well as I that the stereotype is not the fact.

But more interesting is your defense of the use of certain slurs if used as examples of bad speech by somebody else.

If I understand you correctly, you would defend me for saying I hate people who say they hate n——ers. Right? OK to use the N-word in that manner? Not OK to object to its usage at all? Doesn’t matter - I don’t care what your answer is, or what lengths you go to justify whatever it is. I won’t be reading it.

Long ago, I figured out your problem with me and my posts and my opinions is purely personal. Don’t know why, and no longer care. But there is nothing to be gained by engaging with you. Might as well “discuss”theology with a street preacher.

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, I have you, Tanq, X, and a couple of others on Ignore. I cannot engage when I do not read your posts. I don’t want engagement with the people I have on Ignore. I post my opinions, or interesting articles, and don’ give a flying f—- what your opinion is of what I post. So no debate needed. I don’t ask for responses, or opinions from certain posters, of which you are one.

Only reason you are getting this is that I accidentally read your post, by not logging in first. Ignore only works when one is logged in. I shall return to my regimen of ignoring anything and everything you say.

Good to see you are still making personal attacks on me. It means I am still living in your head.

Please feel free to put me on Ignore. That would make a wonderful 80th birthday present for me.

(07-10-2025 12:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-04-2025 10:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-03-2025 01:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-03-2025 12:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-03-2025 12:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I mentioned how they might be referred to by others. I certainly didnt call *them* that. As you admitted. Now you just apparently want to make up stuff that goes against both what I said, and what you admitted I said.

Maybe *you* should actually be consistent with the context on what I said, and be consistent with how you previously characterized I said that. Nothing like promulgating a crass deception for you now. Cool cool.

Just amazing.

Tanq - you said it. period. Claiming that it was taken out of context sounds like something some politicians would claim.

I find your dishonesty more and more wearying OO.

I typed it out -- specifically denoting what a typical bunch of jacktards would say in the role.

As you noted in our previous back and forth on the issue. And yes, that context is important.

Apparently you feel the need to overlook that context wholly.

Quote:But since you are here, do you concur with what X said about the Trump Admistration’s intentions for brown people, like my grandmother and cousins?

Since you are here, why would I bother discussing any deflection with someone who feels the overriding need to ignore context in order to be a post what you continuously do, OO?

To be clear, I will answer your missive. I think that the Trump administration is far more racist than any one that I have witnessed. Starting out with the missive of 'they eat dogs'. And the constant attempts to equate every single illegal alien with the murder of Lincoln Riley. That line of 'othering' seems very much in their main go-to playbook.

Quote:I find his racism wearying, and his shrill irrational claims boring.

*His* racism? Lolz. Seriously? Double lolz.

And honestly, I am sick and tired of *your* shrill irrational claims about my single usage of that phrase without *any* attempt at denoting the content just as wearying. But -- you be you.

Just as you studiously ignore and alter the use of the related phrase by him to your preferred victim schtick.

His stating 'They're laughing in the place they built right quick to hold brown people who they hope will try and escape so they get eaten by alligators' is simply denoting *how* a racist piece of jerk would say it -- not stating it as his belief of them *being* (merely) little brown people.

So if you want to get royally charged, and I am sure you will do so, simply point to my making use of that term twice more above (three times if you count that it was copied as part of the chain) -- since, I assume in your mind the mere repeating the phrase is the same as my stating it as my belief.

Quote:I have no problem with the detention of illegals of any race or nationality, if they are truly illegal. I don’t care if they are the whitest, blondest Swede, send them back.

Class 10 deflection above. (slow clap)

I can't believe we are still doing this.

Let's be clear here.

Tanq used the phrase "little brown people" to denote what he saw as the attitude of some right-wingers towards immigrant workers. It was clearly meant to signal the disdain and racism that some have when it comes to immigrants.

OO then decided to accuse Tanq of calling Hispanics "little brown people". Which was a ridiculous interpretation of Tanq's post.

Despite multiple attempts to clarify the use of this term and Tanq making his intentions clear, OO continues to pound his favorite straw man.

It's pretty despicable but it is in keeping with OO's turn towards bad-faith arguments and deliberate misrepresentations. Tanq’s point was about exposing racist attitudes, not perpetuating them. This kind of tactic (twisting someone’s words to score cheap points) shuts down any chance of real discussion.

OO’s refusal to engage honestly is sad to watch.

When Tanq said that, I was amazed that a person of his background would use that language in any manner at all. He knows as well as I that the stereotype is not the fact.

But more interesting is your defense of the use of certain slurs if used as examples of bad speech by somebody else.

If I understand you correctly, you would defend me for saying I hate people who say they hate n——ers. Right? OK to use the N-word in that manner? Not OK to object to its usage at all? Doesn’t matter - I don’t care what your answer is, or what lengths you go to justify whatever it is. I won’t be reading it.

Long ago, I figured out your problem with me and my posts and my opinions is purely personal. Don’t know why, and no longer care. But there is nothing to be gained by engaging with you. Might as well “discuss”theology with a street preacher.

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, I have you, Tanq, X, and a couple of others on Ignore. I cannot engage when I do not read your posts. I don’t want engagement with the people I have on Ignore. I post my opinions, or interesting articles, and don’ give a flying f—- what your opinion is of what I post. So no debate needed. I don’t ask for responses, or opinions from certain posters, of which you are one.

Only reason you are getting this is that I accidentally read your post, by not logging in first. Ignore only works when one is logged in. I shall return to my regimen of ignoring anything and everything you say.

Good to see you are still making personal attacks on me. It means I am still living in your head.

Please feel free to put me on Ignore. That would make a wonderful 80th birthday present for me.

After all your arm waving, I guess you dont bother to notice that even after your comments on neutral context use of it is so terrible, that you dont object to it when used by 93 in that neutral context enough to bother to remove it when you responded. Nor do you go on a polemic over the usage by 93 in that same context. Nor did you engage in the polemic when the phrase (or first cousin) was actually repeated by myself literally just above in a similar context.

Your selective umbrage is actually quite dispositive on the issue.

Neat move there OO. Please preach some more. Amazing display of pure hypocrisy. Simply amazing.

Lolz.

On another point --

One might humorously note the clash between your own charged complaint of:

Quote:Might as well “discuss” theology with a street preacher

with the almost instantaneous follow up comment regarding your view of --

Quote:I [] don’ give a flying f—- what your opinion is of what I post. So no debate needed. I don’t ask for responses, or opinions from certain posters,

Double lolz. That is quite the upper edge of self-conflicted comments performed almost instantaneously I have have seen in quite awhile.

Ironic, isn't it?

I used to like Booker, when he was new to congress, but over the years he has become just another establishment Democrat.

His bill aims to make it illegal for ICE agents to wear masks. I wonder if kaffiyahs are exempted?

Little chance of this passing even one house of Congress. Many democrats will vote common sense, and many are representative of border districts, where just about everybody has a friend, relative, or neighbor in ICE or the Border Patrol. My cousin who was in the BP retired.

I think the whole 'anti-anti-illegal immigrant' argument is often rather intellectually dishonest.

If you recognize that not only the largest cohort, but the largest 'concerns' (terrorists and gang members) come from 'certain' regions like Central America and the Middle East as opposed to Europe, Africa and Asia, you are a racist.... and if you ignore it and treat them all the same, you're STILL racist because being anti-illegal immigrant predominantly impacts 'brown' people. It's a circuitous argument.

John Kerry admits Trump was right on border

So I guess that makes Kerry a racist too?

Former President Biden's climate czar John Kerry admitted during an interview on Thursday that President Donald Trump was "right" about the border.

"The first thing any president should say, any president, or anybody in public life, is, without a border protected, you don't have a nation — I believe that. If you're going to define your nation, you have to have a border that means something," Kerry said during an interview on BBC's "Reflections" podcast. "We have a system. I wish President Biden had been heard more often saying, 'I'm going to enforce the law.'"

Kerry served as former President Barack Obama's Secretary of State and ran for president against former President George W. Bush in the 2004 election. BBC correspondent James Naughtie said during the discussion that Trump would likely point at Kerry's remarks and declare he was right about the issue.

"He was right," Kerry responded. "The problem is we all should have been right. Everybody should have been right, doing the same thing, all moving in the same direction."

(07-10-2025 12:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-04-2025 10:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-03-2025 01:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-03-2025 12:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-03-2025 12:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I mentioned how they might be referred to by others. I certainly didnt call *them* that. As you admitted. Now you just apparently want to make up stuff that goes against both what I said, and what you admitted I said.

Maybe *you* should actually be consistent with the context on what I said, and be consistent with how you previously characterized I said that. Nothing like promulgating a crass deception for you now. Cool cool.

Just amazing.

Tanq - you said it. period. Claiming that it was taken out of context sounds like something some politicians would claim.

I find your dishonesty more and more wearying OO.

I typed it out -- specifically denoting what a typical bunch of jacktards would say in the role.

As you noted in our previous back and forth on the issue. And yes, that context is important.

Apparently you feel the need to overlook that context wholly.

Quote:But since you are here, do you concur with what X said about the Trump Admistration’s intentions for brown people, like my grandmother and cousins?

Since you are here, why would I bother discussing any deflection with someone who feels the overriding need to ignore context in order to be a post what you continuously do, OO?

To be clear, I will answer your missive. I think that the Trump administration is far more racist than any one that I have witnessed. Starting out with the missive of 'they eat dogs'. And the constant attempts to equate every single illegal alien with the murder of Lincoln Riley. That line of 'othering' seems very much in their main go-to playbook.

Quote:I find his racism wearying, and his shrill irrational claims boring.

*His* racism? Lolz. Seriously? Double lolz.

And honestly, I am sick and tired of *your* shrill irrational claims about my single usage of that phrase without *any* attempt at denoting the content just as wearying. But -- you be you.

Just as you studiously ignore and alter the use of the related phrase by him to your preferred victim schtick.

His stating 'They're laughing in the place they built right quick to hold brown people who they hope will try and escape so they get eaten by alligators' is simply denoting *how* a racist piece of jerk would say it -- not stating it as his belief of them *being* (merely) little brown people.

So if you want to get royally charged, and I am sure you will do so, simply point to my making use of that term twice more above (three times if you count that it was copied as part of the chain) -- since, I assume in your mind the mere repeating the phrase is the same as my stating it as my belief.

Quote:I have no problem with the detention of illegals of any race or nationality, if they are truly illegal. I don’t care if they are the whitest, blondest Swede, send them back.

Class 10 deflection above. (slow clap)

I can't believe we are still doing this.

Let's be clear here.

Tanq used the phrase "little brown people" to denote what he saw as the attitude of some right-wingers towards immigrant workers. It was clearly meant to signal the disdain and racism that some have when it comes to immigrants.

OO then decided to accuse Tanq of calling Hispanics "little brown people". Which was a ridiculous interpretation of Tanq's post.

Despite multiple attempts to clarify the use of this term and Tanq making his intentions clear, OO continues to pound his favorite straw man.

It's pretty despicable but it is in keeping with OO's turn towards bad-faith arguments and deliberate misrepresentations. Tanq’s point was about exposing racist attitudes, not perpetuating them. This kind of tactic (twisting someone’s words to score cheap points) shuts down any chance of real discussion.

OO’s refusal to engage honestly is sad to watch.

When Tanq said that, I was amazed that a person of his background would use that language in any manner at all. He knows as well as I that the stereotype is not the fact.

Again... Tanq was clearly seeking to expose racist tropes, not propogate them.

Quote:But more interesting is your defense of the use of certain slurs if used as examples of bad speech by somebody else.

In no way was I defending the use of a slur.

Tanq didn't use it as a slur.

This is clear but you seem committed to your bad-faith argument.

Quote:If I understand you correctly, you would defend me for saying I hate people who say they hate n——ers. Right? OK to use the N-word in that manner?

You wording is a bit weird... but I wouldn't think that you are racist for making that statement. Nor would I think that you are trying to propograte racism.

Quote:Not OK to object to its usage at all? Doesn’t matter - I don’t care what your answer is, or what lengths you go to justify whatever it is. I won’t be reading it.

Cool. You have put every non-right winger on this forum on ignore at one point or another. It's honestly embarrassing behavior. Maybe I am on your ignore list permanently? You do you, OO. It doesn't affect me.

Quote:Long ago, I figured out your problem with me and my posts and my opinions is purely personal. Don’t know why, and no longer care. But there is nothing to be gained by engaging with you. Might as well “discuss”theology with a street preacher.

Dude... I don't know you and it's certainly not personal. When you act like a turd on this forum and insult me I don't take it personally.

You not infrequently post garbage links and hypocritical takes. I call you out on that and I'm sorry if you can't handle the pushback.

Quote:In case you haven’t figured it out yet, I have you, Tanq, X, and a couple of others on Ignore.

Profiles in courage.

Quote:I cannot engage when I do not read your posts. I don’t want engagement with the people I have on Ignore. I post my opinions, or interesting articles, and don’ give a flying f—- what your opinion is of what I post. So no debate needed. I don’t ask for responses, or opinions from certain posters, of which you are one.

Only reason you are getting this is that I accidentally read your post, by not logging in first. Ignore only works when one is logged in. I shall return to my regimen of ignoring anything and everything you say.

Profiles in courage.

Quote:Good to see you are still making personal attacks on me. It means I am still living in your head.

I tend to push back on all the posts that suggest that one side is good and the other side is evil here. Certainly not just yours. I'm sorry you are the one guy that can't handle it and takes it personally.

Quote:Please feel free to put me on Ignore. That would make a wonderful 80th birthday present for me.

I don't put people with whom I disagree on ignore. Sorry. Happy 80th though.

sad to see these comments

11:02 AM · Apr 7, 2026

Fit as a Fiddle! Any poster here will swear it to you...

(04-08-2026 04:22 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

11:02 AM · Apr 7, 2026

Fit as a Fiddle! Any poster here will swear it to you...

Every time Trump does or says something I don't like (yes, TDSers, there are points of disagreement), I just think - what was the alternative? #LesserEvil

(04-08-2026 04:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-08-2026 04:22 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

11:02 AM · Apr 7, 2026

Fit as a Fiddle! Any poster here will swear it to you...

Every time Trump does or says something I don't like (yes, TDSers, there are points of disagreement), I just think - what was the alternative? #LesserEvil

If you think the man threatening to end a civilization is a lesser evil than anyone else, you've got some serious soul searching to do.

(04-08-2026 05:42 PM)TheOwl84 Wrote:  

(04-08-2026 04:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-08-2026 04:22 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

11:02 AM · Apr 7, 2026

Fit as a Fiddle! Any poster here will swear it to you...

Every time Trump does or says something I don't like (yes, TDSers, there are points of disagreement), I just think - what was the alternative? #LesserEvil

If you think the man threatening to end a civilization is a lesser evil than anyone else, you've got some serious soul searching to do.

At this point what would Trump have to do to not receive regular messages of support from some posters here? Murder children?

Kamala was a terrible candidate IMO and I think she would have been a bad president. But look at what Trump is doing? He and his band of merry idiots are plunging us headfirst into a Middle East quagmire in the midst of burning bridges with all of our previous allies? As bad as 4 years of KH would have been I don't think it would have involved this.

(04-08-2026 05:42 PM)TheOwl84 Wrote:  

(04-08-2026 04:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-08-2026 04:22 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

11:02 AM · Apr 7, 2026

Fit as a Fiddle! Any poster here will swear it to you...

Every time Trump does or says something I don't like (yes, TDSers, there are points of disagreement), I just think - what was the alternative? #LesserEvil

If you think the man threatening to end a civilization is a lesser evil than anyone else, you've got some serious soul searching to do.

I think the men who call a terroristic theocracy (that wants a world under sharia law and chants Death to America and sponsors events like Oct. 7) a civilization have some serious soul-searching to do. JMHO.

I think had we followed the Biden/Democrat policy of appeasement and turning our backs on the problem, we would sooner or later be facing a fanatical government threaten the world with nuclear holocaust, and probably sooner. Maybe within my lifetime, and I am 80 with some serious health problems. I feel reasonably sure that the Iranian leaders would feel like nuking NYC and/or Tel AVIV would be a service to Allah.

JMHO. You are free to differ. If you think sending them cash, easing sanctions, and letting them develop nuclear capability would make the world safer, well, then that is your opinion. JYHO. I cannot change your mind, and won't try.

Now, we might agree on methods and politeness more, but I guess we will never know.

But one thing I DO know. I feel safer,, for myself, for my country ,and for world civilization, with their atomic ambitions stymied. Once again, JMHO.

IMO, the greater evil was to vote for Harris. I have zero confidence she could of, and/or would of, done anything of substance to stop or even slow down Iran. Now would Biden, had he decided to stay on the ticket AND won.

So yes, Trump and his decisive action was clearly the lesser evil in this binary choice. It was Trump or Harris. Period. The Border Czar or the person who would really do something about it. Once again, JMHO.

The Iran civilization? Are you sure you are not confusing them with the Persians, who held sway in that region thousands of years before Mohammed, like one liberal beleived, that I discussed this selfsame with today?

(04-08-2026 08:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think had we followed the Biden/Democrat policy of appeasement and turning our backs on the problem, we would sooner or later be facing a fanatical government threaten the world with nuclear holocaust, and probably sooner. Maybe within my lifetime,

Upon further reflection, I think dealing with this Iranian regime is/was the most serious issue facing America during the last presidential election and since, not trans rights, not bridges to nowhere, not tampons in boy's rooms, not even border control. The expected faceoff with a nuclear Iran would likely happen during this Presidential term if our leaders continued to ignore the problem and pander to the terrorists. As such, it would impact the lives of every American for decades, if not for ever,, including our children, grandchildren, and all down the line, plus the progeny of all our neighbors, whatever one's definition of neighbor, plus likely the same in most Christian countries - UK, Australia, all the countries of North America and Europe.

Muslim terrorists do not care about the lives and deaths of non-Muslims. Those are seem as justified and a service in the furtherance of Allah's goal. 911? Oct. 7? Lockerbie? The Cole? Those actions, and countless others, are seen as bringing them reward in paradise. Think appeasement will derail those plans? I do not.

The choices were Trump or Harris. I am of the opinion, widely held I think, that Harris would nothing beyond basking in the light of being the first female president and the second black one. Identity politics, from one who thinks the important job is get elected, no more. If elected, mission accomplished.

Trump certainly is not perfect, but I am glad he sees his job as more than just winning elections. I think, given the choices, he is clearly the lesser evil/greater good of that binary choice. There were others I supported in the primaries, but when the choice was presented in November, it was clear, not only to me but to a majority of American voters. It was him or her - no other possible outcomes. Nothing he - or she - or their parties - has done since leads me to think I made a mistake.

JMHO.

Thanks for listening to my opinions.