Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tubby_mcgee

Liberal H.S says 9/11 tribute offensive.

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

It's not happening everywhere. I teach in a very conservative district in PA. I've never taught "critical race theory." It is a boogeyman put out there by news media to angry up the blood of people. Kind of like when MSNBC says stupid to fire up their base. 

Where?  I’m from PA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Alias Detective said:

Where?  I’m from PA.

All I'm comfortable saying is the Eastern part of the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

 

Whatever I believe politically has nothing to do with how I approach teaching kids or what I teach those kids. My politics have no place in a classroom. So yeah you are insulting the way I do things with how you phrased it and the two have nothing to do with each other.

Also, a few of the things you mentioned just aren't happening. Where was it said "black people should get the COVID vaccine first?" Where are the numbers suggesting all illegal aliens are getting free healthcare? You are saying things that propagate in right wing media which inherently showcases a bias of some kind. It's fine but at least recognize that. 

Just because these things didn't happen, doesn't mean they are any less radical or that they aren't entertained by Dem administrations.  And yes, in planning documents, the CDC suggested that with the initial vaccine rollout, race should be the primary determining factor of who gets it first when it was available to the public.  And in the 2020 Presidential debates, every candidate raised their hand when asked if their healthcare plan included covering undocumented immigrants. 

You do know that Oregon made all drugs legal, right?  Cocaine, meth, heroin...all legal to posess. And San Fran and other places having policies that allow human feces and needles to pile up in the streets?  And California has decriminalized knowingly giving people HIV and let people out of jail that were previously incarcerated for it.  But you're right, Dems completely ignore their fringe voices. If you weren't from PA, I would swear you're Hawkeye21.  Nice enough guy, but unless things arent happening right on his front porch in Iowa, he's oblivious and dismissive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

Just because these things didn't happen, doesn't mean they are any less radical or that they aren't entertained by Dem administrations.  And yes, in planning documents, the CDC suggested that with the initial vaccine rollout, race should be the primary determining factor of who gets it first when it was available to the public.  And in the 2020 Presidential debates, every candidate raised their hand when asked if their healthcare plan included covering undocumented immigrants. 

You do know that Oregon made all drugs legal, right?  Cocaine, meth, heroin...all legal to posess. And San Fran and other places having policies that allow human feces and needles to pile up in the streets?  And California has decriminalized knowingly giving people HIV and let people out of jail that were previously incarcerated for it.  But you're right, Dems completely ignore their fringe voices. If you weren't from PA, I would swear you're Hawkeye21.  Nice enough guy, but unless things arent happening right on his front porch in Iowa, he's oblivious and dismissive.

So Biden's health plan will cover undocumented immigrants? Prove it. And hand raising isn't policy. Being entertained by an administration is different than enacting- you know that.

The CDC documents are saying something slightly different than what you are saying it says.

Oregon didn't legalize drugs they voted to say those people couldn't be arrested. They still can get fined and sentenced to counseling. I'm not saying that is a good or bad thing but rather it is different than what you are presenting. The California HIV thing still carries a jail sentence but not 6-8 years. Again different than what you are saying. I can find nothing about the San Francisco policy so I'll need to see a link to investigate it further.

Also, local policy is not national policy. You are conflating two different things. California is one of the most liberal blocks in the country- it's not as if something they do in San Francisco is suddenly going to pile up elsewhere. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

So Biden's health plan will cover undocumented immigrants? Prove it. And hand raising isn't policy. Being entertained by an administration is different than enacting- you know that.

The CDC documents are saying something slightly different than what you are saying it says.

Oregon didn't legalize drugs they voted to say those people couldn't be arrested. They still can get fined and sentenced to counseling. I'm not saying that is a good or bad thing but rather it is different than what you are presenting. The California HIV thing still carries a jail sentence but not 6-8 years. Again different than what you are saying. I can find nothing about the San Francisco policy so I'll need to see a link to investigate it further.

Also, local policy is not national policy. You are conflating two different things. California is one of the most liberal blocks in the country- it's not as if something they do in San Francisco is suddenly going to pile up elsewhere. 

 

JFC dude...do you get tired of moving goal posts?  You said that Dems ignore their fringe.  Youre obviously full of sh!t.  I never said any of these things were in every pocket of the country. And I was never isolating it to the federal level. 

And the Cali HIV law isn't 6-8 years.  It WAS 6-8 years. The fact is that the change of the Cali law is a result of radical ideology. Whatever you want to call the Oregon situation, the fact is you won't go to jail for heroin due to embracing radical ideaology.  Enjoy your Chutes and Ladders.  You have no concept of cause and effect or the worst case of "I can't see it from my house so it's not happening".

 Its also convenient that you've omitted any response to Bidens EO on trans sports or his desire to phase out all fossil fuels.  Yep, no radical ideology from the Dems. 

I'll leave you with one question and I'm done.  If the Dems ignore their fringe, how have we moved the center so far left in the past 50 years? 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

JFC dude...do you get tired of moving goal posts?  You said that Dems ignore their fringe.  Youre obviously full of sh!t.  I never said any of these things were in every pocket of the country. And I was never isolating it to the federal level. 

And the Cali HIV law isn't 6-8 years.  It WAS 6-8 years. The fact is that the change of the Cali law is a result of radical ideology. Whatever you want to call the Oregon situation, the fact is you won't go to jail for heroin due to embracing radical ideaology.  Enjoy your Chutes and Ladders.  You have no concept of cause and effect or the worst case of "I can't see it from my house so it's not happening".

 Its also convenient that you've omitted any response to Bidens EO on trans sports or his desire to phase out all fossil fuels.  Yep, no radical ideology from the Dems. 

I'll leave you with one question and I'm done.  If the Dems ignore their fringe, how have we moved the center so far left in the past 50 years? 

This is what I said: "The California HIV thing still carries a jail sentence but not 6-8 years." You are mad because you didn't read what I wrote. The reality of the Oregon situation is what I posted, not what you posted. Simple fact.

Where is your San Francisco law evidence? I want to explore it.

Again- a legalize everything policy in Oregon doesn't mean it will extend nationwide which means the fringe has not permeated the general party yet. When it does then we can talk. You have the issue of slippery slope fallacy. 

With fossil fuels- yeah they've been going away for 30 years now according to the GOP. I'll believe it when I see it. 

On the trans sports thing. You do know the very conservative heavy Supreme Court set the pace for it:

Quote

 

The “Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation” calls for a broader application of last year's Supreme Court Bostock v. Clayton County ruling, which mandated that LGBTQ people are protected from sex discrimination in the workplace.

The majority opinion held that, “It is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”

The order builds on the landmark ruling and directs federal agencies to extend protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, and calls for the Supreme Court ruling to apply to Title IX, the federal law that prohibits discrimination in federally funded schools.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

All I'm comfortable saying is the Eastern part of the start.

There is not s conservative school district in the eastern part of the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Alias Detective said:

There is not s conservative school district in the eastern part of the state.

That just simply is not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

That just simply is not true.

lesson plans from the state board of education.  WTF?

Quote

 

In 2014, the deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Eric Garner in New York City, Tamir Rice in Cleveland and too many others caused waves of nationwide protest and appeals for stronger protections against police brutality.

These events—along with the lack of accountability for the police officers who shot and killed these unarmed victims—also prompted educators to seek resources on how to address these subjects in the classroom.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

 

Oh man. A few links to things that are not mandated to be taught in schools? Well that seals it. It must absolutely be taught then in schools.

 

Come on.  Be genuine. Why is that crap on the PA education website as suggested lesson plans?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

 

Oh man. A few links to things that are not mandated to be taught in schools? Well that seals it. It must absolutely be taught then in schools.

 

its not widespread, so just ignore it

5 years ago being a tranny was a mental disorder, pay attention, now its encouraged

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

moonie's teaching career consists of a big picture of him placed on the front wall of the sex education classroom with a caption on it asking, "Do you really wanna pop out someone who could turn into this?"

Teen pregnancies go down quickly in that school. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Alias Detective said:

Come on.  Be genuine. Why is that crap on the PA education website as suggested lesson plans?

There are lots of things posted that aren't taught in schools. Suggested doesn't mean- part of the curriculum. Why don't you get that?

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

moonie's teaching career consists of a big picture of him placed on the front wall of the sex education classroom with a caption on it asking, "Do you really wanna pop out someone who could turn into this?"

Teen pregnancies go down quickly in that school. :thumbsup:

Long way to go to a lame joke. So your streak of coherent thoughts stays at zero. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Long way to go to a lame joke. So your streak of coherent thoughts stays at zero. 

Another example of those who can't....teach. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

There are lots of things posted that aren't taught in schools. Suggested doesn't mean- part of the curriculum. Why don't you get that?

 

 

I get it.

Why is it suggested?  Who should be taught that part of a curriculum?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Alias Detective said:

I get it.

Why is it suggested?  Who should be taught that part of a curriculum?  

The state will always suggest things that are "for discussion." But they don't make you teach it and for teachers in a district like mine- you wouldn't teach it because it would just be nothing but logistical problems and a never ending stream of complaints

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

The state will always suggest things that are "for discussion." But they don't make you teach it and for teachers in a district like mine- you wouldn't teach it because it would just be nothing but logistical problems and a never ending stream of complaints

Kids, you don't want this to be your kid's future. Just say no to having babies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

The state will always suggest things that are "for discussion." But they don't make you teach it and for teachers in a district like mine- you wouldn't teach it because it would just be nothing but logistical problems and a never ending stream of complaints

So if it wasn’t for complaints and logistical issues it would be taught? Clown show. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, avoiding injuries said:

So if it wasn’t for complaints and logistical issues it would be taught? Clown show. 

No. Two separate ideas:

1.) You aren't made to teach anything by the state.

2.) Even if I wanted to teach it (which I don't) it wouldn't be worth it for the can of worms one would open for themself.

Is that better for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

Again insults and condescension. Also, I'm thinking you don't understand the point Ruy is making in his piece. 

One school doing this is not "mainstreamed". It's not as if there was some epidemic of high schools canceling 9/11 events. And there are lots of topics because it is fairly clear there is a strong right leaning bias in the political boards here and anytime someone says anything different they are insulted and piled on. Basically- there is an echo chamber here which is fine but it isn't indicative of anything other than that. 

And there are plenty of things I dislike about crazy left policies and when they get put in or seem to have some real sense of coming in I'll criticize them. Will you do the same for the extreme right?

OK smart guy.  Please enlighten me to what I don't understand in the piece I linked?   You made the claim, back it up.  

I am glad that you have descended from up on high in the teachers lounge to bring knowledge to those of us who are trapped in the echo chamber.   And all this time I thought it was people making and debating points.  Some well, some not so well.    And then the people reading making up their own minds about who made their points.    You know . . . democracy.    

I'll criticize any example you want to bring up that we both agree is "extreme right".   The January 6th rioters were awful and an embarrassment to our nation and our history.  While I think some of the stuff going on now is a little crazy, I'm not too busted up if you toss the ones that did damage or harm into jail and throw away the key.    Hell, I'll even one up you and say in addition to that I am even more PO'd at them than you because I'm pissed that they gave the libs lots and lots of ammo that they could abuse the sh1t out of and they ceded the moral high ground the right had regarding rioting and lawlessness.    If you have a group of white supremacist's who are beating up a black man - you can call me and if I can get there I'll throw fists (or more) to save the guy getting a beating.   If the FBI convinces a bunch of losers in their mom's basement to email each other about how they think they can kidnap the governor of MI, I'll be there to condemn that, even though I am not even sure what the hell is going on with that one.    What else you got?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2021 at 6:11 PM, Sean Mooney said:

Equally as dumb as "We can just wait to see if we win to nominate someone we like instead."

I was gonna let this one pass.  But I can't, it's just too wrong.   

You cannot compare slandering a SC nominee for political gain with the election year maneuvering of the parties.   Is Merrick Garland forever smeared with the stain of the inability to get his nomination heard?   Was MG slandered with obviously fabricated stories from his high school days that branded him as rapist?     That's some stunning moral equivalence you got there.    Yup, those two things are so alike that I can barely tell them apart.      

But you go ahead and keep looking in the mirror and saying;  "I am really balanced and fair, and it - I am non-partisan".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Masshole said:

OK smart guy.  Please enlighten me to what I don't understand in the piece I linked?   You made the claim, back it up.  

I am glad that you have descended from up on high in the teachers lounge to bring knowledge to those of us who are trapped in the echo chamber.   And all this time I thought it was people making and debating points.  Some well, some not so well.    And then the people reading making up their own minds about who made their points.    You know . . . democracy.    

I'll criticize any example you want to bring up that we both agree is "extreme right".   The January 6th rioters were awful and an embarrassment to our nation and our history.  While I think some of the stuff going on now is a little crazy, I'm not too busted up if you toss the ones that did damage or harm into jail and throw away the key.    Hell, I'll even one up you and say in addition to that I am even more PO'd at them than you because I'm pissed that they gave the libs lots and lots of ammo that they could abuse the sh1t out of and they ceded the moral high ground the right had regarding rioting and lawlessness.    If you have a group of white supremacist's who are beating up a black man - you can call me and if I can get there I'll throw fists (or more) to save the guy getting a beating.   If the FBI convinces a bunch of losers in their mom's basement to email each other about how they think they can kidnap the governor of MI, I'll be there to condemn that, even though I am not even sure what the hell is going on with that one.    What else you got?   

The point he is making is that dismissing everything as being a "FOX News" piece is bad policy because for some people they are real issues. And just dismissing things as FOX News talking points leads Democrats to dismiss everything as opposed to addressing the things that actually matter. Essentially- too many liberals play an all or nothing game when it comes to these things. Notice he is selective in the points he makes. Such as in his conclusion. He's not saying FOX News is not problematic in ways, but just that assigning everything as that means the Democrats are not addressing real problems. It isn't a take down of Liberal orthodoxy but rather a takedown of the Liberal approach to addressing what is said on Fox News. The current approach ignores the chasm between the issue and public response in some cases. 

It isn't controversial to see an echo chamber here. The tenure of discussion at the very least leans right, and I feel that is generous. Furthermore, I don't care that there is an echo chamber. It's the Internet and people are allowed to search out whatever they want news wise be that challenging or supporting their POV.  Doesn't affect me any.

I'm at least glad to see what you said in the final paragraph. Lots of people on the right did not condemn those rioters- or even worse- tried to portray them as sympathetic figures. And I don't know you but I'll take you at your word that you would condemn those things. At least we can agree on some things. I'll take it. Lastly, despite how many times you or anyone else says it- I'm a centrist. I have been since I could vote. I've voted Republican and Democrat in every election from national down to local level. I've voted in 6 presidential elections and 3 times for Republicans, twice for Democrats, and once I did not vote for President. I abhor people who vote strict ticket just because there is a "D" or "R" behind someone's name. I abhor people who talk politics and are clearly just repeating what MSNBC or FOX News tells them. There is far too much information out there that is biased and fair that can be watched without relying on pundits disguising analysis as objective reporting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Masshole said:

I was gonna let this one pass.  But I can't, it's just too wrong.   

You cannot compare slandering a SC nominee for political gain with the election year maneuvering of the parties.   Is Merrick Garland forever smeared with the stain of the inability to get his nomination heard?   Was MG slandered with obviously fabricated stories from his high school days that branded him as rapist?     That's some stunning moral equivalence you got there.    Yup, those two things are so alike that I can barely tell them apart.      

But you go ahead and keep looking in the mirror and saying;  "I am really balanced and fair, and it - I am non-partisan".  

I'll be very clear up front- Attacking Brett Kavanaugh on what he was attacked on was wrong and idiotic. I would not argue against that. I'm not equivocating the two on a moral level. I'm equivocating the two on the basis of both sides in this instance played with the way things are done in order to further their own dumb agendas. For example, say Trump was President and Ginsberg died but Schumer and Pelosi had been in charge of the Senate and House and they said "We don't care who you put up- even if that person has the most federal judicial experience of any nominee ever- we are not holding any vote until the next President because we think we can win." Then they put in who they want and 4 years later Biden is President, another justice dies and they say "Well, this President should make any decisions, no need to wait until the election." You are going to sit there and say you'd be okay with that?

Basically- Republicans played the game so they could get in the nominee they wanted in both instances. Democrats did what they felt they had to in order to try and keep the one out. If roles were reversed people would be pissed in the opposite directions. The Supreme Court shouldn't be operated that way.

And for as much as he was slandered by the Democrats, Kavanaugh was only in that position because of Mitch's unwillingness to put someone in Obama nominated AND it's a pretty good fallback that even though your reputation was slandered (which barely anyone remembers in this here today, gone tomorrow news cycle and the fact that he has not been as conservative as most liberals feared) you are still pulling down a 270,000 dollar a year job until you die. Must suck.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

No. Two separate ideas:

1.) You aren't made to teach anything by the state.

2.) Even if I wanted to teach it (which I don't) it wouldn't be worth it for the can of worms one would open for themself.

Is that better for you?

But you could teach it if you chose to? Which I’m sure some have, do or will. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, avoiding injuries said:

But you could teach it if you chose to? Which I’m sure some have, do or will. 

 

You'd lose so much time off your curricular plan I doubt any teacher has taught it. Maybe one person who wanted to lose their job. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

The point he is making is that dismissing everything as being a "FOX News" piece is bad policy because for some people they are real issues. And just dismissing things as FOX News talking points leads Democrats to dismiss everything as opposed to addressing the things that actually matter. Essentially- too many liberals play an all or nothing game when it comes to these things. Notice he is selective in the points he makes. Such as in his conclusion. He's not saying FOX News is not problematic in ways, but just that assigning everything as that means the Democrats are not addressing real problems. It isn't a take down of Liberal orthodoxy but rather a takedown of the Liberal approach to addressing what is said on Fox News. The current approach ignores the chasm between the issue and public response in some cases. 

It isn't controversial to see an echo chamber here. The tenure of discussion at the very least leans right, and I feel that is generous. Furthermore, I don't care that there is an echo chamber. It's the Internet and people are allowed to search out whatever they want news wise be that challenging or supporting their POV.  Doesn't affect me any.

I'm at least glad to see what you said in the final paragraph. Lots of people on the right did not condemn those rioters- or even worse- tried to portray them as sympathetic figures. And I don't know you but I'll take you at your word that you would condemn those things. At least we can agree on some things. I'll take it. Lastly, despite how many times you or anyone else says it- I'm a centrist. I have been since I could vote. I've voted Republican and Democrat in every election from national down to local level. I've voted in 6 presidential elections and 3 times for Republicans, twice for Democrats, and once I did not vote for President. I abhor people who vote strict ticket just because there is a "D" or "R" behind someone's name. I abhor people who talk politics and are clearly just repeating what MSNBC or FOX News tells them. There is far too much information out there that is biased and fair that can be watched without relying on pundits disguising analysis as objective reporting. 

JFC.  Every liberal that washes up on our shores is now a centrist.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Casual Observer said:

JFC.  Every liberal that washes up on our shores is now a centrist.

'Centrist' is the new word for 'whacked out uninformed and completely ignorant liberal nut job'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

'Centrist' is the new word for 'whacked out uninformed and completely ignorant liberal nut job'.

This is just part of the game.  They know they are radicals bent on the destruction of our system, but they cannot SAY that.  The left is very good at marketing and gamesmanship.  So they portray their radical nature as "centrist" and mask their true intent behind a benign moniker, and in the process can then portray any opposition as "radical".  It's very clever.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lot of tin foil hat stuff there. It's also the kind of argument you can't respond to because it is positioned in such a way that there is no way to disprove it. And then it is called a "win"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

The point he is making is that dismissing everything as being a "FOX News" piece is bad policy because for some people they are real issues. And just dismissing things as FOX News talking points leads Democrats to dismiss everything as opposed to addressing the things that actually matter. Essentially- too many liberals play an all or nothing game when it comes to these things. Notice he is selective in the points he makes. Such as in his conclusion. He's not saying FOX News is not problematic in ways, but just that assigning everything as that means the Democrats are not addressing real problems. It isn't a take down of Liberal orthodoxy but rather a takedown of the Liberal approach to addressing what is said on Fox News. The current approach ignores the chasm between the issue and public response in some cases. 

It isn't controversial to see an echo chamber here. The tenure of discussion at the very least leans right, and I feel that is generous. Furthermore, I don't care that there is an echo chamber. It's the Internet and people are allowed to search out whatever they want news wise be that challenging or supporting their POV.  Doesn't affect me any.

I'm at least glad to see what you said in the final paragraph. Lots of people on the right did not condemn those rioters- or even worse- tried to portray them as sympathetic figures. And I don't know you but I'll take you at your word that you would condemn those things. At least we can agree on some things. I'll take it. Lastly, despite how many times you or anyone else says it- I'm a centrist. I have been since I could vote. I've voted Republican and Democrat in every election from national down to local level. I've voted in 6 presidential elections and 3 times for Republicans, twice for Democrats, and once I did not vote for President. I abhor people who vote strict ticket just because there is a "D" or "R" behind someone's name. I abhor people who talk politics and are clearly just repeating what MSNBC or FOX News tells them. There is far too much information out there that is biased and fair that can be watched without relying on pundits disguising analysis as objective reporting. 

:lol:

A long winded blowhard radical left "centrist". :banana:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

The point he is making is that dismissing everything as being a "FOX News" piece is bad policy because for some people they are real issues. And just dismissing things as FOX News talking points leads Democrats to dismiss everything as opposed to addressing the things that actually matter. Essentially- too many liberals play an all or nothing game when it comes to these things. Notice he is selective in the points he makes. Such as in his conclusion. He's not saying FOX News is not problematic in ways, but just that assigning everything as that means the Democrats are not addressing real problems. It isn't a take down of Liberal orthodoxy but rather a takedown of the Liberal approach to addressing what is said on Fox News. The current approach ignores the chasm between the issue and public response in some cases. 

It isn't controversial to see an echo chamber here. The tenure of discussion at the very least leans right, and I feel that is generous. Furthermore, I don't care that there is an echo chamber. It's the Internet and people are allowed to search out whatever they want news wise be that challenging or supporting their POV.  Doesn't affect me any.

I'm at least glad to see what you said in the final paragraph. Lots of people on the right did not condemn those rioters- or even worse- tried to portray them as sympathetic figures. And I don't know you but I'll take you at your word that you would condemn those things. At least we can agree on some things. I'll take it. Lastly, despite how many times you or anyone else says it- I'm a centrist. I have been since I could vote. I've voted Republican and Democrat in every election from national down to local level. I've voted in 6 presidential elections and 3 times for Republicans, twice for Democrats, and once I did not vote for President. I abhor people who vote strict ticket just because there is a "D" or "R" behind someone's name. I abhor people who talk politics and are clearly just repeating what MSNBC or FOX News tells them. There is far too much information out there that is biased and fair that can be watched without relying on pundits disguising analysis as objective reporting. 

Great summary of the article I sent you.   Still waiting for you to tell me something I didn't already understand about that article.   I linked it to you because you kept repeating "it's all just right wing talking points" like you had Tourette's and not recognizing any of the validity of the underlying concepts.    You know, like what was described in the article I sent you. . .

The tenure of the discussions leans right here because it isn't the usual left wing circle jerk you usually participate in.    There's actual conservatives/libertarians/GFY'ers that will not lay down because someone calls them a racist/homophobe/whatever.   And there isn't a board overlord deciding who gets banned/censured.     Leftist thought only thrives in those types of forums.  Force it face actual logical challenges without censorship - it withers and fades.       

I am sure that in that well known hotbed of diverse thought, the faculty lounge, there was a lot of talk about how "lots of people on the right" were cheering the 1/6 riots.    But in the real world everybody condemned it.   No one, except the people who did it, were cheerleading for it or happy about it.    But "centrists" like you love to shrink the timeline and completely memory hole that democratic leadership took that riot and turned it into an "insurrection", an occupation of DC by the Nat'l Guard for months, an impeachment of a person who was no longer president, etc., etc.    When people on the right started to stand up and say; "pump the brakes here",  everyone on the left shouted "see - they support the 1/6 insurrection!!!!!"  And that's where you are now.    

Pardon me if I am too deep in the echo chamber but I really struggle with the same people who actually cheered or just said nothing about the 2020 summer of riots claiming the high ground about 1/6.   I don't know you but I am certain that between the 2 of us, one of us condemned BOTH the 2020 summer of riots and the 1/6 riot, and one of us only condemned the 1/6 riots.   So which of those 2 people has the moral high ground? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Masshole said:

Great summary of the article I sent you.   Still waiting for you to tell me something I didn't already understand about that article.   I linked it to you because you kept repeating "it's all just right wing talking points" like you had Tourette's and not recognizing any of the validity of the underlying concepts.    You know, like what was described in the article I sent you. . .

The tenure of the discussions leans right here because it isn't the usual left wing circle jerk you usually participate in.    There's actual conservatives/libertarians/GFY'ers that will not lay down because someone calls them a racist/homophobe/whatever.   And there isn't a board overlord deciding who gets banned/censured.     Leftist thought only thrives in those types of forums.  Force it face actual logical challenges without censorship - it withers and fades.       

I am sure that in that well known hotbed of diverse thought, the faculty lounge, there was a lot of talk about how "lots of people on the right" were cheering the 1/6 riots.    But in the real world everybody condemned it.   No one, except the people who did it, were cheerleading for it or happy about it.    But "centrists" like you love to shrink the timeline and completely memory hole that democratic leadership took that riot and turned it into an "insurrection", an occupation of DC by the Nat'l Guard for months, an impeachment of a person who was no longer president, etc., etc.    When people on the right started to stand up and say; "pump the brakes here",  everyone on the left shouted "see - they support the 1/6 insurrection!!!!!"  And that's where you are now.    

Pardon me if I am too deep in the echo chamber but I really struggle with the same people who actually cheered or just said nothing about the 2020 summer of riots claiming the high ground about 1/6.   I don't know you but I am certain that between the 2 of us, one of us condemned BOTH the 2020 summer of riots and the 1/6 riot, and one of us only condemned the 1/6 riots.   So which of those 2 people has the moral high ground? 

So many inaccurate assumptions. 

A lot of what was being said when I called them "FOX News talking points" were stupid things that are not accurate but people get scared of them because of how they are told to be scared of them. If people had said some of the specific things like in your article it would've had more credibility. And you just used the article to blow up what I was saying but it doesn't, because again- he isn't saying FOX News is clear. He is saying everything being FOX News associated is a problem. Again- my very first post in this thread I could've blown it off as FOX News. I've said numerous times in here there are stupid people on the left that I dislike. But hey- you got to be wrong about an assumption. 

There are plenty of people who cheered the 01/06 insurrection on. There are still people in Congress who try to excuse it and/or helped encourage it. And those people who did it are on the right. One can't try to castigate the entire left for ideas and then try to brush off the people on 1/6. There is a big difference between saying "Pump the brakes," and saying "They were good people." No they weren't, they were a$$holes. And I appreciate you felt the need again to slam what I do and the profession I am in. Is that really all you got? I thought we were having a decent back and forth here. But hey- you got to be wrong again in an assumption. 

Are there left wing circle jerks? Can you tell me where? Can you tell me where the right wing circle jerks are? I'm always up for a good circle jerk. Again- there is a clear right wing slant here. There are a few token threads by people on the left here and there but the general feel is conservative and the gang mentality so far appears to be more from the right. If that changes over time- so be it. I don't go into political forums other than here. No want to and I'm only here because it is adjacent to fantasy football which I care far more about than whatever the media on either side tells me to worry about. But hey- you got to be wrong again in an assumption. 

I was against burning cities and destroying businesses in the BLM riots and I was against the 1/6 riots. So hey- 4 for 4 on inaccurate assumptions- unless you are the "libtard" who only condemned the 1/6 riots and not the BLM riots. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

I'll be very clear up front- Attacking Brett Kavanaugh on what he was attacked on was wrong and idiotic. I would not argue against that. I'm not equivocating the two on a moral level. I'm equivocating the two on the basis of both sides in this instance played with the way things are done in order to further their own dumb agendas. For example, say Trump was President and Ginsberg died but Schumer and Pelosi had been in charge of the Senate and House and they said "We don't care who you put up- even if that person has the most federal judicial experience of any nominee ever- we are not holding any vote until the next President because we think we can win." Then they put in who they want and 4 years later Biden is President, another justice dies and they say "Well, this President should make any decisions, no need to wait until the election." You are going to sit there and say you'd be okay with that?

Basically- Republicans played the game so they could get in the nominee they wanted in both instances. Democrats did what they felt they had to in order to try and keep the one out. If roles were reversed people would be pissed in the opposite directions. The Supreme Court shouldn't be operated that way.

And for as much as he was slandered by the Democrats, Kavanaugh was only in that position because of Mitch's unwillingness to put someone in Obama nominated AND it's a pretty good fallback that even though your reputation was slandered (which barely anyone remembers in this here today, gone tomorrow news cycle and the fact that he has not been as conservative as most liberals feared) you are still pulling down a 270,000 dollar a year job until you die. Must suck.

Opens by saying "I'm not equivocating the two" and then proceeds to write 3 paragraphs equivocating the two.     Your convoluted hypothetical does not help you.    I'll help you.   Here's how someone on the right sees it;  if the roles were reversed absolutely nothing would be different.  Moving on, next issue please. . . "    I wouldn't like it if the roles were reversed, so what?    I am sure of one thing, I would not be OK with republicans knowingly slandering a man with indisputably fabricated story to try to stop that.  

Did you really just say that Kavanaugh deserved what happened to him because the republicans wouldn't let Merrick Garland's late term, election year nomination go ahead??   Yah, you are definitely a centrist.   

When I responded to your ridiculous counterpoint to what happened to Kavanaugh,  as I was writing it I was thinking "I bet this MF'er will come back with 'yah but he did get the job after all'".    Thank you for being consistent.        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Masshole said:

Opens by saying "I'm not equivocating the two" and then proceeds to write 3 paragraphs equivocating the two.     Your convoluted hypothetical does not help you.    I'll help you.   Here's how someone on the right sees it;  if the roles were reversed absolutely nothing would be different.  Moving on, next issue please. . . "    I wouldn't like it if the roles were reversed, so what?    I am sure of one thing, I would not be OK with republicans knowingly slandering a man with indisputably fabricated story to try to stop that.  

Did you really just say that Kavanaugh deserved what happened to him because the republicans wouldn't let Merrick Garland's late term, election year nomination go ahead??   Yah, you are definitely a centrist.   

When I responded to your ridiculous counterpoint to what happened to Kavanaugh,  as I was writing it I was thinking "I bet this MF'er will come back with 'yah but he did get the job after all'".    Thank you for being consistent.        

Dude don't go full utilit99. It's a bad look for you and you are seemingly smarter than that.

I like that you read through the first three sentences and then skipped to whatever furthered your point. Silly stuff man.  

Also, yeah right- I'm sure the people on the right would be thrilled. You and others here would be writing post after post about it and the entire system in Washington would be melting down. Also, so what? So you admit you would be upset. And from seeing some of your posts I don't believe you that you would not be okay with it. 

Please show me where I said Kavanaugh deserved it. I'll wait. What happened to him was he became a political pawn for both sides and got dredged for it. One side stupidly dredged his reputation over nothing and one side indirectly led to his integrity being called into question because of the political maneuvering that went into the spot even being open. That is just a fact man. Deal with it. 

And again- I don't give a rip what you think about where I stand. I know where I stand. I know what I vote on and I guarantee my voting is done with far more consideration and research than yours because I just have a feeling regardless of what you are saying you are a "Select All on the R" voter. 

Oh and you knew what I was going to say but didn't say it ahead of time. Wow man- where can we send your Internet trophy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Please show me where I said Kavanaugh deserved it.

"And for as much as he was slandered by the Democrats, Kavanaugh was only in that position because of Mitch's unwillingness to put someone in Obama nominated"

You keep tossing them up and I just keep swatting them down.   It's got to be getting old for you too, I know it is for me. . .    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Masshole said:

"And for as much as he was slandered by the Democrats, Kavanaugh was only in that position because of Mitch's unwillingness to put someone in Obama nominated"

You keep tossing them up and I just keep swatting them down.   It's got to be getting old for you too, I know it is for me. . .    

Once again- that statement I made is not saying what you think it is. 5 for 5 on incorrect assumptions. Talk about someone tossing them up so they can be swatted down.

Again- please find where I said Kavanaugh deserved it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×