(07-05-2020 09:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I should have bet OO 500 bucks on my call that you would say 'its nuanced'.

I wouldn't have taken that bet. I play the odds.

(07-05-2020 10:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  This one got a chuckle:

Does Nike still use child labor in 2020? Wasn't that a scandal like 25 years ago?

(07-05-2020 09:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  lad seems to be putting the cart before the horse again tonite (logically speaking).

I guess when 200 people tear down a statue that is the de facto feeling of the majority of the 120,000 people in a community. Interesting 'after the fact logic' there.

Do you see the problem in that analysis and that statement, lad?

I guess one can justify *any* act of civil unrest, or for that matter *any* crime on the unfelt needs of the mjority of the community.

I guess a majority of the community simply didnt like portions of their city, and that is why 500 million dollars in bunring/looting damage was incurred. This list could get really fun before too long....

That is the main problem with ex post facto leaps of logical faith.

It’s really difficult to have a discussion here when you feel the need to assign value to every statement.

I am not justifying any actions - as I said,

Please note where I say it is a 'justification'. I fully support you are noting 'why' you think it is happening.

I think it is a pile of sludge.

I think it is 200 asshats substituting *their* positions for that of a majority of the populace. But you say not.

Good. Have fun with that 'statement of fact'.

Quote:I’m also not saying that my analysis is 100% correct for every act of a mob. Sometimes it will right and sometimes it won’t.

I WIN!!!! FKING A, I should have bet OO 500 bucks on my call that you would say 'its nuanced'. Holy moley, thanks there lad.

Quote:You seem to have a very hard time when situations aren’t black or white, and you love to try categorize posts in such a way so you can squawk about them and flap your arms.

At least I dont have to say 'Its nuanced' like you seemingly do at every other turn.

You uncategorically state that the removals are 'because the legislatures havent acted fas enough.'

You seemingly dont fing consider that, perhaps, some of those governing jurisictions dont want the statues removed. I call that pre-blinders there lad. But, that is your issue, lad, not mine. Please keep doing that.

Quote:If we want to talk about support, I’ve seen multiple polls showing that the majority of people do support the removal of these statues. I’ve even had at least one other poster tell me there isn’t really a disagreement about removing them.

Glad to know one poster here is a scientific data point. That ranks right up there with your onesy tweet about Trumpists. Lolz.

Quote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com...aces%3Famp

I am sure the populace of Maine wants the eebul southern bumfks removed. Funny, perhaps the populace of, say the local county in Arkansas *doesnt* want the edifice of the *their* local son and hero removed.

But please keep pointing to the such national polls as proof positive of every local issue. And you wonder why we call you a collectivist and socialist? I guess for you a national consensus on an issue is and should be dispositive of any local action? Or do you not really give a flying fk about any local issues except to the degree that they comport with such 'national consensus'?

I live my life in a manner I know an average Californian would hate. I know that from first hand knowledge. And I would readily suggest a vice versa is strong as hell.

But seemingly a 'national poll' is the yardstick on how we should deal with all issues in ladistan? That sounds like all sorts of fking fun and sunshine..... have fun when you get to that standard.

So we’re back to this being a local issue?

I asked about that earlier and Owl#s said that I was completely off base.

Honestly, there are so many wires crossed and assumptions being jumped to, that we have a rather rambling screed about California and Maine and you and OO jerking each other off.

My personal opinion on the removal of these monuments is that they should be removed. I don’t support people removing them by force. And I apparently shouldn’t even think out loud about why some people have forcefully removed them, because you’re gonna flip out about it.

I think either locally elected officials, organization representatives, or ballot initiatives should be used to decide how to handle these statues and monuments. If that leads to some being left up, so be it. I completely disagree with that decision, but **** it.

I posted a poll I found to point out that a majority of citizens in the US support removing these statues, which is a change from 2017. I’m sure there are pockets of the country where that isn’t the case, but **** me, apparently I need to write a Tanq-esque screed whenever I post, or you’ll just twirl **** in the air.

(07-05-2020 08:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  lad seems to be putting the cart before the horse again tonite (logically speaking).

I guess when 200 people tear down a statue that is the de facto feeling of the majority of the 120,000 people in a community. Interesting 'after the fact logic' there.

Do you see the problem in that analysis and that statement, lad?

I guess one can justify *any* act of civil unrest, or for that matter *any* crime on the unfelt needs of the mjority of the community.

I guess a majority of the community simply didnt like portions of their city, and that is why 500 million dollars in bunring/looting damage was incurred. This list could get really fun before too long....

That is the main problem with ex post facto leaps of logical faith.

first they tell us the rioters are less than 1% of the left, and then they tell us they represent the will of the majority of the citizenry.

As Ham says, you‘re not this dumb... I don’t think...

There are clearly two populations within the people who protested and support the removal of confederate statues. Those who support the cause and show the support peacefully, and those who support the cause and don’t so peaceful.

Your comment tries to suggest that the rioters and those who support removing the statues are the same populations, but they aren’t. Do you actually think that everyone who supports removing Confederate statues would either riot in the street or be directly involved in pulling down a statue without permission from the local government?

(07-05-2020 10:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  lad seems to be putting the cart before the horse again tonite (logically speaking).

I guess when 200 people tear down a statue that is the de facto feeling of the majority of the 120,000 people in a community. Interesting 'after the fact logic' there.

Do you see the problem in that analysis and that statement, lad?

I guess one can justify *any* act of civil unrest, or for that matter *any* crime on the unfelt needs of the mjority of the community.

I guess a majority of the community simply didnt like portions of their city, and that is why 500 million dollars in bunring/looting damage was incurred. This list could get really fun before too long....

That is the main problem with ex post facto leaps of logical faith.

first they tell us the rioters are less than 1% of the left, and then they tell us they represent the will of the majority of the citizenry.

As Ham says, you‘re not this dumb... I don’t think...

There are clearly two populations within the people who protested and support the removal of confederate statues. Those who support the cause and show the support peacefully, and those who support the cause and don’t so peaceful.

Your comment tries to suggest that the rioters and those who support removing the statues are the same populations, but they aren’t. Do you actually think that everyone who supports removing Confederate statues would either riot in the street or be directly involved in pulling down a statue without permission from the local government?

I'm sorry that one of us is math challenged, and the other is logic challenged.

I will speak more plainly for the latter crowd.

When you guys want to minimize something, it is a tiny minority. when you want to maximize it, it becomes we are all in agreement. Whatever number serves your purpose.

I think a lot of people would not give a second thought to those statues, except a tiny minority has made a mountain out of a molehill. But if you guys are right, and think the majority of voters support the removal of the statues, then stand for what's right and call for an election or democratic due process, instead of making excuses about the righteousness of the cause and the slowness of the process.

I wonder what goes after the statues? The books? Tom Sawyer, or Gone with the Wind? Paintings? Songs? All the Stephen Foster songs? the Bible? The movies are already pretty much gone.

I think the statue removers could not win most elections, so what happens then? Do they say, well we made our case but the good citizens of Twain County rejected, let's go home now?

About the fifth time I have asked this question of you.

If there is an election, and the voters vote to keep the statues, then what? has the issue been addressed to the satisfaction of the losing side? Or then do we go the route of protesting the election? Or straight to mobs with paint and ropes. To paraphrase the question the Dems were asking just before the 2016 election, will the result be honored?



You can keep dodging. i will keep asking.

From what you and 93 have said so far, I think the left would ignore the election on the grounds they know better than that bunch of deplorables and just go straight to the mob. It's your way or the highway.

(07-05-2020 10:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  lad seems to be putting the cart before the horse again tonite (logically speaking).

I guess when 200 people tear down a statue that is the de facto feeling of the majority of the 120,000 people in a community. Interesting 'after the fact logic' there.

Do you see the problem in that analysis and that statement, lad?

I guess one can justify *any* act of civil unrest, or for that matter *any* crime on the unfelt needs of the mjority of the community.

I guess a majority of the community simply didnt like portions of their city, and that is why 500 million dollars in bunring/looting damage was incurred. This list could get really fun before too long....

That is the main problem with ex post facto leaps of logical faith.

first they tell us the rioters are less than 1% of the left, and then they tell us they represent the will of the majority of the citizenry.

As Ham says, you‘re not this dumb... I don’t think...

There are clearly two populations within the people who protested and support the removal of confederate statues. Those who support the cause and show the support peacefully, and those who support the cause and don’t so peaceful.

Your comment tries to suggest that the rioters and those who support removing the statues are the same populations, but they aren’t. Do you actually think that everyone who supports removing Confederate statues would either riot in the street or be directly involved in pulling down a statue without permission from the local government?

I'm in the crowd that would love to see the Confederate (aka losers) statues removed immediately from all public spaces, preferably peacefully and safely. They should have never been erected, and we should have pulled them all down many years ago.

(07-05-2020 11:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  lad seems to be putting the cart before the horse again tonite (logically speaking).

I guess when 200 people tear down a statue that is the de facto feeling of the majority of the 120,000 people in a community. Interesting 'after the fact logic' there.

Do you see the problem in that analysis and that statement, lad?

I guess one can justify *any* act of civil unrest, or for that matter *any* crime on the unfelt needs of the mjority of the community.

I guess a majority of the community simply didnt like portions of their city, and that is why 500 million dollars in bunring/looting damage was incurred. This list could get really fun before too long....

That is the main problem with ex post facto leaps of logical faith.

first they tell us the rioters are less than 1% of the left, and then they tell us they represent the will of the majority of the citizenry.

As Ham says, you‘re not this dumb... I don’t think...

There are clearly two populations within the people who protested and support the removal of confederate statues. Those who support the cause and show the support peacefully, and those who support the cause and don’t so peaceful.

Your comment tries to suggest that the rioters and those who support removing the statues are the same populations, but they aren’t. Do you actually think that everyone who supports removing Confederate statues would either riot in the street or be directly involved in pulling down a statue without permission from the local government?

I'm sorry that one of us is math challenged, and the other is logic challenged.

I will speak more plainly for the latter crowd.

When you guys want to minimize something, it is a tiny minority. when you want to maximize it, it becomes we are all in agreement. Whatever number serves your purpose.

I think a lot of people would not give a second thought to those statues, except a tiny minority has made a mountain out of a molehill. But if you guys are right, and think the majority of voters support the removal of the statues, then stand for what's right and call for an election or democratic due process, instead of making excuses about the righteousness of the cause and the slowness of the process.

I wonder what goes after the statues? The books? Tom Sawyer, or Gone with the Wind? Paintings? Songs? All the Stephen Foster songs? the Bible? The movies are already pretty much gone.

I think the statue removers could not win most elections, so what happens then? Do they say, well we made our case but the good citizens of Twain County rejected, let's go home now?

About the fifth time I have asked this question of you.

If there is an election, and the voters vote to keep the statues, then what? has the issue been addressed to the satisfaction of the losing side? Or then do we go the route of protesting the election? Or straight to mobs with paint and ropes. To paraphrase the question the Dems were asking just before the 2016 election, will the result be honored?



You can keep dodging. i will keep asking.

From what you and 93 have said so far, I think the left would ignore the election on the grounds they know better than that bunch of deplorables and just go straight to the mob. It's your way or the highway.

I thought I made it clear with my answer to your question - I want people to follow the law. That logically means people need to continue to push for legal change if they want the statues removed and a hypothetical ballot initiative doesn’t pass on the first run.

I guess you were talking about yourself when you mentioned you were speaking to the logically challenged.

(07-05-2020 11:55 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  lad seems to be putting the cart before the horse again tonite (logically speaking).

I guess when 200 people tear down a statue that is the de facto feeling of the majority of the 120,000 people in a community. Interesting 'after the fact logic' there.

Do you see the problem in that analysis and that statement, lad?

I guess one can justify *any* act of civil unrest, or for that matter *any* crime on the unfelt needs of the mjority of the community.

I guess a majority of the community simply didnt like portions of their city, and that is why 500 million dollars in bunring/looting damage was incurred. This list could get really fun before too long....

That is the main problem with ex post facto leaps of logical faith.

first they tell us the rioters are less than 1% of the left, and then they tell us they represent the will of the majority of the citizenry.

As Ham says, you‘re not this dumb... I don’t think...

There are clearly two populations within the people who protested and support the removal of confederate statues. Those who support the cause and show the support peacefully, and those who support the cause and don’t so peaceful.

Your comment tries to suggest that the rioters and those who support removing the statues are the same populations, but they aren’t. Do you actually think that everyone who supports removing Confederate statues would either riot in the street or be directly involved in pulling down a statue without permission from the local government?

I'm in the crowd that would love to see the Confederate (aka losers) statues removed immediately from all public spaces, preferably peacefully and safely. They should have never been erected, and we should have pulled them all down many years ago.

Same here. And it’s why I posted the poll - there are a lot of people (exact % undetermined) that fall between taking to the streets and toppling these statues and supporting the removal of the statues. However, it seems like some posters on here can’t handle this sort spectrum of behavior.

Their logic is only able to handle two buckets - supporting tearing down statues by any means necessary, or opposing the removal of the statues.

On a similar angle, we’re now seeing people advocate for renaming military bases. Why are conservatives again the group that overwhelmingly opposes renaming military bases named after Confederate “heroes”?

(07-06-2020 05:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 11:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  lad seems to be putting the cart before the horse again tonite (logically speaking).

I guess when 200 people tear down a statue that is the de facto feeling of the majority of the 120,000 people in a community. Interesting 'after the fact logic' there.

Do you see the problem in that analysis and that statement, lad?

I guess one can justify *any* act of civil unrest, or for that matter *any* crime on the unfelt needs of the mjority of the community.

I guess a majority of the community simply didnt like portions of their city, and that is why 500 million dollars in bunring/looting damage was incurred. This list could get really fun before too long....

That is the main problem with ex post facto leaps of logical faith.

first they tell us the rioters are less than 1% of the left, and then they tell us they represent the will of the majority of the citizenry.

As Ham says, you‘re not this dumb... I don’t think...

There are clearly two populations within the people who protested and support the removal of confederate statues. Those who support the cause and show the support peacefully, and those who support the cause and don’t so peaceful.

Your comment tries to suggest that the rioters and those who support removing the statues are the same populations, but they aren’t. Do you actually think that everyone who supports removing Confederate statues would either riot in the street or be directly involved in pulling down a statue without permission from the local government?

I'm sorry that one of us is math challenged, and the other is logic challenged.

I will speak more plainly for the latter crowd.

When you guys want to minimize something, it is a tiny minority. when you want to maximize it, it becomes we are all in agreement. Whatever number serves your purpose.

I think a lot of people would not give a second thought to those statues, except a tiny minority has made a mountain out of a molehill. But if you guys are right, and think the majority of voters support the removal of the statues, then stand for what's right and call for an election or democratic due process, instead of making excuses about the righteousness of the cause and the slowness of the process.

I wonder what goes after the statues? The books? Tom Sawyer, or Gone with the Wind? Paintings? Songs? All the Stephen Foster songs? the Bible? The movies are already pretty much gone.

I think the statue removers could not win most elections, so what happens then? Do they say, well we made our case but the good citizens of Twain County rejected, let's go home now?

About the fifth time I have asked this question of you.

If there is an election, and the voters vote to keep the statues, then what? has the issue been addressed to the satisfaction of the losing side? Or then do we go the route of protesting the election? Or straight to mobs with paint and ropes. To paraphrase the question the Dems were asking just before the 2016 election, will the result be honored?



You can keep dodging. i will keep asking.

From what you and 93 have said so far, I think the left would ignore the election on the grounds they know better than that bunch of deplorables and just go straight to the mob. It's your way or the highway.

I thought I made it clear with my answer to your question - I want people to follow the law. That logically means people need to continue to push for legal change if they want the statues removed and a hypothetical ballot initiative doesn’t pass on the first run.

Same.

(07-06-2020 05:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 11:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  lad seems to be putting the cart before the horse again tonite (logically speaking).

I guess when 200 people tear down a statue that is the de facto feeling of the majority of the 120,000 people in a community. Interesting 'after the fact logic' there.

Do you see the problem in that analysis and that statement, lad?

I guess one can justify *any* act of civil unrest, or for that matter *any* crime on the unfelt needs of the mjority of the community.

I guess a majority of the community simply didnt like portions of their city, and that is why 500 million dollars in bunring/looting damage was incurred. This list could get really fun before too long....

That is the main problem with ex post facto leaps of logical faith.

first they tell us the rioters are less than 1% of the left, and then they tell us they represent the will of the majority of the citizenry.

As Ham says, you‘re not this dumb... I don’t think...

There are clearly two populations within the people who protested and support the removal of confederate statues. Those who support the cause and show the support peacefully, and those who support the cause and don’t so peaceful.

Your comment tries to suggest that the rioters and those who support removing the statues are the same populations, but they aren’t. Do you actually think that everyone who supports removing Confederate statues would either riot in the street or be directly involved in pulling down a statue without permission from the local government?

I'm sorry that one of us is math challenged, and the other is logic challenged.

I will speak more plainly for the latter crowd.

When you guys want to minimize something, it is a tiny minority. when you want to maximize it, it becomes we are all in agreement. Whatever number serves your purpose.

I think a lot of people would not give a second thought to those statues, except a tiny minority has made a mountain out of a molehill. But if you guys are right, and think the majority of voters support the removal of the statues, then stand for what's right and call for an election or democratic due process, instead of making excuses about the righteousness of the cause and the slowness of the process.

I wonder what goes after the statues? The books? Tom Sawyer, or Gone with the Wind? Paintings? Songs? All the Stephen Foster songs? the Bible? The movies are already pretty much gone.

I think the statue removers could not win most elections, so what happens then? Do they say, well we made our case but the good citizens of Twain County rejected, let's go home now?

About the fifth time I have asked this question of you.

If there is an election, and the voters vote to keep the statues, then what? has the issue been addressed to the satisfaction of the losing side? Or then do we go the route of protesting the election? Or straight to mobs with paint and ropes. To paraphrase the question the Dems were asking just before the 2016 election, will the result be honored?



You can keep dodging. i will keep asking.

From what you and 93 have said so far, I think the left would ignore the election on the grounds they know better than that bunch of deplorables and just go straight to the mob. It's your way or the highway.

I thought I made it clear with my answer to your question - I want people to follow the law. That logically means people need to continue to push for legal change if they want the statues removed and a hypothetical ballot initiative doesn’t pass on the first run.

Same.

(07-05-2020 10:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  lad seems to be putting the cart before the horse again tonite (logically speaking).

I guess when 200 people tear down a statue that is the de facto feeling of the majority of the 120,000 people in a community. Interesting 'after the fact logic' there.

Do you see the problem in that analysis and that statement, lad?

I guess one can justify *any* act of civil unrest, or for that matter *any* crime on the unfelt needs of the mjority of the community.

I guess a majority of the community simply didnt like portions of their city, and that is why 500 million dollars in bunring/looting damage was incurred. This list could get really fun before too long....

That is the main problem with ex post facto leaps of logical faith.

It’s really difficult to have a discussion here when you feel the need to assign value to every statement.

I am not justifying any actions - as I said,

Please note where I say it is a 'justification'. I fully support you are noting 'why' you think it is happening.

I think it is a pile of sludge.

I think it is 200 asshats substituting *their* positions for that of a majority of the populace. But you say not.

Good. Have fun with that 'statement of fact'.

Quote:I’m also not saying that my analysis is 100% correct for every act of a mob. Sometimes it will right and sometimes it won’t.

I WIN!!!! FKING A, I should have bet OO 500 bucks on my call that you would say 'its nuanced'. Holy moley, thanks there lad.

Quote:You seem to have a very hard time when situations aren’t black or white, and you love to try categorize posts in such a way so you can squawk about them and flap your arms.

At least I dont have to say 'Its nuanced' like you seemingly do at every other turn.

You uncategorically state that the removals are 'because the legislatures havent acted fas enough.'

You seemingly dont fing consider that, perhaps, some of those governing jurisictions dont want the statues removed. I call that pre-blinders there lad. But, that is your issue, lad, not mine. Please keep doing that.

Quote:If we want to talk about support, I’ve seen multiple polls showing that the majority of people do support the removal of these statues. I’ve even had at least one other poster tell me there isn’t really a disagreement about removing them.

Glad to know one poster here is a scientific data point. That ranks right up there with your onesy tweet about Trumpists. Lolz.

Quote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com...aces%3Famp

I am sure the populace of Maine wants the eebul southern bumfks removed. Funny, perhaps the populace of, say the local county in Arkansas *doesnt* want the edifice of the *their* local son and hero removed.

But please keep pointing to the such national polls as proof positive of every local issue. And you wonder why we call you a collectivist and socialist? I guess for you a national consensus on an issue is and should be dispositive of any local action? Or do you not really give a flying fk about any local issues except to the degree that they comport with such 'national consensus'?

I live my life in a manner I know an average Californian would hate. I know that from first hand knowledge. And I would readily suggest a vice versa is strong as hell.

But seemingly a 'national poll' is the yardstick on how we should deal with all issues in ladistan? That sounds like all sorts of fking fun and sunshine..... have fun when you get to that standard.

So we’re back to this being a local issue?

I asked about that earlier and Owl#s said that I was completely off base.

One would surmise that that is where #s and I dont agree. I respect #s opinion, albeit that isnt my position. I guess I should be banned from the 'follow every aspect of #s opinion club". As for *back* to a local issue, this is where I have always been.

Again, not a very effective point mind you. I guess one of the issues I shuld make as proof is to point out 'well that isnt where [big, 93, whonot] stands on that issue. Seems to be a cogent debate point and almost a 'gotcha there' moment for you. i will file that away for future use, as I was unaware that was so important.

Quote:Honestly, there are so many wires crossed and assumptions being jumped to, that we have a rather rambling screed about California and Maine and you and OO jerking each other off.

The only wires that are crossed are yours.

As for rambling screed, it is a primer on local issue decisions.

Quote:My personal opinion on the removal of these monuments is that they should be removed. I don’t support people removing them by force. And I apparently shouldn’t even think out loud about why some people have forcefully removed them, because you’re gonna flip out about it.

Knock yourself out and get your local ones removed. Funny thing I am rather consistent on that aspect. I dont have to bend myself into all sorts of pretzels on this. And if you do get your local ones removed, more power to you. Clear enough?

Quote:I think either locally elected officials, organization representatives, or ballot initiatives should be used to decide how to handle these statues and monuments. If that leads to some being left up, so be it. I completely disagree with that decision, but **** it.

Then interestingly we share some beliefs. Albeit I am agnostic about any other jurisdictions. I dont have a vested interest and an overriding 'cheer' in other jurisdictions' decisions. Excepting the one of my ancestor where is elsewhere. But I am not going to cry a river, and throw a **** fit and paint the courthouse if it happens.

And on local edifices, if it is shown it any is one of the 'dozens' that were funded by the white hoody people to intimidate the mud people in the 1930s, then I will vote to remove them. I am kind of partial to Sam Houston, so I will vote to keep that one.

Or, wait, considering he really did nothing more than run away from Santa Ana, and only fought the battle of San Jacinto after his sub-commanders effectively mutinied on him and told them they were going to fight that day, with him or without him, maybe I am not so vested in his statue anymore.

Quote:I posted a poll I found to point out that a majority of citizens in the US support removing these statues, which is a change from 2017. I’m sure there are pockets of the country where that isn’t the case, but **** me, apparently I need to write a Tanq-esque screed whenever I post, or you’ll just twirl **** in the air.

Glad you have a national poll on the issue. The funny thing is that that poll would be by definition skewed -- most probably since 1865, for some odd, strange historical reason. To spell it out, the Blue side won.

But I am glad you take such solace and comfort in that poll. The underpinnings to it seem really stupid based on the above at first glance, and at second glance since this should be in all respects a local decision. I dont see the efficacy of germaneness of waving a national poll around because of the points above, but if makes you feel better, then by all means continue to do so.

(07-06-2020 07:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  lad seems to be putting the cart before the horse again tonite (logically speaking).

I guess when 200 people tear down a statue that is the de facto feeling of the majority of the 120,000 people in a community. Interesting 'after the fact logic' there.

Do you see the problem in that analysis and that statement, lad?

I guess one can justify *any* act of civil unrest, or for that matter *any* crime on the unfelt needs of the mjority of the community.

I guess a majority of the community simply didnt like portions of their city, and that is why 500 million dollars in bunring/looting damage was incurred. This list could get really fun before too long....

That is the main problem with ex post facto leaps of logical faith.

It’s really difficult to have a discussion here when you feel the need to assign value to every statement.

I am not justifying any actions - as I said,

Please note where I say it is a 'justification'. I fully support you are noting 'why' you think it is happening.

I think it is a pile of sludge.

I think it is 200 asshats substituting *their* positions for that of a majority of the populace. But you say not.

Good. Have fun with that 'statement of fact'.

Quote:I’m also not saying that my analysis is 100% correct for every act of a mob. Sometimes it will right and sometimes it won’t.

I WIN!!!! FKING A, I should have bet OO 500 bucks on my call that you would say 'its nuanced'. Holy moley, thanks there lad.

Quote:You seem to have a very hard time when situations aren’t black or white, and you love to try categorize posts in such a way so you can squawk about them and flap your arms.

At least I dont have to say 'Its nuanced' like you seemingly do at every other turn.

You uncategorically state that the removals are 'because the legislatures havent acted fas enough.'

You seemingly dont fing consider that, perhaps, some of those governing jurisictions dont want the statues removed. I call that pre-blinders there lad. But, that is your issue, lad, not mine. Please keep doing that.

Quote:If we want to talk about support, I’ve seen multiple polls showing that the majority of people do support the removal of these statues. I’ve even had at least one other poster tell me there isn’t really a disagreement about removing them.

Glad to know one poster here is a scientific data point. That ranks right up there with your onesy tweet about Trumpists. Lolz.

Quote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com...aces%3Famp

I am sure the populace of Maine wants the eebul southern bumfks removed. Funny, perhaps the populace of, say the local county in Arkansas *doesnt* want the edifice of the *their* local son and hero removed.

But please keep pointing to the such national polls as proof positive of every local issue. And you wonder why we call you a collectivist and socialist? I guess for you a national consensus on an issue is and should be dispositive of any local action? Or do you not really give a flying fk about any local issues except to the degree that they comport with such 'national consensus'?

I live my life in a manner I know an average Californian would hate. I know that from first hand knowledge. And I would readily suggest a vice versa is strong as hell.

But seemingly a 'national poll' is the yardstick on how we should deal with all issues in ladistan? That sounds like all sorts of fking fun and sunshine..... have fun when you get to that standard.

So we’re back to this being a local issue?

I asked about that earlier and Owl#s said that I was completely off base.

One would surmise that that is where #s and I dont agree. I respect #s opinion, albeit that isnt my position. I guess I should be banned from the 'follow every aspect of #s opinion club". As for *back* to a local issue, this is where I have always been.

Again, not a very effective point mind you. I guess one of the issues I shuld make as proof is to point out 'well that isnt where [big, 93, whonot] stands on that issue. Seems to be a cogent debate point and almost a 'gotcha there' moment for you. i will file that away for future use, as I was unaware that was so important.

Quote:Honestly, there are so many wires crossed and assumptions being jumped to, that we have a rather rambling screed about California and Maine and you and OO jerking each other off.

The only wires that are crossed are yours.

As for rambling screed, it is a primer on local issue decisions.

Quote:My personal opinion on the removal of these monuments is that they should be removed. I don’t support people removing them by force. And I apparently shouldn’t even think out loud about why some people have forcefully removed them, because you’re gonna flip out about it.

Knock yourself out and get your local ones removed. Funny thing I am rather consistent on that aspect. I dont have to bend myself into all sorts of pretzels on this. And if you do get your local ones removed, more power to you. Clear enough?

Quote:I think either locally elected officials, organization representatives, or ballot initiatives should be used to decide how to handle these statues and monuments. If that leads to some being left up, so be it. I completely disagree with that decision, but **** it.

Then interestingly we share some beliefs. Albeit I am agnostic about any other jurisdictions. I dont have a vested interest and an overriding 'cheer' in other jurisdictions' decisions. Excepting the one of my ancestor where is elsewhere. But I am not going to cry a river, and throw a **** fit and paint the courthouse if it happens.

And on local edifices, if it is shown it any is one of the 'dozens' that were funded by the white hoody people to intimidate the mud people in the 1930s, then I will vote to remove them. I am kind of partial to Sam Houston, so I will vote to keep that one.

Or, wait, considering he really did nothing more than run away from Santa Ana, and only fought the battle of San Jacinto after his sub-commanders effectively mutinied on him and told them they were going to fight that day, with him or without him, maybe I am not so vested in his statue anymore.

Quote:I posted a poll I found to point out that a majority of citizens in the US support removing these statues, which is a change from 2017. I’m sure there are pockets of the country where that isn’t the case, but **** me, apparently I need to write a Tanq-esque screed whenever I post, or you’ll just twirl **** in the air.

Glad you have a national poll on the issue. The funny thing is that that poll would be by definition skewed -- most probably since 1865, for some odd, strange historical reason. To spell it out, the Blue side won.

But I am glad you take such solace and comfort in that poll. The underpinnings to it seem really stupid based on the above at first glance, and at second glance since this should be in all respects a local decision. I dont see the efficacy of germaneness of waving a national poll around because of the points above, but if makes you feel better, then by all means continue to do so.

Good to hear that we agree that the decisions should be left up to local institutions. It sounds like we differ in whether or not we support the decision to remove the statues (it sounds like you're against it, and I am for it - but let me know if I misunderstood your personal opinion on whether or not they should be removed).

Look what happens when you stop **** flinging and trying to pin an opinion onto someone else - we can actually discuss the issues and find out we aren't too far apart. It's hard for you (see "I dont have a vested interest and an overriding 'cheer' in other jurisdictions' decisions. Excepting the one of my ancestor where is elsewhere. But I am not going to cry a river, and throw a **** fit and paint the courthouse if it happens."), but maybe if you stop painting a progressive boogie man for me to defend, you'd find that I'm not that person.

(07-06-2020 05:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I thought I made it clear with my answer to your question - I want people to follow the law. That logically means people need to continue to push for legal change if they want the statues removed and a hypothetical ballot initiative doesn’t pass on the first run.
I guess you were talking about yourself when you mentioned you were speaking to the logically challenged.

So if we take a vote, and the vote says "let them stay," what then? I guess you just say, "oh, let's keep taking votes until we get the answer I want"?

I'm reminded of a cartoon that appeared in National Review when the Equal Rights Amendment was trying to get enough states to approve it. There is a woman in a baseball uniform, holding a bat, and she is saying something to the effect of, "What do you mean, 12 strikes and I'm out?"

If voting means following the will of the people, that's one thing. If voting means, let's just keep voting until I win, that's something different.

(07-06-2020 08:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 05:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I thought I made it clear with my answer to your question - I want people to follow the law. That logically means people need to continue to push for legal change if they want the statues removed and a hypothetical ballot initiative doesn’t pass on the first run.
I guess you were talking about yourself when you mentioned you were speaking to the logically challenged.

So if we take a vote, and the vote says "let them stay," what then? I guess you just say, "oh, let's keep taking votes until we get the answer I want"?

I'm reminded of a cartoon that appeared in National Review when the Equal Rights Amendment was trying to get enough states to approve it. There is a woman in a baseball uniform, holding a bat, and she is saying something to the effect of, "What do you mean, 12 strikes and I'm out?"

If voting means following the will of the people, that's one thing. If voting means, let's just keep voting until I win, that's something different.

I mean, how else do we pass legislation that fails on the first vote?

What alternative are you suggesting to people who want to affect change?

(07-06-2020 05:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 11:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  lad seems to be putting the cart before the horse again tonite (logically speaking).

I guess when 200 people tear down a statue that is the de facto feeling of the majority of the 120,000 people in a community. Interesting 'after the fact logic' there.

Do you see the problem in that analysis and that statement, lad?

I guess one can justify *any* act of civil unrest, or for that matter *any* crime on the unfelt needs of the mjority of the community.

I guess a majority of the community simply didnt like portions of their city, and that is why 500 million dollars in bunring/looting damage was incurred. This list could get really fun before too long....

That is the main problem with ex post facto leaps of logical faith.

first they tell us the rioters are less than 1% of the left, and then they tell us they represent the will of the majority of the citizenry.

As Ham says, you‘re not this dumb... I don’t think...

There are clearly two populations within the people who protested and support the removal of confederate statues. Those who support the cause and show the support peacefully, and those who support the cause and don’t so peaceful.

Your comment tries to suggest that the rioters and those who support removing the statues are the same populations, but they aren’t. Do you actually think that everyone who supports removing Confederate statues would either riot in the street or be directly involved in pulling down a statue without permission from the local government?

I'm sorry that one of us is math challenged, and the other is logic challenged.

I will speak more plainly for the latter crowd.

When you guys want to minimize something, it is a tiny minority. when you want to maximize it, it becomes we are all in agreement. Whatever number serves your purpose.

I think a lot of people would not give a second thought to those statues, except a tiny minority has made a mountain out of a molehill. But if you guys are right, and think the majority of voters support the removal of the statues, then stand for what's right and call for an election or democratic due process, instead of making excuses about the righteousness of the cause and the slowness of the process.

I wonder what goes after the statues? The books? Tom Sawyer, or Gone with the Wind? Paintings? Songs? All the Stephen Foster songs? the Bible? The movies are already pretty much gone.

I think the statue removers could not win most elections, so what happens then? Do they say, well we made our case but the good citizens of Twain County rejected, let's go home now?

About the fifth time I have asked this question of you.

If there is an election, and the voters vote to keep the statues, then what? has the issue been addressed to the satisfaction of the losing side? Or then do we go the route of protesting the election? Or straight to mobs with paint and ropes. To paraphrase the question the Dems were asking just before the 2016 election, will the result be honored?



You can keep dodging. i will keep asking.

From what you and 93 have said so far, I think the left would ignore the election on the grounds they know better than that bunch of deplorables and just go straight to the mob. It's your way or the highway.

I thought I made it clear with my answer to your question - I want people to follow the law. That logically means people need to continue to push for legal change if they want the statues removed and a hypothetical ballot initiative doesn’t pass on the first run.

I guess you were talking about yourself when you mentioned you were speaking to the logically challenged.

If so, then (logically) that would make you the mathematically challenged one. You pick which one you would rather be. See how nicely I am playing?

So, if your side doesn't get what they want through legal means, then they should continue to push for it but only through legal means? I can live with that. Frankly, I don't think most of the people on your team can. But it is the way the long road to equality (and beyond) worked. Brown went through the courts, all the way to the SCOTUS, rather than lead a mob to the Topeka ISD after getting impatient. It took years, but it became law.

all the talk about the mob just being tired of the delays in reaching a foregone and set conclusion are just excuses for bad behavior. There is a right way too bring about change. If you follow the right way, but don't get the result you wanted, it is still the right way.

(07-06-2020 08:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 07:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It’s really difficult to have a discussion here when you feel the need to assign value to every statement.

I am not justifying any actions - as I said,

Please note where I say it is a 'justification'. I fully support you are noting 'why' you think it is happening.

I think it is a pile of sludge.

I think it is 200 asshats substituting *their* positions for that of a majority of the populace. But you say not.

Good. Have fun with that 'statement of fact'.

Quote:I’m also not saying that my analysis is 100% correct for every act of a mob. Sometimes it will right and sometimes it won’t.

I WIN!!!! FKING A, I should have bet OO 500 bucks on my call that you would say 'its nuanced'. Holy moley, thanks there lad.

Quote:You seem to have a very hard time when situations aren’t black or white, and you love to try categorize posts in such a way so you can squawk about them and flap your arms.

At least I dont have to say 'Its nuanced' like you seemingly do at every other turn.

You uncategorically state that the removals are 'because the legislatures havent acted fas enough.'

You seemingly dont fing consider that, perhaps, some of those governing jurisictions dont want the statues removed. I call that pre-blinders there lad. But, that is your issue, lad, not mine. Please keep doing that.

Quote:If we want to talk about support, I’ve seen multiple polls showing that the majority of people do support the removal of these statues. I’ve even had at least one other poster tell me there isn’t really a disagreement about removing them.

Glad to know one poster here is a scientific data point. That ranks right up there with your onesy tweet about Trumpists. Lolz.

Quote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com...aces%3Famp

I am sure the populace of Maine wants the eebul southern bumfks removed. Funny, perhaps the populace of, say the local county in Arkansas *doesnt* want the edifice of the *their* local son and hero removed.

But please keep pointing to the such national polls as proof positive of every local issue. And you wonder why we call you a collectivist and socialist? I guess for you a national consensus on an issue is and should be dispositive of any local action? Or do you not really give a flying fk about any local issues except to the degree that they comport with such 'national consensus'?

I live my life in a manner I know an average Californian would hate. I know that from first hand knowledge. And I would readily suggest a vice versa is strong as hell.

But seemingly a 'national poll' is the yardstick on how we should deal with all issues in ladistan? That sounds like all sorts of fking fun and sunshine..... have fun when you get to that standard.

So we’re back to this being a local issue?

I asked about that earlier and Owl#s said that I was completely off base.

One would surmise that that is where #s and I dont agree. I respect #s opinion, albeit that isnt my position. I guess I should be banned from the 'follow every aspect of #s opinion club". As for *back* to a local issue, this is where I have always been.

Again, not a very effective point mind you. I guess one of the issues I shuld make as proof is to point out 'well that isnt where [big, 93, whonot] stands on that issue. Seems to be a cogent debate point and almost a 'gotcha there' moment for you. i will file that away for future use, as I was unaware that was so important.

Quote:Honestly, there are so many wires crossed and assumptions being jumped to, that we have a rather rambling screed about California and Maine and you and OO jerking each other off.

The only wires that are crossed are yours.

As for rambling screed, it is a primer on local issue decisions.

Quote:My personal opinion on the removal of these monuments is that they should be removed. I don’t support people removing them by force. And I apparently shouldn’t even think out loud about why some people have forcefully removed them, because you’re gonna flip out about it.

Knock yourself out and get your local ones removed. Funny thing I am rather consistent on that aspect. I dont have to bend myself into all sorts of pretzels on this. And if you do get your local ones removed, more power to you. Clear enough?

Quote:I think either locally elected officials, organization representatives, or ballot initiatives should be used to decide how to handle these statues and monuments. If that leads to some being left up, so be it. I completely disagree with that decision, but **** it.

Then interestingly we share some beliefs. Albeit I am agnostic about any other jurisdictions. I dont have a vested interest and an overriding 'cheer' in other jurisdictions' decisions. Excepting the one of my ancestor where is elsewhere. But I am not going to cry a river, and throw a **** fit and paint the courthouse if it happens.

And on local edifices, if it is shown it any is one of the 'dozens' that were funded by the white hoody people to intimidate the mud people in the 1930s, then I will vote to remove them. I am kind of partial to Sam Houston, so I will vote to keep that one.

Or, wait, considering he really did nothing more than run away from Santa Ana, and only fought the battle of San Jacinto after his sub-commanders effectively mutinied on him and told them they were going to fight that day, with him or without him, maybe I am not so vested in his statue anymore.

Quote:I posted a poll I found to point out that a majority of citizens in the US support removing these statues, which is a change from 2017. I’m sure there are pockets of the country where that isn’t the case, but **** me, apparently I need to write a Tanq-esque screed whenever I post, or you’ll just twirl **** in the air.

Glad you have a national poll on the issue. The funny thing is that that poll would be by definition skewed -- most probably since 1865, for some odd, strange historical reason. To spell it out, the Blue side won.

But I am glad you take such solace and comfort in that poll. The underpinnings to it seem really stupid based on the above at first glance, and at second glance since this should be in all respects a local decision. I dont see the efficacy of germaneness of waving a national poll around because of the points above, but if makes you feel better, then by all means continue to do so.

Good to hear that we agree that the decisions should be left up to local institutions. It sounds like we differ in whether or not we support the decision to remove the statues (it sounds like you're against it, and I am for it - but let me know if I misunderstood your personal opinion on whether or not they should be removed).

I do have an opinion on one in particular, but that is not in my locale. I would be disappointed to see it removed. For those others not in my own locale, I am agnostic -- being a full proponent of 'local choice' that truly is their choice

If you can show me that any of the ones in my locale are one of the 'dozens' set up to 'intimidate blacks', then I have zero issue with them being taken down. And it would kill the dumb as **** talking point that sustains 93s current view on why all the statues and monuments must come down. That is until there is a new talking point for him to blather.

And, I have zero issue with any statue of Sam Houston being taken down. He was not as much as an 'inspiring leader'; he was more of a person who feared fighting Santa Ana and retreated as fast as he could. He only fought at San Jacinto when his direct line of next-in-commands told him to fk off and they were going to fight.

And yes,the use a national poll for determination of this issue is idiotic.

First, more than half the poll will be of pure 'Blue' opinion. That is the one you spout, the one of 'traitors' and such. Funny, I have yet to see any more of a legal reason against secession at that time as I do that for secession. You had a bunch of people that, for a variety of reasons (and not *just* slavery), decided that the current system didnt work for them. And they decided to leave the house. There were no rules that said they had to stay, and there were no rules that said they were free to leave. So at least half the nation has to define that action as 'traitorous' --- that is why that national poll is pretty stupid in the first place. Grey == bad. No discussion at all permitted. Tear down the traitor statues.

Second, I dont give a **** what the opinion is from people in, say California, is on what should be expressly a local issue. Just as my opinion on what the freaked out cities of California do when they vote to pull down Columbus statues.

I truly do believe in the power of local decision. Using a poll of what a national sentiment is is really kind of stupid to use as evidence for any local decision.

If you want to proffer what the citizens of Huntsville, Alabama want to do at the local scale, then by all means that is germane for the actions of Huntsville. Using a national poll is really kind of stupid.

They have about as much insight into local affairs here as I do of some local hero or favorite some there.

(07-06-2020 07:01 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 05:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 11:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  first they tell us the rioters are less than 1% of the left, and then they tell us they represent the will of the majority of the citizenry.

As Ham says, you‘re not this dumb... I don’t think...

There are clearly two populations within the people who protested and support the removal of confederate statues. Those who support the cause and show the support peacefully, and those who support the cause and don’t so peaceful.

Your comment tries to suggest that the rioters and those who support removing the statues are the same populations, but they aren’t. Do you actually think that everyone who supports removing Confederate statues would either riot in the street or be directly involved in pulling down a statue without permission from the local government?

I'm sorry that one of us is math challenged, and the other is logic challenged.

I will speak more plainly for the latter crowd.

When you guys want to minimize something, it is a tiny minority. when you want to maximize it, it becomes we are all in agreement. Whatever number serves your purpose.

I think a lot of people would not give a second thought to those statues, except a tiny minority has made a mountain out of a molehill. But if you guys are right, and think the majority of voters support the removal of the statues, then stand for what's right and call for an election or democratic due process, instead of making excuses about the righteousness of the cause and the slowness of the process.

I wonder what goes after the statues? The books? Tom Sawyer, or Gone with the Wind? Paintings? Songs? All the Stephen Foster songs? the Bible? The movies are already pretty much gone.

I think the statue removers could not win most elections, so what happens then? Do they say, well we made our case but the good citizens of Twain County rejected, let's go home now?

About the fifth time I have asked this question of you.

If there is an election, and the voters vote to keep the statues, then what? has the issue been addressed to the satisfaction of the losing side? Or then do we go the route of protesting the election? Or straight to mobs with paint and ropes. To paraphrase the question the Dems were asking just before the 2016 election, will the result be honored?



You can keep dodging. i will keep asking.

From what you and 93 have said so far, I think the left would ignore the election on the grounds they know better than that bunch of deplorables and just go straight to the mob. It's your way or the highway.

I thought I made it clear with my answer to your question - I want people to follow the law. That logically means people need to continue to push for legal change if they want the statues removed and a hypothetical ballot initiative doesn’t pass on the first run.

Same.

93, you brought up "voter suppression". Does this mean that if yall lost the election to remove the statue of the soldier on the courthouse lawn, you would then advocate overturning the election on the grounds of voter suppression. I used a hypothetical 55%-45% loss - I don't know what suppression techniques you think would result in more than 10% of the electorate staying home. It is not 1950 anymore.

I would be pleased to see the Democrats and other left revert to legal means. I would also be pleased if the nonviolent left would stop making excuses for the violent left while making tutting noises.

You also have not presented your proofs of statues being erected in black neighborhoods for intimidation. I don't doubt a few were - but you paint with the broad brush there. I don't see how a statue intimidates in 2020 - certainly the mobs don't seem worried. "I just could not go vote for the Democrat because of the statue of Grant in my way"? Is that what voters are saying?

(07-06-2020 07:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 08:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  lad seems to be putting the cart before the horse again tonite (logically speaking).

I guess when 200 people tear down a statue that is the de facto feeling of the majority of the 120,000 people in a community. Interesting 'after the fact logic' there.

Do you see the problem in that analysis and that statement, lad?

I guess one can justify *any* act of civil unrest, or for that matter *any* crime on the unfelt needs of the mjority of the community.

I guess a majority of the community simply didnt like portions of their city, and that is why 500 million dollars in bunring/looting damage was incurred. This list could get really fun before too long....

That is the main problem with ex post facto leaps of logical faith.

It’s really difficult to have a discussion here when you feel the need to assign value to every statement.

I am not justifying any actions - as I said,

Please note where I say it is a 'justification'. I fully support you are noting 'why' you think it is happening.

I think it is a pile of sludge.

I think it is 200 asshats substituting *their* positions for that of a majority of the populace. But you say not.

Good. Have fun with that 'statement of fact'.

Quote:I’m also not saying that my analysis is 100% correct for every act of a mob. Sometimes it will right and sometimes it won’t.

I WIN!!!! FKING A, I should have bet OO 500 bucks on my call that you would say 'its nuanced'. Holy moley, thanks there lad.

Quote:You seem to have a very hard time when situations aren’t black or white, and you love to try categorize posts in such a way so you can squawk about them and flap your arms.

At least I dont have to say 'Its nuanced' like you seemingly do at every other turn.

You uncategorically state that the removals are 'because the legislatures havent acted fas enough.'

You seemingly dont fing consider that, perhaps, some of those governing jurisictions dont want the statues removed. I call that pre-blinders there lad. But, that is your issue, lad, not mine. Please keep doing that.

Quote:If we want to talk about support, I’ve seen multiple polls showing that the majority of people do support the removal of these statues. I’ve even had at least one other poster tell me there isn’t really a disagreement about removing them.

Glad to know one poster here is a scientific data point. That ranks right up there with your onesy tweet about Trumpists. Lolz.

Quote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com...aces%3Famp

I am sure the populace of Maine wants the eebul southern bumfks removed. Funny, perhaps the populace of, say the local county in Arkansas *doesnt* want the edifice of the *their* local son and hero removed.

But please keep pointing to the such national polls as proof positive of every local issue. And you wonder why we call you a collectivist and socialist? I guess for you a national consensus on an issue is and should be dispositive of any local action? Or do you not really give a flying fk about any local issues except to the degree that they comport with such 'national consensus'?

I live my life in a manner I know an average Californian would hate. I know that from first hand knowledge. And I would readily suggest a vice versa is strong as hell.

But seemingly a 'national poll' is the yardstick on how we should deal with all issues in ladistan? That sounds like all sorts of fking fun and sunshine..... have fun when you get to that standard.

So we’re back to this being a local issue?

I asked about that earlier and Owl#s said that I was completely off base.

One would surmise that that is where #s and I dont agree. I respect #s opinion, albeit that isnt my position. I guess I should be banned from the 'follow every aspect of #s opinion club". As for *back* to a local issue, this is where I have always been.

Again, not a very effective point mind you. I guess one of the issues I shuld make as proof is to point out 'well that isnt where [big, 93, whonot] stands on that issue. Seems to be a cogent debate point and almost a 'gotcha there' moment for you. i will file that away for future use, as I was unaware that was so important.

Quote:Honestly, there are so many wires crossed and assumptions being jumped to, that we have a rather rambling screed about California and Maine and you and OO jerking each other off.

The only wires that are crossed are yours.

As for rambling screed, it is a primer on local issue decisions.

Quote:My personal opinion on the removal of these monuments is that they should be removed. I don’t support people removing them by force. And I apparently shouldn’t even think out loud about why some people have forcefully removed them, because you’re gonna flip out about it.

Knock yourself out and get your local ones removed. Funny thing I am rather consistent on that aspect. I dont have to bend myself into all sorts of pretzels on this. And if you do get your local ones removed, more power to you. Clear enough?

You posted this yesterday:

Quote:I see zero need for most, if not all, the monuments to 'be taken down'. But, considering I have ancestors that actually died on that battlefield, I am sure you feel zero compunction about pissing on their graves as a general matter. Good for you.

I mean, there are some that seemingly take the German tack w/r to their rrcent history in that pretty much all reference to anything to a point in history be airbrushed. You can march in that lane, dont take me there by default.

And no, I will short circuit the 'racist' comment. I actually have a heckuva lot of respect for my ancestors that fought for their land. And no, we shouldnt demean that. The vast, vast majority of men who fought for the South did not own slaves, they fought for their state. I am not going to take a dump on them blindly and sua sponte like you proffer above.

Quote:Honestly, there are so many wires crossed and assumptions being jumped to, that we have a rather rambling screed about California and Maine and you and OO jerking each other off.

I guess this means you are not in agreement with Big and 93 that the discussion needs to be polite?

Oh, wait a minute...

"Look what happens when you stop **** flinging and trying to pin an opinion onto someone else - we can actually discuss the issues and find out we aren't too far apart."

I think this means you want to hold Tanq to a standard that you don't hold yourself to. Is that correct? If not, what is the standard you would like both of you to meet?

(07-06-2020 09:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 07:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It’s really difficult to have a discussion here when you feel the need to assign value to every statement.

I am not justifying any actions - as I said,

Please note where I say it is a 'justification'. I fully support you are noting 'why' you think it is happening.

I think it is a pile of sludge.

I think it is 200 asshats substituting *their* positions for that of a majority of the populace. But you say not.

Good. Have fun with that 'statement of fact'.

Quote:I’m also not saying that my analysis is 100% correct for every act of a mob. Sometimes it will right and sometimes it won’t.

I WIN!!!! FKING A, I should have bet OO 500 bucks on my call that you would say 'its nuanced'. Holy moley, thanks there lad.

Quote:You seem to have a very hard time when situations aren’t black or white, and you love to try categorize posts in such a way so you can squawk about them and flap your arms.

At least I dont have to say 'Its nuanced' like you seemingly do at every other turn.

You uncategorically state that the removals are 'because the legislatures havent acted fas enough.'

You seemingly dont fing consider that, perhaps, some of those governing jurisictions dont want the statues removed. I call that pre-blinders there lad. But, that is your issue, lad, not mine. Please keep doing that.

Quote:If we want to talk about support, I’ve seen multiple polls showing that the majority of people do support the removal of these statues. I’ve even had at least one other poster tell me there isn’t really a disagreement about removing them.

Glad to know one poster here is a scientific data point. That ranks right up there with your onesy tweet about Trumpists. Lolz.

Quote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com...aces%3Famp

I am sure the populace of Maine wants the eebul southern bumfks removed. Funny, perhaps the populace of, say the local county in Arkansas *doesnt* want the edifice of the *their* local son and hero removed.

But please keep pointing to the such national polls as proof positive of every local issue. And you wonder why we call you a collectivist and socialist? I guess for you a national consensus on an issue is and should be dispositive of any local action? Or do you not really give a flying fk about any local issues except to the degree that they comport with such 'national consensus'?

I live my life in a manner I know an average Californian would hate. I know that from first hand knowledge. And I would readily suggest a vice versa is strong as hell.

But seemingly a 'national poll' is the yardstick on how we should deal with all issues in ladistan? That sounds like all sorts of fking fun and sunshine..... have fun when you get to that standard.

So we’re back to this being a local issue?

I asked about that earlier and Owl#s said that I was completely off base.

One would surmise that that is where #s and I dont agree. I respect #s opinion, albeit that isnt my position. I guess I should be banned from the 'follow every aspect of #s opinion club". As for *back* to a local issue, this is where I have always been.

Again, not a very effective point mind you. I guess one of the issues I shuld make as proof is to point out 'well that isnt where [big, 93, whonot] stands on that issue. Seems to be a cogent debate point and almost a 'gotcha there' moment for you. i will file that away for future use, as I was unaware that was so important.

Quote:Honestly, there are so many wires crossed and assumptions being jumped to, that we have a rather rambling screed about California and Maine and you and OO jerking each other off.

The only wires that are crossed are yours.

As for rambling screed, it is a primer on local issue decisions.

Quote:My personal opinion on the removal of these monuments is that they should be removed. I don’t support people removing them by force. And I apparently shouldn’t even think out loud about why some people have forcefully removed them, because you’re gonna flip out about it.

Knock yourself out and get your local ones removed. Funny thing I am rather consistent on that aspect. I dont have to bend myself into all sorts of pretzels on this. And if you do get your local ones removed, more power to you. Clear enough?

You posted this yesterday:

Quote:I see zero need for most, if not all, the monuments to 'be taken down'. But, considering I have ancestors that actually died on that battlefield, I am sure you feel zero compunction about pissing on their graves as a general matter. Good for you.

I mean, there are some that seemingly take the German tack w/r to their rrcent history in that pretty much all reference to anything to a point in history be airbrushed. You can march in that lane, dont take me there by default.

And no, I will short circuit the 'racist' comment. I actually have a heckuva lot of respect for my ancestors that fought for their land. And no, we shouldnt demean that. The vast, vast majority of men who fought for the South did not own slaves, they fought for their state. I am not going to take a dump on them blindly and sua sponte like you proffer above.

And if the *local* authorities decide to remove them I have zero issue with that. That isnt a hard concept to fathom, 93. Nice try.

Perhaps you should have also noted (and maybe bolded) "I see zero need for most, if not all, the monuments to 'be taken down'." That really isnt a dying on the hilltop defense if you had bothered to actually read the selection in its entirety. But then again, this isnt the first time you have charged down that path.

And perhaps the term "blindly and sua sponte" do have meaning there as well. Funny that.