3+1 = 4

I wonder why they failed to mention the guy who drove his car through a crowd, drove it through a crowd that was blocking the road.

I guess they have refuted the claim that right wingers are pure.


Who made that claim, anyway? Them? Not any of us righties..

(06-10-2020 12:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 12:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 12:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm so tired of these leftists resorting to violence at these protests...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevo...03f8e9384c

The left is the only side so full of anger and rage, and willing to destroy life and property.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/three-m...s-n1224231

Probably because they are all check-cashers and not check-signers.

From the plethora of signs (and defacing graffiti) denoting '**** Capitalism' and such that seem to be part and parcel of the violent activities for the vast, vast part, I would say that is a pretty gd astute observation there, 93.

Probably extremely accurate in a way that wasnt intended to be by you, though.

Care to share any more of those amazing insights and whiny comments?

(06-10-2020 01:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 12:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 12:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 12:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm so tired of these leftists resorting to violence at these protests...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevo...03f8e9384c

The left is the only side so full of anger and rage, and willing to destroy life and property.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/three-m...s-n1224231

Probably because they are all check-cashers and not check-signers.

From the plethora of signs denoting '**** Capitalism' and such that seem to be part and parcel of the violent festivities that you denote, I would say that is a pretty fing accurate observation there sparkles. Any more whiny comments?

I am just glad to see 93 has been paying a little attention to my little shorthand dividing those who understand economics from those who don't.

Of course, it is very general, not supposed to cover every person in the world.

I expected Rice-level intellects to understand the meaning, but I guess I need to take it down to UH level.

Many of the economic proposals from the left, and their supporters, betray a basic ignorance of business.

Check signers is a broad category of people who have skin in the game, plus top management.

Check cashers are people who have not had skin in the game.

Most democrat economic proposals, such as the GND, presuppose that all business owners are rich and just mean spirited and greedy with the vast sums of money.

Truth is that most are just people trying to make ends meet. Not easy to take a business up from scratch.

I hate it when people who have never put a dollar of their own at risk explain how raising taxes has no impact on "wealthy" business owners.

I presume none of you has ever spent a sleepless Wednesday wondering how to cover Friday payroll.

I presume none of you has ever had to fire his mother.

I presume none of you has ever cosigned a loan for your entire net worth at the bank. (This is what happened on Thursday)

I dislike having people with inherited wealth like Pelosi or people with no idea, like AOC, making the economic laws.

Not every Republican knows economics either, but a damn sight more do.

I think pro-business laws and tax plans are good for the country in many ways. Trump cut taxes and regulations, and business boomed and employment expanded. I think the Democrat policies will do just the opposite.

But go ahead, explain to me how the security guard (casher) at the gate knows better how to lead a company than the owner(signer).

(06-10-2020 01:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  3+1 = 4

I wonder why they failed to mention the guy who drove his car through a crowd, drove it through a crowd that was blocking the road.

I guess they have refuted the claim that right wingers are pure.


Who made that claim, anyway? Them? Not any of us.

They refuted the claim that right wingers are *completely* pure. Note lads inclusion of the word 'only'. Yep, tough thing to show.

Funny that this line and 'charge' comes from the guy that says that if one person does a bad thing from a group, the entire group is culpable. Using that standard, perhaps we should see some cha cha cha on how he exonerates the protests from the acts of those whom are part of the protest?

*That* would be a contortionist act I would actually pay to see.

But, I can actually separate the acts of the looters from the protests -- something that the enlightened progressive there seemingly can only do on a selective basis.

And one wonders why I call modern progressivism 'proto Maoists'. lad is actually one of the more sane and reasonable of that type of crowd.

(06-10-2020 01:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Who said *only*? I mean, your throwing the onesies and twosies in light of the absolute wave of looting, assaults, and arson that is coming from the left makes your comments look like some three year olds pissing onto a forest fire.

I will grant you that some of the violence is 'right-based' and should be acknowledged as such on the right.

But your sniggering and cackling about that in light of literal **** ton of looting, assaults, arson, *and* murder coming from your side kind of makes you look pretty stupid in comparison. Please keep it up.

And for once I agree with a statement from 93: Yes I *am* sick and fing tired of leftists resorting to violence at these protests. Funny that. To note that comment was made in that sarcastic manner is really a good observation on you being a bright, shining beacon of observation about that relative source of violence in the last 10 days. But I dot really expect much more from him, tbh.

Just pointing out the not infrequent claptrap of you guys on the right overgeneralizing the left while ignoring the same issues on your side. FYI we leftists don't like the looting, arson, and murder either.

(06-10-2020 02:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 01:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Who said *only*? I mean, your throwing the onesies and twosies in light of the absolute wave of looting, assaults, and arson that is coming from the left makes your comments look like some three year olds pissing onto a forest fire.

I will grant you that some of the violence is 'right-based' and should be acknowledged as such on the right.

But your sniggering and cackling about that in light of literal **** ton of looting, assaults, arson, *and* murder coming from your side kind of makes you look pretty stupid in comparison. Please keep it up.

And for once I agree with a statement from 93: Yes I *am* sick and fing tired of leftists resorting to violence at these protests. Funny that. To note that comment was made in that sarcastic manner is really a good observation on you being a bright, shining beacon of observation about that relative source of violence in the last 10 days. But I dot really expect much more from him, tbh.

Just pointing out the not infrequent claptrap of you guys on the right overgeneralizing the left while ignoring the same issues on your side. FYI we leftists don't like the looting, arson, and murder either.

So you make **** up (i.e. lie) about a stance. Sounds like fun there, Mr Zoolander.

Glad you dont like it. Seems a rather substantial number of you do though. The nightly news kind of blares that out. Funny that.

(06-10-2020 02:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 01:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Who said *only*? I mean, your throwing the onesies and twosies in light of the absolute wave of looting, assaults, and arson that is coming from the left makes your comments look like some three year olds pissing onto a forest fire.

I will grant you that some of the violence is 'right-based' and should be acknowledged as such on the right.

But your sniggering and cackling about that in light of literal **** ton of looting, assaults, arson, *and* murder coming from your side kind of makes you look pretty stupid in comparison. Please keep it up.

And for once I agree with a statement from 93: Yes I *am* sick and fing tired of leftists resorting to violence at these protests. Funny that. To note that comment was made in that sarcastic manner is really a good observation on you being a bright, shining beacon of observation about that relative source of violence in the last 10 days. But I dot really expect much more from him, tbh.

Just pointing out the not infrequent claptrap of you guys on the right overgeneralizing the left while ignoring the same issues on your side. FYI we leftists don't like the looting, arson, and murder either.

Well, we don't like what the 4 guys you highlight did. I guess when you say you don't like what the hundreds of thousands of rioters did, that makes the two sides even.

Fuzzy math.

I thought you guys were into statistics.

(06-10-2020 02:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 02:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 01:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Who said *only*? I mean, your throwing the onesies and twosies in light of the absolute wave of looting, assaults, and arson that is coming from the left makes your comments look like some three year olds pissing onto a forest fire.

I will grant you that some of the violence is 'right-based' and should be acknowledged as such on the right.

But your sniggering and cackling about that in light of literal **** ton of looting, assaults, arson, *and* murder coming from your side kind of makes you look pretty stupid in comparison. Please keep it up.

And for once I agree with a statement from 93: Yes I *am* sick and fing tired of leftists resorting to violence at these protests. Funny that. To note that comment was made in that sarcastic manner is really a good observation on you being a bright, shining beacon of observation about that relative source of violence in the last 10 days. But I dot really expect much more from him, tbh.

Just pointing out the not infrequent claptrap of you guys on the right overgeneralizing the left while ignoring the same issues on your side. FYI we leftists don't like the looting, arson, and murder either.

So you make **** up (i.e. lie) about a stance. Sounds like fun there, Mr Zoolander.

Glad you dont like it. Seems a rather substantial number of you do though. The nightly news kind of blares that out. Funny that.

Sorry... where did I lie?

(06-10-2020 02:10 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 02:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 02:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 01:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Who said *only*? I mean, your throwing the onesies and twosies in light of the absolute wave of looting, assaults, and arson that is coming from the left makes your comments look like some three year olds pissing onto a forest fire.

I will grant you that some of the violence is 'right-based' and should be acknowledged as such on the right.

But your sniggering and cackling about that in light of literal **** ton of looting, assaults, arson, *and* murder coming from your side kind of makes you look pretty stupid in comparison. Please keep it up.

And for once I agree with a statement from 93: Yes I *am* sick and fing tired of leftists resorting to violence at these protests. Funny that. To note that comment was made in that sarcastic manner is really a good observation on you being a bright, shining beacon of observation about that relative source of violence in the last 10 days. But I dot really expect much more from him, tbh.

Just pointing out the not infrequent claptrap of you guys on the right overgeneralizing the left while ignoring the same issues on your side. FYI we leftists don't like the looting, arson, and murder either.

So you make **** up (i.e. lie) about a stance. Sounds like fun there, Mr Zoolander.

Glad you dont like it. Seems a rather substantial number of you do though. The nightly news kind of blares that out. Funny that.

Sorry... where did I lie?

Your initial comment was either

1) a sarcastic implication that people on the right think that *only* left-based violence has occurred (i.e. something you know is false); or

2) an amazingly dumb as dirt statement.

Not that the choice you make there really matters an iota to me, though. Neither would surprise me to any great extent.

(06-10-2020 02:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 02:10 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 02:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 02:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 01:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Who said *only*? I mean, your throwing the onesies and twosies in light of the absolute wave of looting, assaults, and arson that is coming from the left makes your comments look like some three year olds pissing onto a forest fire.

I will grant you that some of the violence is 'right-based' and should be acknowledged as such on the right.

But your sniggering and cackling about that in light of literal **** ton of looting, assaults, arson, *and* murder coming from your side kind of makes you look pretty stupid in comparison. Please keep it up.

And for once I agree with a statement from 93: Yes I *am* sick and fing tired of leftists resorting to violence at these protests. Funny that. To note that comment was made in that sarcastic manner is really a good observation on you being a bright, shining beacon of observation about that relative source of violence in the last 10 days. But I dot really expect much more from him, tbh.

Just pointing out the not infrequent claptrap of you guys on the right overgeneralizing the left while ignoring the same issues on your side. FYI we leftists don't like the looting, arson, and murder either.

So you make **** up (i.e. lie) about a stance. Sounds like fun there, Mr Zoolander.

Glad you dont like it. Seems a rather substantial number of you do though. The nightly news kind of blares that out. Funny that.

Sorry... where did I lie?

Your initial comment was either

1) a sarcastic implication that people on the right think that *only* left-based violence has occurred (i.e. something you know is false); or

2) an amazingly dumb as dirt statement.

Not that the choice you make there really matters an iota to me, though. Neither would surprise me to any great extent.

*sigh* Of course it was sarcasm. But you knew that. I should have known that you would clutch pearls at sarcasm despite your constant use of it. It's what you do.

(06-10-2020 02:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 02:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 02:10 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 02:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 02:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Just pointing out the not infrequent claptrap of you guys on the right overgeneralizing the left while ignoring the same issues on your side. FYI we leftists don't like the looting, arson, and murder either.

So you make **** up (i.e. lie) about a stance. Sounds like fun there, Mr Zoolander.

Glad you dont like it. Seems a rather substantial number of you do though. The nightly news kind of blares that out. Funny that.

Sorry... where did I lie?

Your initial comment was either

1) a sarcastic implication that people on the right think that *only* left-based violence has occurred (i.e. something you know is false); or

2) an amazingly dumb as dirt statement.

Not that the choice you make there really matters an iota to me, though. Neither would surprise me to any great extent.

*sigh* Of course it was sarcasm. But you knew that. I should have known that you would clutch pearls at sarcasm despite your constant use of it. It's what you do.

So you ascribed a belief set to people that you know was false. Thank you for clearing that up. And you get butthurt when that is called out as a lie.

Yes, I use sarcasm. The issue isnt sarcasm. The issue is ascribing a belief to others that you know is not true. The method you use to do that is immaterial.

But funny you latch onto 'sarcasm' as the bright shiny bug there without ever bothering to note the knowing untruth behind it. I cant believe I have to denote rather obvious distinction and comment here.

Here is a thought experiment that might help: denote *any* comment in the last 10 days from this Kent Rowald that states a belief that *only* leftist asshats are responsible for *all* the violence?

Go home, find those comments, then come to us with your book report on sarcasm (or whatever crossed that grey matter over there). Sound like a plan?

Hopefully you aren't African American; then we would have to hash out the meaning of the 'go home' above all over again....

(06-10-2020 02:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 02:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 02:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 02:10 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 02:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So you make **** up (i.e. lie) about a stance. Sounds like fun there, Mr Zoolander.

Glad you dont like it. Seems a rather substantial number of you do though. The nightly news kind of blares that out. Funny that.

Sorry... where did I lie?

Your initial comment was either

1) a sarcastic implication that people on the right think that *only* left-based violence has occurred (i.e. something you know is false); or

2) an amazingly dumb as dirt statement.

Not that the choice you make there really matters an iota to me, though. Neither would surprise me to any great extent.

*sigh* Of course it was sarcasm. But you knew that. I should have known that you would clutch pearls at sarcasm despite your constant use of it. It's what you do.

So you ascribed a belief set to people that you know was false. Thank you for clearing that up. And you get butthurt when that is called out as a lie.

Yes, I use sarcasm. The issue isnt sarcasm. The issue is ascribing a belief to others that you know is not true. The method you use to do that is immaterial.

But funny you latch onto 'sarcasm' as the bright shiny bug there without ever bothering to note the knowing untruth behind it. I cant believe I have to denote rather obvious distinction and comment here.

Here is a thought experiment that might help: denote *any* comment in the last 10 days from this Kent Rowald that states a belief that *only* leftist asshats are responsible for *all* the violence?

Go home, find those comments, then come to us with your book report on sarcasm (or whatever crossed that grey matter over there). Sound like a plan?

Hopefully you aren't African American; then we would have to hash out the meaning of the 'go home' above all over again....

Not butthurt. Just wondering why you thought I was "lying".

No thanks to the book report. It's pretty clear that your side has implied that it's the leftists who are always the violent ones and the only time that the right is violent is when they are themselves attacked (white supremacy rallies, etc.). These were examples of right wingers planning or actually performing serious violence. I'm sure there are plenty more examples.

(06-10-2020 03:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 02:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 02:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 02:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 02:10 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Sorry... where did I lie?

Your initial comment was either

1) a sarcastic implication that people on the right think that *only* left-based violence has occurred (i.e. something you know is false); or

2) an amazingly dumb as dirt statement.

Not that the choice you make there really matters an iota to me, though. Neither would surprise me to any great extent.

*sigh* Of course it was sarcasm. But you knew that. I should have known that you would clutch pearls at sarcasm despite your constant use of it. It's what you do.

So you ascribed a belief set to people that you know was false. Thank you for clearing that up. And you get butthurt when that is called out as a lie.

Yes, I use sarcasm. The issue isnt sarcasm. The issue is ascribing a belief to others that you know is not true. The method you use to do that is immaterial.

But funny you latch onto 'sarcasm' as the bright shiny bug there without ever bothering to note the knowing untruth behind it. I cant believe I have to denote rather obvious distinction and comment here.

Here is a thought experiment that might help: denote *any* comment in the last 10 days from this Kent Rowald that states a belief that *only* leftist asshats are responsible for *all* the violence?

Go home, find those comments, then come to us with your book report on sarcasm (or whatever crossed that grey matter over there). Sound like a plan?

Hopefully you aren't African American; then we would have to hash out the meaning of the 'go home' above all over again....

Not butthurt. Just wondering why you thought I was "lying".

I would say glad to see that you understand, finally -- but ---

Quote:It's pretty clear that your side has implied that it's the leftists who are always the violent ones and the only time that the right is violent is when they are themselves attacked (white supremacy rallies, etc.). These were examples of right wingers planning or actually performing serious violence. I'm sure there are plenty more examples.

Funny, right after I explicitly noted:

Quote: I will grant you that some of the violence is 'right-based' and should be acknowledged as such on the right.

The apparent utter failure of both your reading and comprehension skills between my statement above and yours preceding is quite the feat. World class, in fact. Congrats (I guess)... <clap>

(06-10-2020 03:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 03:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 02:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 02:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 02:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Your initial comment was either

1) a sarcastic implication that people on the right think that *only* left-based violence has occurred (i.e. something you know is false); or

2) an amazingly dumb as dirt statement.

Not that the choice you make there really matters an iota to me, though. Neither would surprise me to any great extent.

*sigh* Of course it was sarcasm. But you knew that. I should have known that you would clutch pearls at sarcasm despite your constant use of it. It's what you do.

So you ascribed a belief set to people that you know was false. Thank you for clearing that up. And you get butthurt when that is called out as a lie.

Yes, I use sarcasm. The issue isnt sarcasm. The issue is ascribing a belief to others that you know is not true. The method you use to do that is immaterial.

But funny you latch onto 'sarcasm' as the bright shiny bug there without ever bothering to note the knowing untruth behind it. I cant believe I have to denote rather obvious distinction and comment here.

Here is a thought experiment that might help: denote *any* comment in the last 10 days from this Kent Rowald that states a belief that *only* leftist asshats are responsible for *all* the violence?

Go home, find those comments, then come to us with your book report on sarcasm (or whatever crossed that grey matter over there). Sound like a plan?

Hopefully you aren't African American; then we would have to hash out the meaning of the 'go home' above all over again....

Not butthurt. Just wondering why you thought I was "lying".

I would say glad to see that you understand, finally -- but ---

Quote:It's pretty clear that your side has implied that it's the leftists who are always the violent ones and the only time that the right is violent is when they are themselves attacked (white supremacy rallies, etc.). These were examples of right wingers planning or actually performing serious violence. I'm sure there are plenty more examples.

Funny, right after I explicitly noted:

Quote: will grant you that some of the violence is 'right-based' and should be acknowledged as such on the right.

Perhaps there is a valid reason I regard you as an absolutely useless moron. The apparent utter failure of both reading and comprehension skills between my statement and yours is quite the feat. <clap>

Wait... does this mean I'm off your Christmas card list?

I was referring to the recent discussion (from a few days ago) regarding left versus right wing violence. That's what inspired my original sarcastic post. Yes... later in this thread you did make that statement. Acknowledged.

FYI, Tanq, this is the type of statement that I was responding to:

OptimisticOwl, June 3:

Quote:But I will say that nearly every protest that results in violence/rioting/arson/vandalism is either a left wing protest or left wingers attacking a right wing protest. I cannot think of an exception to that statement, but there might be one or two.

(06-10-2020 04:00 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  FYI, Tanq, this is the type of statement that I was responding to:

OptimisticOwl, June 3:

Quote:But I will say that nearly every protest that results in violence/rioting/arson/vandalism is either a left wing protest or left wingers attacking a right wing protest. I cannot think of an exception to that statement, but there might be one or two.

Funny, I still dont see the word 'all". I dont see the word 'every'. Perhaps you might want to gander the last sentence -- where he actually contemplates that there might be some.

Now lets turn to the portion 'nearly every protest'? Do you understand the term 'nearly'? This brings up two distinct points

1) Seriously, you are using this statement as an example of someone saying 'all' the violence? In my book, the term 'nearly' doesnt mean 'all' -- that translation is seriously flawed verbally and logically for a whole slew of reasons.

Further, the statement 'but there might be one or two' sound like someone saying all? Again, denoting that passage as 'all protesters are X' displays some really fing creative reading and translation skill.

2) So now that we know that your passage above is a flailing (and somewhat farcical) attempt that the statement says, or is meant to encompass 'all', lets turn our attention to the veracity of it.

You specifically noted that this was 'at these protests'.

Is it your position that the violence/arson/vandalism/rioting in the last ten days is not mainly borne from left-wingers?

Next, lets even expand it to the scope that OO is talking about, as opposed to your ' somewhat interesting 'grab bag it sounds near enough' approach. Is it your position that the violence/arson/vandalism/rioting in the last, say, 8 years is not mainly borne from left-wingers or left-wingers attacking a right wing protest?

If so, we can start the counting process. I guarantee you there are more left-wing based civil unrest incidents by far in that time frame. Hell, lets spark in another 4 years and include those evil **** and viciously violent Tea Party protests to boot.

-------------------

Seriously, do you even read anything before you pull the pin on the bull**** rhetoric grenade?

(06-10-2020 03:44 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 03:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 03:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 02:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 02:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  *sigh* Of course it was sarcasm. But you knew that. I should have known that you would clutch pearls at sarcasm despite your constant use of it. It's what you do.

So you ascribed a belief set to people that you know was false. Thank you for clearing that up. And you get butthurt when that is called out as a lie.

Yes, I use sarcasm. The issue isnt sarcasm. The issue is ascribing a belief to others that you know is not true. The method you use to do that is immaterial.

But funny you latch onto 'sarcasm' as the bright shiny bug there without ever bothering to note the knowing untruth behind it. I cant believe I have to denote rather obvious distinction and comment here.

Here is a thought experiment that might help: denote *any* comment in the last 10 days from this Kent Rowald that states a belief that *only* leftist asshats are responsible for *all* the violence?

Go home, find those comments, then come to us with your book report on sarcasm (or whatever crossed that grey matter over there). Sound like a plan?

Hopefully you aren't African American; then we would have to hash out the meaning of the 'go home' above all over again....

Not butthurt. Just wondering why you thought I was "lying".

I would say glad to see that you understand, finally -- but ---

Quote:It's pretty clear that your side has implied that it's the leftists who are always the violent ones and the only time that the right is violent is when they are themselves attacked (white supremacy rallies, etc.). These were examples of right wingers planning or actually performing serious violence. I'm sure there are plenty more examples.

Funny, right after I explicitly noted:

Quote: will grant you that some of the violence is 'right-based' and should be acknowledged as such on the right.

Perhaps there is a valid reason I regard you as an absolutely useless moron. The apparent utter failure of both reading and comprehension skills between my statement and yours is quite the feat. <clap>

Wait... does this mean I'm off your Christmas card list?

I was referring to the recent discussion (from a few days ago) regarding left versus right wing violence. That's what inspired my original sarcastic post. Yes... later in this thread you did make that statement. Acknowledged.

By the way, hopefully you note that I actually edited that portion out prior to your posting. That was a little overboard even for me today.

(06-10-2020 04:00 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  FYI, Tanq, this is the type of statement that I was responding to:

OptimisticOwl, June 3:

Quote:But I will say that nearly every protest that results in violence/rioting/arson/vandalism is either a left wing protest or left wingers attacking a right wing protest. I cannot think of an exception to that statement, but there might be one or two.

Show me how I am wrong, 93. Give me all the exceptions.

(06-10-2020 11:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 11:20 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  How about we simply link the reports, rather than read a 3rd party's synopsis of them?

Lad, feel free to use WaPo to give you the links, but don't expect OO to argue with you about what WaPo says about them.

Have you opened the WashPo article? It has 20+ different studies referenced.

Sorry, but I'm not taking that much time to go and copy and paste all the relevant information, just because OO can't handle the source of the compilation.

Y'all taking some crazy pills. Have a good one.

Yes...
God forbid you be expected to go to any EFFORT to support your beliefs.

(06-10-2020 11:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Have you opened the WashPo article? It has 20+ different studies referenced.

So what?

Number one, does the article accurately summarizes the "20+ different studies"? How do you know?

Number two, what methodology and assumptions were used in the "20+ different studies," and how do you know that the methodology and assumptions did not give rise to inaccuracies or prejudices in the studies?

My bottom line--You can produce a study to say whatever you want it to say, depending on games you play with methodology and assumptions. Any lawyer who has ever litigated "your expert versus my expert" lawsuits knows that. So I tend to take a dim view of "studies," particularly when the subject matter is politically charged.