(05-08-2019 09:45 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 08:59 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 08:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 08:23 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It’s clear that Northam did not “state he would execute a baby after birth,” as Trump claimed he did. However, his remarks did lack precision and clarity of meaning to the extent that they raised reasonable questions about what exactly he was proposing or advocating. For those reasons, we issue a verdict of “Mostly False.”

Umm, I'd say it's pretty clear that Northam stated precisely that. Sounds to me like you're not willing to defend that, and are looking for some way around it. Now, how much he or his staff backtracks from that position in subsequent questioning, and whether that was a misspeak or what he actually intended, are issues that we can discuss. But his direct quote was pretty much stating that he would execute a baby after birth. And I didn't see or hear much imprecision.

For the record, I'm pro-choice, with limitations. But my limitations would not allow anything remotely close to what Northam described in pretty direct words.

Of course I'm not willing to defend that! Who would defend the execution of viable babies??!?! Do you think that there is a doctor or nurse in the United States who would participate in killing a healthy newborn baby?

I think Northam got a question that he wasn't really prepared for and stumbled on his answer. Do I think that he supports the murder of newborn babies? God, no.

You mean now that Kermit Gosnell is behind bars?

Laws matter, and the specific words of laws matter. I don't give a flip what doctors like Northam say they would and wouldn't do. Bully for them, but all doctors are humans, and that means there are some flawed, unethical doctors. Accordingly, laws need to be drawn so as to prohibit that which must not be done, not leave it up to doctors who say "even if the law allowed for that, we wouldn't do it."

Not completely familiar with Gosnell's story but was he executing full-term, viable babies or was he killing babies in earlier trimesters who were felt to be viable outside the womb? Not that it makes a major difference but trying to figure out the details as it relates to the proposed legislation.

Can you really legislate monsters like this away? I look at arguments like you just made and I think, "Wait... I thought Republicans think gun laws are pointless because criminals won't obey the laws anyway?"

https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/07/gay...-sidewalk/

In 2018 after Sims won re-election, LGBTQ Nation gushed, “Sims, a liberal firebrand, is known for his nonstop advocacy for LGBTQ rights and his unique take on politics. He’s popular on social media and in queer media.”

"From those with Sim’s perspective, the world is divided into good and bad people and it is the responsibility of the good people to shame and shun the bad ones."

Still wondering why racism was your go-to to counter this. Can y'all doscuss differences without labeling us racists?

Sims cannot.

From wiki:

"Sims was challenged by Lou Lanni, Marni Snyder, and Ben Waxman in the Democratic primary, defeating all three."

I guess he is well liked in Pensylvania Democratic circles.

(05-08-2019 11:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/07/gay...-sidewalk/

In 2018 after Sims won re-election, LGBTQ Nation gushed, “Sims, a liberal firebrand, is known for his nonstop advocacy for LGBTQ rights and his unique take on politics. He’s popular on social media and in queer media.”

"From those with Sim’s perspective, the world is divided into good and bad people and it is the responsibility of the good people to shame and shun the bad ones."

Still wondering why racism was your go-to to counter this. Can y'all doscuss differences without labeling us racists?

Sims cannot.

I mixed in some sexual harassment as well? Does that help?

But seriously... I wasn't actually trying to suggest that the guy was a typical Republican. Just pointing out how silly it was to identify some low-level bad actor and suggest that he somehow represents the entire party.

edit: Here is another guy that has won multiple Republican elections. If we are using your algorithm, this means that he is popular among Republicans (Republican Hero). Vaccines are sorcery? No paper trail of racism, thankfully.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/p...3Im2oGW4Nc

more from wiki:

"In 2001, before he was a state representative, Stickland used controversial language when he called another poster on the FFToday forums a "bratwurst loving homo." [26]

In 2015, the political newsletter Quorum Report published many posts made online by Stickland given to them by his Republican primary opponent, Scott Fisher. On an unnamed fantasy football forum, Stickland, using the username "stick", made controversial comments regarding marital rape and marijuana use.[27] However, Stickland stated in a prepared statement to the Quorum Report that "by the Grace of God my past sins are forgiven.""

(05-08-2019 10:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 09:45 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 08:59 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 08:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 08:23 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It’s clear that Northam did not “state he would execute a baby after birth,” as Trump claimed he did. However, his remarks did lack precision and clarity of meaning to the extent that they raised reasonable questions about what exactly he was proposing or advocating. For those reasons, we issue a verdict of “Mostly False.”

Umm, I'd say it's pretty clear that Northam stated precisely that. Sounds to me like you're not willing to defend that, and are looking for some way around it. Now, how much he or his staff backtracks from that position in subsequent questioning, and whether that was a misspeak or what he actually intended, are issues that we can discuss. But his direct quote was pretty much stating that he would execute a baby after birth. And I didn't see or hear much imprecision.

For the record, I'm pro-choice, with limitations. But my limitations would not allow anything remotely close to what Northam described in pretty direct words.

Of course I'm not willing to defend that! Who would defend the execution of viable babies??!?! Do you think that there is a doctor or nurse in the United States who would participate in killing a healthy newborn baby?

I think Northam got a question that he wasn't really prepared for and stumbled on his answer. Do I think that he supports the murder of newborn babies? God, no.

You mean now that Kermit Gosnell is behind bars?

Laws matter, and the specific words of laws matter. I don't give a flip what doctors like Northam say they would and wouldn't do. Bully for them, but all doctors are humans, and that means there are some flawed, unethical doctors. Accordingly, laws need to be drawn so as to prohibit that which must not be done, not leave it up to doctors who say "even if the law allowed for that, we wouldn't do it."

+1. And that is the rationale behind the eventual outcome in the Citizen's United case as well and why the SCOTUS invalidated that particular statute.

But, in defense of Northam, the numbers of third trimester abortions is shockingly small (less than 1%) , and the estimated of 'golly just wanna have it' third trimester abortions (i.e. third trimester abortions that are *not* non-viable or severe fetal abnormalities) are probably less than 1% of that <1%.

Yes, the Gosnalls could (and do) happen. But I can understand Northam's answer with <1% being post- 24 weeks, and about 99% of that number being the 'non-viable' and 'severe abnormalities' situation.

If one wishes to add a proscription in the law as to viable healthy unborns post 24-weeks --- no problem from this quarter. But Northam's answer was very much directed to the norm of the post- 24 week period, imo.

I'm not accusing Northam of harboring a secret desire to pave the way for infanticide for healthy babies. I'm accusing him of being naïve, not very bright, and having poor judgment (which, incidentally, was also shown by thinking it was ok to dress up in blackface at a third-rate medical school). If the law allowed for it, it would happen, no matter what Northam can or cannot conceive of. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say. And frankly, why did he and others dig in their heels against amendments to the drafted words to ensure that the stuff he assures us is so rare and beyond the pale, the less than 1% of 1%, remains so?

(05-08-2019 10:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 09:45 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 08:59 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 08:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 08:23 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It’s clear that Northam did not “state he would execute a baby after birth,” as Trump claimed he did. However, his remarks did lack precision and clarity of meaning to the extent that they raised reasonable questions about what exactly he was proposing or advocating. For those reasons, we issue a verdict of “Mostly False.”

Umm, I'd say it's pretty clear that Northam stated precisely that. Sounds to me like you're not willing to defend that, and are looking for some way around it. Now, how much he or his staff backtracks from that position in subsequent questioning, and whether that was a misspeak or what he actually intended, are issues that we can discuss. But his direct quote was pretty much stating that he would execute a baby after birth. And I didn't see or hear much imprecision.

For the record, I'm pro-choice, with limitations. But my limitations would not allow anything remotely close to what Northam described in pretty direct words.

Of course I'm not willing to defend that! Who would defend the execution of viable babies??!?! Do you think that there is a doctor or nurse in the United States who would participate in killing a healthy newborn baby?

I think Northam got a question that he wasn't really prepared for and stumbled on his answer. Do I think that he supports the murder of newborn babies? God, no.

You mean now that Kermit Gosnell is behind bars?

Laws matter, and the specific words of laws matter. I don't give a flip what doctors like Northam say they would and wouldn't do. Bully for them, but all doctors are humans, and that means there are some flawed, unethical doctors. Accordingly, laws need to be drawn so as to prohibit that which must not be done, not leave it up to doctors who say "even if the law allowed for that, we wouldn't do it."

Not completely familiar with Gosnell's story but was he executing full-term, viable babies or was he killing babies in earlier trimesters who were felt to be viable outside the womb? Not that it makes a major difference but trying to figure out the details as it relates to the proposed legislation.

Can you really legislate monsters like this away? I look at arguments like you just made and I think, "Wait... I thought Republicans think gun laws are pointless because criminals won't obey the laws anyway?"

Without putting too fine a point on it, Gosnell aborted anyone, anytime, anyplace, any trimester, any reason or no reason, and if he didn't get the job done inside the mother, he took care of it outside the mother.

Your gun control analogy is flawed. All laws get violated. Laws against murder may not prevent murderers from murdering but they serve a clear societal purpose by acknowledging what is malum in se as such. The fact that the law is going to be violated is not an argument against its utility. When, on the other hand, something previously neutral or legal is proposed to be made illegal (malum prohibitum), then yeah, it is kind of a conservative instinct to say wait a minute...knowing that this law, like all laws, is going to be violated by those who ignore laws, what is the justification for also making this heretofore-legal-thing off limits to the law-abiding?

I also think it's a classic conservative position that laws should be downstream from society/culture. As the latter changes and evolves, then and only then should the laws be changed, democratically, to reflect that. The progressive position, again not to put too fine a point on it, is the opposite. Change the law first -- legislatively or judicially, whichever is more expedient -- and the "enlightening" of society will follow.

And there are those who believe in infanticide and are considered quite enlightened, to the point of having endowed chairs at Princeton and other cultural vanguards. So it's not paranoid to think the idea may have found some purchase in the Virginia House of Delegates and elsewhere -- and if it hasn't, it shouldn't be any problem to agree to some specific words that make that clear.

(05-08-2019 12:50 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 10:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 09:45 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 08:59 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 08:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Umm, I'd say it's pretty clear that Northam stated precisely that. Sounds to me like you're not willing to defend that, and are looking for some way around it. Now, how much he or his staff backtracks from that position in subsequent questioning, and whether that was a misspeak or what he actually intended, are issues that we can discuss. But his direct quote was pretty much stating that he would execute a baby after birth. And I didn't see or hear much imprecision.

For the record, I'm pro-choice, with limitations. But my limitations would not allow anything remotely close to what Northam described in pretty direct words.

Of course I'm not willing to defend that! Who would defend the execution of viable babies??!?! Do you think that there is a doctor or nurse in the United States who would participate in killing a healthy newborn baby?

I think Northam got a question that he wasn't really prepared for and stumbled on his answer. Do I think that he supports the murder of newborn babies? God, no.

You mean now that Kermit Gosnell is behind bars?

Laws matter, and the specific words of laws matter. I don't give a flip what doctors like Northam say they would and wouldn't do. Bully for them, but all doctors are humans, and that means there are some flawed, unethical doctors. Accordingly, laws need to be drawn so as to prohibit that which must not be done, not leave it up to doctors who say "even if the law allowed for that, we wouldn't do it."

+1. And that is the rationale behind the eventual outcome in the Citizen's United case as well and why the SCOTUS invalidated that particular statute.

But, in defense of Northam, the numbers of third trimester abortions is shockingly small (less than 1%) , and the estimated of 'golly just wanna have it' third trimester abortions (i.e. third trimester abortions that are *not* non-viable or severe fetal abnormalities) are probably less than 1% of that <1%.

Yes, the Gosnalls could (and do) happen. But I can understand Northam's answer with <1% being post- 24 weeks, and about 99% of that number being the 'non-viable' and 'severe abnormalities' situation.

If one wishes to add a proscription in the law as to viable healthy unborns post 24-weeks --- no problem from this quarter. But Northam's answer was very much directed to the norm of the post- 24 week period, imo.

I'm not accusing Northam of harboring a secret desire to pave the way for infanticide for healthy babies. I'm accusing him of being naïve, not very bright, and having poor judgment (which, incidentally, was also shown by thinking it was ok to dress up in blackface at a third-rate medical school). If the law allowed for it, it would happen, no matter what Northam can or cannot conceive of. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say. And frankly, why did he and others dig in their heels against amendments to the drafted words to ensure that the stuff he assures us is so rare and beyond the pale, the less than 1% of 1%, remains so?

(05-08-2019 10:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 09:45 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 08:59 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 08:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Umm, I'd say it's pretty clear that Northam stated precisely that. Sounds to me like you're not willing to defend that, and are looking for some way around it. Now, how much he or his staff backtracks from that position in subsequent questioning, and whether that was a misspeak or what he actually intended, are issues that we can discuss. But his direct quote was pretty much stating that he would execute a baby after birth. And I didn't see or hear much imprecision.

For the record, I'm pro-choice, with limitations. But my limitations would not allow anything remotely close to what Northam described in pretty direct words.

Of course I'm not willing to defend that! Who would defend the execution of viable babies??!?! Do you think that there is a doctor or nurse in the United States who would participate in killing a healthy newborn baby?

I think Northam got a question that he wasn't really prepared for and stumbled on his answer. Do I think that he supports the murder of newborn babies? God, no.

You mean now that Kermit Gosnell is behind bars?

Laws matter, and the specific words of laws matter. I don't give a flip what doctors like Northam say they would and wouldn't do. Bully for them, but all doctors are humans, and that means there are some flawed, unethical doctors. Accordingly, laws need to be drawn so as to prohibit that which must not be done, not leave it up to doctors who say "even if the law allowed for that, we wouldn't do it."

Not completely familiar with Gosnell's story but was he executing full-term, viable babies or was he killing babies in earlier trimesters who were felt to be viable outside the womb? Not that it makes a major difference but trying to figure out the details as it relates to the proposed legislation.

Can you really legislate monsters like this away? I look at arguments like you just made and I think, "Wait... I thought Republicans think gun laws are pointless because criminals won't obey the laws anyway?"

Without putting too fine a point on it, Gosnell aborted anyone, anytime, anyplace, any trimester, any reason or no reason, and if he didn't get the job done inside the mother, he took care of it outside the mother.

Your gun control analogy is flawed. All laws get violated. Laws against murder may not prevent murderers from murdering but they serve a clear societal purpose by acknowledging what is malum in se as such. The fact that the law is going to be violated is not an argument against its utility. When, on the other hand, something previously neutral or legal is proposed to be made illegal (malum prohibitum), then yeah, it is kind of a conservative instinct to say wait a minute...knowing that this law, like all laws, is going to be violated by those who ignore laws, what is the justification for also making this heretofore-legal-thing off limits to the law-abiding?

I agree with you. I've always been annoyed by the gun rights people who make the argument that laws are pointless.

Quote:I also think it's a classic conservative position that laws should be downstream from society/culture. As the latter changes and evolves, then and only then should the laws be changed, democratically, to reflect that. The progressive position, again not to put too fine a point on it, is the opposite. Change the law first -- legislatively or judicially, whichever is more expedient -- and the "enlightening" of society will follow.

And there are those who believe in infanticide and are considered quite enlightened, to the point of having endowed chairs at Princeton and other cultural vanguards. So it's not paranoid to think the idea may have found some purchase in the Virginia House of Delegates and elsewhere -- and if it hasn't, it shouldn't be any problem to agree to some specific words that make that clear.

I may be naive. I can't fathom that people without severe, rare psychiatric disorders would be ok with murdering full-term, healthy infants after delivery. It seems so absurd that I can't imagine the need for laws forbidding it. Again... I may just be naive. I need to do some reading on the reasons that Democrats are pushing for some of these laws.

Uh oh... OptimisticOwl. I just can't seem to browse the internet without finding more
Republican Heroes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...c04bc9221f


Last one... I promise.

(05-08-2019 11:06 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 11:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/07/gay...-sidewalk/

In 2018 after Sims won re-election, LGBTQ Nation gushed, “Sims, a liberal firebrand, is known for his nonstop advocacy for LGBTQ rights and his unique take on politics. He’s popular on social media and in queer media.”

"From those with Sim’s perspective, the world is divided into good and bad people and it is the responsibility of the good people to shame and shun the bad ones."

Still wondering why racism was your go-to to counter this. Can y'all doscuss differences without labeling us racists?

Sims cannot.

I mixed in some sexual harassment as well? Does that help?

But seriously... I wasn't actually trying to suggest that the guy was a typical Republican. Just pointing out how silly it was to identify some low-level bad actor and suggest that he somehow represents the entire party.

edit: Here is another guy that has won multiple Republican elections. If we are using your algorithm, this means that he is popular among Republicans (Republican Hero). Vaccines are sorcery? No paper trail of racism, thankfully.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/p...3Im2oGW4Nc

more from wiki:

"In 2001, before he was a state representative, Stickland used controversial language when he called another poster on the FFToday forums a "bratwurst loving homo." [26]

In 2015, the political newsletter Quorum Report published many posts made online by Stickland given to them by his Republican primary opponent, Scott Fisher. On an unnamed fantasy football forum, Stickland, using the username "stick", made controversial comments regarding marital rape and marijuana use.[27] However, Stickland stated in a prepared statement to the Quorum Report that "by the Grace of God my past sins are forgiven.""

Sims is clearly a hate-filled bigot. Yet he keeps getting re-elected. Why? because, like antifa, he is bigoted toward the right people - in his case, Christians, especially white ones.

You keep trying to equivocate any bad action by a Republican with this guy. yet I think many more democrats will support Sims' actions. Apparently you think different. But he did beat three other democrats in the primary. Presumably, those were Democrats voting for him. I don't think the others were bad...just bland. They didn't take the fight to the streets.

Hero

"...he's got to be fresh from the fight"

I think a lot more Dems see Sims as fighting the good fight than Republicans see the guys you bring up as fighting the good fight Maybe by a factor of 100, maybe 1000. But I will not convince you of that, so I hope you enjoy the song video.

(05-08-2019 01:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 11:06 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 11:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/07/gay...-sidewalk/

In 2018 after Sims won re-election, LGBTQ Nation gushed, “Sims, a liberal firebrand, is known for his nonstop advocacy for LGBTQ rights and his unique take on politics. He’s popular on social media and in queer media.”

"From those with Sim’s perspective, the world is divided into good and bad people and it is the responsibility of the good people to shame and shun the bad ones."

Still wondering why racism was your go-to to counter this. Can y'all doscuss differences without labeling us racists?

Sims cannot.

I mixed in some sexual harassment as well? Does that help?

But seriously... I wasn't actually trying to suggest that the guy was a typical Republican. Just pointing out how silly it was to identify some low-level bad actor and suggest that he somehow represents the entire party.

edit: Here is another guy that has won multiple Republican elections. If we are using your algorithm, this means that he is popular among Republicans (Republican Hero). Vaccines are sorcery? No paper trail of racism, thankfully.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/p...3Im2oGW4Nc

more from wiki:

"In 2001, before he was a state representative, Stickland used controversial language when he called another poster on the FFToday forums a "bratwurst loving homo." [26]

In 2015, the political newsletter Quorum Report published many posts made online by Stickland given to them by his Republican primary opponent, Scott Fisher. On an unnamed fantasy football forum, Stickland, using the username "stick", made controversial comments regarding marital rape and marijuana use.[27] However, Stickland stated in a prepared statement to the Quorum Report that "by the Grace of God my past sins are forgiven.""

Sims is clearly a hate-filled bigot. Yet he keeps getting re-elected. Why? because, like antifa, he is bigoted toward the right people - in his case, Christians, especially white ones.

You keep trying to equivocate any bad action by a Republican with this guy. yet I think many more democrats will support Sims' actions. Apparently you think different. But he did beat three other democrats in the primary. Presumably, those were Democrats voting for him.

You keep making this point. Are you saying that all local politicians that have won multiple elections somehow represent the overall party on a national level? Because I wouldn't be throwing many stones in that glass house.

Jim Cleveland ("I don't believe in interracial marriage") is a long time councilman and therefore has presumably won multiple elections.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...ec06098157

(05-08-2019 01:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 01:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 11:06 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 11:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/07/gay...-sidewalk/

In 2018 after Sims won re-election, LGBTQ Nation gushed, “Sims, a liberal firebrand, is known for his nonstop advocacy for LGBTQ rights and his unique take on politics. He’s popular on social media and in queer media.”

"From those with Sim’s perspective, the world is divided into good and bad people and it is the responsibility of the good people to shame and shun the bad ones."

Still wondering why racism was your go-to to counter this. Can y'all doscuss differences without labeling us racists?

Sims cannot.

I mixed in some sexual harassment as well? Does that help?

But seriously... I wasn't actually trying to suggest that the guy was a typical Republican. Just pointing out how silly it was to identify some low-level bad actor and suggest that he somehow represents the entire party.

edit: Here is another guy that has won multiple Republican elections. If we are using your algorithm, this means that he is popular among Republicans (Republican Hero). Vaccines are sorcery? No paper trail of racism, thankfully.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/p...3Im2oGW4Nc

more from wiki:

"In 2001, before he was a state representative, Stickland used controversial language when he called another poster on the FFToday forums a "bratwurst loving homo." [26]

In 2015, the political newsletter Quorum Report published many posts made online by Stickland given to them by his Republican primary opponent, Scott Fisher. On an unnamed fantasy football forum, Stickland, using the username "stick", made controversial comments regarding marital rape and marijuana use.[27] However, Stickland stated in a prepared statement to the Quorum Report that "by the Grace of God my past sins are forgiven.""

Sims is clearly a hate-filled bigot. Yet he keeps getting re-elected. Why? because, like antifa, he is bigoted toward the right people - in his case, Christians, especially white ones.

You keep trying to equivocate any bad action by a Republican with this guy. yet I think many more democrats will support Sims' actions. Apparently you think different. But he did beat three other democrats in the primary. Presumably, those were Democrats voting for him.

You keep making this point. Are you saying that all local politicians that have won multiple elections somehow represent the overall party on a national level? Because I wouldn't be throwing many stones in that glass house.

Jim Cleveland ("I don't believe in interracial marriage") is a long time councilman and therefore has presumably won multiple elections.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...ec06098157

So what does multiple elections and winning a four way primary indicate to you? Ignorance in the lelectorate?

I think Sims' causes- PP, women's right to an abortion - are popular among Democrats. White nationalism is not popular among Republicans, despite what you are told.

BTW, many black people do not believe in interracial marriage. Isn't it racist of you to assume that only white Republican bigots would oppose interracial marriage?

(05-08-2019 01:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 01:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 01:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 11:06 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 11:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/07/gay...-sidewalk/

In 2018 after Sims won re-election, LGBTQ Nation gushed, “Sims, a liberal firebrand, is known for his nonstop advocacy for LGBTQ rights and his unique take on politics. He’s popular on social media and in queer media.”

"From those with Sim’s perspective, the world is divided into good and bad people and it is the responsibility of the good people to shame and shun the bad ones."

Still wondering why racism was your go-to to counter this. Can y'all doscuss differences without labeling us racists?

Sims cannot.

I mixed in some sexual harassment as well? Does that help?

But seriously... I wasn't actually trying to suggest that the guy was a typical Republican. Just pointing out how silly it was to identify some low-level bad actor and suggest that he somehow represents the entire party.

edit: Here is another guy that has won multiple Republican elections. If we are using your algorithm, this means that he is popular among Republicans (Republican Hero). Vaccines are sorcery? No paper trail of racism, thankfully.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/p...3Im2oGW4Nc

more from wiki:

"In 2001, before he was a state representative, Stickland used controversial language when he called another poster on the FFToday forums a "bratwurst loving homo." [26]

In 2015, the political newsletter Quorum Report published many posts made online by Stickland given to them by his Republican primary opponent, Scott Fisher. On an unnamed fantasy football forum, Stickland, using the username "stick", made controversial comments regarding marital rape and marijuana use.[27] However, Stickland stated in a prepared statement to the Quorum Report that "by the Grace of God my past sins are forgiven.""

Sims is clearly a hate-filled bigot. Yet he keeps getting re-elected. Why? because, like antifa, he is bigoted toward the right people - in his case, Christians, especially white ones.

You keep trying to equivocate any bad action by a Republican with this guy. yet I think many more democrats will support Sims' actions. Apparently you think different. But he did beat three other democrats in the primary. Presumably, those were Democrats voting for him.

You keep making this point. Are you saying that all local politicians that have won multiple elections somehow represent the overall party on a national level? Because I wouldn't be throwing many stones in that glass house.

Jim Cleveland ("I don't believe in interracial marriage") is a long time councilman and therefore has presumably won multiple elections.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...ec06098157

So what does multiple elections and winning a four way primary indicate to you? Ignorance in the lelectorate?

I think Sims' causes- PP, women's right to an abortion - are popular among Democrats. White nationalism is not popular among Republicans, despite what you are told.

BTW, many black people do not believe in interracial marriage. Isn't it racist of you to assume that only white Republican bigots would oppose interracial marriage?

LOL! How are you making that assumption regarding my beliefs? When did I say that only white people oppose interracial marriage?

I posted it because saying "I don't believe in interracial marriage. It isn't Christian." is an unacceptable position for a public servant to espouse... no matter the ethnicity of said public servant.

(05-08-2019 02:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 01:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 01:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 01:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 11:06 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I mixed in some sexual harassment as well? Does that help?

But seriously... I wasn't actually trying to suggest that the guy was a typical Republican. Just pointing out how silly it was to identify some low-level bad actor and suggest that he somehow represents the entire party.

edit: Here is another guy that has won multiple Republican elections. If we are using your algorithm, this means that he is popular among Republicans (Republican Hero). Vaccines are sorcery? No paper trail of racism, thankfully.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/p...3Im2oGW4Nc

more from wiki:

"In 2001, before he was a state representative, Stickland used controversial language when he called another poster on the FFToday forums a "bratwurst loving homo." [26]

In 2015, the political newsletter Quorum Report published many posts made online by Stickland given to them by his Republican primary opponent, Scott Fisher. On an unnamed fantasy football forum, Stickland, using the username "stick", made controversial comments regarding marital rape and marijuana use.[27] However, Stickland stated in a prepared statement to the Quorum Report that "by the Grace of God my past sins are forgiven.""

Sims is clearly a hate-filled bigot. Yet he keeps getting re-elected. Why? because, like antifa, he is bigoted toward the right people - in his case, Christians, especially white ones.

You keep trying to equivocate any bad action by a Republican with this guy. yet I think many more democrats will support Sims' actions. Apparently you think different. But he did beat three other democrats in the primary. Presumably, those were Democrats voting for him.

You keep making this point. Are you saying that all local politicians that have won multiple elections somehow represent the overall party on a national level? Because I wouldn't be throwing many stones in that glass house.

Jim Cleveland ("I don't believe in interracial marriage") is a long time councilman and therefore has presumably won multiple elections.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...ec06098157

So what does multiple elections and winning a four way primary indicate to you? Ignorance in the lelectorate?

I think Sims' causes- PP, women's right to an abortion - are popular among Democrats. White nationalism is not popular among Republicans, despite what you are told.

BTW, many black people do not believe in interracial marriage. Isn't it racist of you to assume that only white Republican bigots would oppose interracial marriage?

LOL! How are you making that assumption regarding my beliefs? When did I say that only white people oppose interracial marriage?

I posted it because saying "I don't believe in interracial marriage. It isn't Christian." is an unacceptable position for a public servant to espouse... no matter the ethnicity of said public servant.

Why is that belief unacceptable? Must we ALL believe the same way? Is homogeneity of belief the goal?

(05-08-2019 02:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 02:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 01:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 01:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 01:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Sims is clearly a hate-filled bigot. Yet he keeps getting re-elected. Why? because, like antifa, he is bigoted toward the right people - in his case, Christians, especially white ones.

You keep trying to equivocate any bad action by a Republican with this guy. yet I think many more democrats will support Sims' actions. Apparently you think different. But he did beat three other democrats in the primary. Presumably, those were Democrats voting for him.

You keep making this point. Are you saying that all local politicians that have won multiple elections somehow represent the overall party on a national level? Because I wouldn't be throwing many stones in that glass house.

Jim Cleveland ("I don't believe in interracial marriage") is a long time councilman and therefore has presumably won multiple elections.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...ec06098157

So what does multiple elections and winning a four way primary indicate to you? Ignorance in the lelectorate?

I think Sims' causes- PP, women's right to an abortion - are popular among Democrats. White nationalism is not popular among Republicans, despite what you are told.

BTW, many black people do not believe in interracial marriage. Isn't it racist of you to assume that only white Republican bigots would oppose interracial marriage?

LOL! How are you making that assumption regarding my beliefs? When did I say that only white people oppose interracial marriage?

I posted it because saying "I don't believe in interracial marriage. It isn't Christian." is an unacceptable position for a public servant to espouse... no matter the ethnicity of said public servant.

Why is that belief unacceptable? Must we ALL believe the same way? Is homogeneity of belief the goal?

I probably should have said unacceptable in my opinion. How are you going to represent constituents that have interracial marriages with that viewpoint? But I'll concede you that point, plenty of politicians hold beliefs that seem anathemic to one group or another.

The mayor said that the city isn't ready for a black administrator. Is that OK with you? Does that fall within heterogeneity of belief as well?

(05-08-2019 02:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 02:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 02:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 01:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 01:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  You keep making this point. Are you saying that all local politicians that have won multiple elections somehow represent the overall party on a national level? Because I wouldn't be throwing many stones in that glass house.

Jim Cleveland ("I don't believe in interracial marriage") is a long time councilman and therefore has presumably won multiple elections.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...ec06098157

So what does multiple elections and winning a four way primary indicate to you? Ignorance in the lelectorate?

I think Sims' causes- PP, women's right to an abortion - are popular among Democrats. White nationalism is not popular among Republicans, despite what you are told.

BTW, many black people do not believe in interracial marriage. Isn't it racist of you to assume that only white Republican bigots would oppose interracial marriage?

LOL! How are you making that assumption regarding my beliefs? When did I say that only white people oppose interracial marriage?

I posted it because saying "I don't believe in interracial marriage. It isn't Christian." is an unacceptable position for a public servant to espouse... no matter the ethnicity of said public servant.

Why is that belief unacceptable? Must we ALL believe the same way? Is homogeneity of belief the goal?

I probably should have said unacceptable in my opinion. How are you going to represent constituents that have interracial marriages with that viewpoint? But I'll concede you that point, plenty of politicians hold beliefs that seem anathemic to one group or another.

The mayor said that the city isn't ready for a black administrator. Is that OK with you? Does that fall within heterogeneity of belief as well?

Representatives are supposed to represent everybody, not just the PC viewpoints or the ones they agree with.

As for the mayor, I think he is a dinosaur - but he has the right to his opinion, and the voters can vote on him.

I live in a county that is 95% white and 67% Republican. Most people have guns. (I do) Most drive pick ups. (I don't) Yet somehow we old racists have elected two black city council members and appointed a black Chief of Police. Kind of tired of you trying to cherry pick your way into "proving" we are all racists and that racists are our heroes.

Democrats have certain causes that very popular with them. Planned Parenthood and a woman's right to an abortion are among them, and people who champion these causes vigorously are likely to be looked on with favor. Thus, Sims, their "hero". Kind of like those who favor impeaching Trump or Barr will consider Nadler one of their heroes.

If you are looking for an equivalent Republican hero, try somebody who opposes high taxes or more gun control. Those are popular Republican issues. NOT race. No need to go back to the 1950's (those racists were Democrats, anyway). Nobody worries about race any more. I don't. Really, I never did.
Get away from the tired old stereotypical racist crap. If you can. I realize your mind has been molded. Break out of the mold. Think freely.

(05-08-2019 03:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 02:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 02:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 02:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 01:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So what does multiple elections and winning a four way primary indicate to you? Ignorance in the lelectorate?

I think Sims' causes- PP, women's right to an abortion - are popular among Democrats. White nationalism is not popular among Republicans, despite what you are told.

BTW, many black people do not believe in interracial marriage. Isn't it racist of you to assume that only white Republican bigots would oppose interracial marriage?

LOL! How are you making that assumption regarding my beliefs? When did I say that only white people oppose interracial marriage?

I posted it because saying "I don't believe in interracial marriage. It isn't Christian." is an unacceptable position for a public servant to espouse... no matter the ethnicity of said public servant.

Why is that belief unacceptable? Must we ALL believe the same way? Is homogeneity of belief the goal?

I probably should have said unacceptable in my opinion. How are you going to represent constituents that have interracial marriages with that viewpoint? But I'll concede you that point, plenty of politicians hold beliefs that seem anathemic to one group or another.

The mayor said that the city isn't ready for a black administrator. Is that OK with you? Does that fall within heterogeneity of belief as well?

Representatives are supposed to represent everybody, not just the PC viewpoints or the ones they agree with.

As for the mayor, I think he is a dinosaur - but he has the right to his opinion, and the voters can vote on him.

I live in a county that is 95% white and 67% Republican. Most people have guns. (I do) Most drive pick ups. (I don't) Yet somehow we old racists have elected two black city council members and appointed a black Chief of Police. Kind of tired of you trying to cherry pick your way into "proving" we are all racists and that racists are our heroes.

For what feels like the hundredth time, I am simply pointing out that picking out some rando state level politician who does dumb stuff doesn't mean that they represent the party. Or are a "hero" to the party. Nobody knows who this guy Sims is but you keep trying to make him some Democratic stalwart. Stop. It's silly.

I have never tried to make all Republicans out to be racists. Almost all my family are Republicans and none of them are racist.

Quote:Nobody worries about race any more.

LOL LOL LOL!

(05-08-2019 03:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 03:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 02:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 02:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 02:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  LOL! How are you making that assumption regarding my beliefs? When did I say that only white people oppose interracial marriage?

I posted it because saying "I don't believe in interracial marriage. It isn't Christian." is an unacceptable position for a public servant to espouse... no matter the ethnicity of said public servant.

Why is that belief unacceptable? Must we ALL believe the same way? Is homogeneity of belief the goal?

I probably should have said unacceptable in my opinion. How are you going to represent constituents that have interracial marriages with that viewpoint? But I'll concede you that point, plenty of politicians hold beliefs that seem anathemic to one group or another.

The mayor said that the city isn't ready for a black administrator. Is that OK with you? Does that fall within heterogeneity of belief as well?

Representatives are supposed to represent everybody, not just the PC viewpoints or the ones they agree with.

As for the mayor, I think he is a dinosaur - but he has the right to his opinion, and the voters can vote on him.

I live in a county that is 95% white and 67% Republican. Most people have guns. (I do) Most drive pick ups. (I don't) Yet somehow we old racists have elected two black city council members and appointed a black Chief of Police. Kind of tired of you trying to cherry pick your way into "proving" we are all racists and that racists are our heroes.

For what feels like the hundredth time, I am simply pointing out that picking out some rando state level politician who does dumb stuff doesn't mean that they represent the party. Or are a "hero" to the party. Nobody knows who this guy Sims is but you keep trying to make him some Democratic stalwart. Stop. It's silly.

I have never tried to make all Republicans out to be racists. Almost all my family are Republicans and none of them are racist.

Quote:Nobody worries about race any more.

LOL LOL LOL!

You are right. Democrats worry about race a lot. Republicans, not much.

(05-08-2019 03:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 03:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 03:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 02:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 02:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why is that belief unacceptable? Must we ALL believe the same way? Is homogeneity of belief the goal?

I probably should have said unacceptable in my opinion. How are you going to represent constituents that have interracial marriages with that viewpoint? But I'll concede you that point, plenty of politicians hold beliefs that seem anathemic to one group or another.

The mayor said that the city isn't ready for a black administrator. Is that OK with you? Does that fall within heterogeneity of belief as well?

Representatives are supposed to represent everybody, not just the PC viewpoints or the ones they agree with.

As for the mayor, I think he is a dinosaur - but he has the right to his opinion, and the voters can vote on him.

I live in a county that is 95% white and 67% Republican. Most people have guns. (I do) Most drive pick ups. (I don't) Yet somehow we old racists have elected two black city council members and appointed a black Chief of Police. Kind of tired of you trying to cherry pick your way into "proving" we are all racists and that racists are our heroes.

For what feels like the hundredth time, I am simply pointing out that picking out some rando state level politician who does dumb stuff doesn't mean that they represent the party. Or are a "hero" to the party. Nobody knows who this guy Sims is but you keep trying to make him some Democratic stalwart. Stop. It's silly.

I have never tried to make all Republicans out to be racists. Almost all my family are Republicans and none of them are racist.

Quote:Nobody worries about race any more.

LOL LOL LOL!

You are right. Democrats worry about race a lot. Republicans, not much.

I’ll agree with that - the Republican Party primarily appears to be ambivalent to race issues because, shocking, the group of supporters is rather homogenous.

It makes sense that a party that is more diverse, and therefore built on a more diverse set of perspectives, would be more conscious of race and worry about it and how policies affect races differently.

(05-08-2019 03:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 03:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 03:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 02:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 02:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why is that belief unacceptable? Must we ALL believe the same way? Is homogeneity of belief the goal?

I probably should have said unacceptable in my opinion. How are you going to represent constituents that have interracial marriages with that viewpoint? But I'll concede you that point, plenty of politicians hold beliefs that seem anathemic to one group or another.

The mayor said that the city isn't ready for a black administrator. Is that OK with you? Does that fall within heterogeneity of belief as well?

Representatives are supposed to represent everybody, not just the PC viewpoints or the ones they agree with.

As for the mayor, I think he is a dinosaur - but he has the right to his opinion, and the voters can vote on him.

I live in a county that is 95% white and 67% Republican. Most people have guns. (I do) Most drive pick ups. (I don't) Yet somehow we old racists have elected two black city council members and appointed a black Chief of Police. Kind of tired of you trying to cherry pick your way into "proving" we are all racists and that racists are our heroes.

For what feels like the hundredth time, I am simply pointing out that picking out some rando state level politician who does dumb stuff doesn't mean that they represent the party. Or are a "hero" to the party. Nobody knows who this guy Sims is but you keep trying to make him some Democratic stalwart. Stop. It's silly.

I have never tried to make all Republicans out to be racists. Almost all my family are Republicans and none of them are racist.

Quote:Nobody worries about race any more.

LOL LOL LOL!

You are right. Democrats worry about race a lot. Republicans, not much.

I’ll agree with that - the Republican Party primarily appears to be ambivalent to race issues because, shocking, the group of supporters is rather homogenous.

It makes sense that a party that is more diverse, and therefore built on a more diverse set of perspectives, would be more conscious of race and worry about it and how policies affect races differently.

(05-08-2019 03:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 03:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 03:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 02:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 02:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why is that belief unacceptable? Must we ALL believe the same way? Is homogeneity of belief the goal?

I probably should have said unacceptable in my opinion. How are you going to represent constituents that have interracial marriages with that viewpoint? But I'll concede you that point, plenty of politicians hold beliefs that seem anathemic to one group or another.

The mayor said that the city isn't ready for a black administrator. Is that OK with you? Does that fall within heterogeneity of belief as well?

Representatives are supposed to represent everybody, not just the PC viewpoints or the ones they agree with.

As for the mayor, I think he is a dinosaur - but he has the right to his opinion, and the voters can vote on him.

I live in a county that is 95% white and 67% Republican. Most people have guns. (I do) Most drive pick ups. (I don't) Yet somehow we old racists have elected two black city council members and appointed a black Chief of Police. Kind of tired of you trying to cherry pick your way into "proving" we are all racists and that racists are our heroes.

For what feels like the hundredth time, I am simply pointing out that picking out some rando state level politician who does dumb stuff doesn't mean that they represent the party. Or are a "hero" to the party. Nobody knows who this guy Sims is but you keep trying to make him some Democratic stalwart. Stop. It's silly.

I have never tried to make all Republicans out to be racists. Almost all my family are Republicans and none of them are racist.

Quote:Nobody worries about race any more.

LOL LOL LOL!

You are right. Democrats worry about race a lot. Republicans, not much.

Those Republican lawmakers in Georgia seemed to worry about race quite a bit.

(05-08-2019 03:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 03:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 03:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 03:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 02:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I probably should have said unacceptable in my opinion. How are you going to represent constituents that have interracial marriages with that viewpoint? But I'll concede you that point, plenty of politicians hold beliefs that seem anathemic to one group or another.

The mayor said that the city isn't ready for a black administrator. Is that OK with you? Does that fall within heterogeneity of belief as well?

Representatives are supposed to represent everybody, not just the PC viewpoints or the ones they agree with.

As for the mayor, I think he is a dinosaur - but he has the right to his opinion, and the voters can vote on him.

I live in a county that is 95% white and 67% Republican. Most people have guns. (I do) Most drive pick ups. (I don't) Yet somehow we old racists have elected two black city council members and appointed a black Chief of Police. Kind of tired of you trying to cherry pick your way into "proving" we are all racists and that racists are our heroes.

For what feels like the hundredth time, I am simply pointing out that picking out some rando state level politician who does dumb stuff doesn't mean that they represent the party. Or are a "hero" to the party. Nobody knows who this guy Sims is but you keep trying to make him some Democratic stalwart. Stop. It's silly.

I have never tried to make all Republicans out to be racists. Almost all my family are Republicans and none of them are racist.

Quote:Nobody worries about race any more.

LOL LOL LOL!

You are right. Democrats worry about race a lot. Republicans, not much.

I’ll agree with that - the Republican Party primarily appears to be ambivalent to race issues because, shocking, the group of supporters is rather homogenous.

It makes sense that a party that is more diverse, and therefore built on a more diverse set of perspectives, would be more conscious of race and worry about it and how policies affect races differently.

Lolz -- I guess 'more concious' is just a nice way of saying 'stupid fing deplorable'?

lad, I dont think you can be more wrong on your thesis sentence. If you want to get down to it, Republicans tend not to give a crap about the color of person's skin. Think of it as a meta-inclusiveness. For Democrats (progressives), race and ethnicity is (one of many) meta-distinctions.

As an example: my neighborhood (my house +- 6 houses, and across the street) has changed from pretty much lily-white to a very multi-ethnic area.

My neighbor's three year old is learning to swim, so last summer I volunteered my pool to them to use and help her 'practice' apart from the once-a-week lesson. The family is immigrant east Indian.

The conservative republican neighbor noted that 'awesome you lend you pool out to your next door neighbor for this.'

The three progressive neighbors noted how great it was that I lent my pool 'to [the] Hindi neighbor."

Me and the conservative neighbor dont give a rat's ass *who* people are in the neighborhood ethnic-wise. Our (much more plentiful) progressive neighbors always inject the racial component into it -- incessantly. I would say 'I wonder why' but I am not that stupid --- the note and distinction of racial composition (and any other 'difference' that can be leveraged') is part and parcel of progressive politics. At least in my neighborhood, it is part and parcel for the progressives to revel in making those racial and ethnic distinctions -- even when not nefarious.

So, get off your 'republicans are color blind because all they do is hang around with other vanilla milkshakes' tangent. Perhaps one reason the right side of the ice cream parlor has a prevalence of vanilla milkshakes is the 50 fing years that the other side has said what racist fks we were (are)..... naaaaah....... that has *nothing* to do with that......

As for 'policies affect races differently', hate to tell you that the 'real biggies' have been addressed --- i.e. deed restrictions, Loving v. Virginia, blacks at the back of the bus. And yes, for those 'biggies' racial distinctions were important. Compared to the items that made up that 'list of biggies', my guess is that the racial distinction component of those is pretty inconsequential compared to 'can't marry a black'-type impact.

Democrats worry about race when it's time to vote, not so much otherwise. "Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you will keep them voting democrat."

Disagree? Fine, kindly start your argument by explaining how we got our poverty trap welfare system if that is not true.