winsor

To disagree with the Obvious Truths espoused by the Democrats? Madness!

Nah, just a gauntlet thrown.

During "The Troubles," the baseline in Ulster was "an acceptable level of violence." Similarly, in various places I've lived - Cook County, IL, Philadelphia, PA et al. - any election is accompanied by the usual " irregularities." No big thing. Compared to the election of 1876, 2020 was a picture of decorum and civility - to include 06 January. BSBD, Winsor

In the same sense that I am puzzled about the specifics when the last president blathered on about "Fake News!," I am unsure of quite what got Neil et al. worked up about "disinformation." Precisely what do you claim was wrong, and what do you claim is right? On what basis? What are your data? If someone puts forth a thesis with data that support a more effective model of virus propagation, suppression or whatever, I'm interested. If they simply say "you're wrong, that has been discredited!" without anything to back it up, it kind of rings hollow. Saying that disagreeing with one stance or another will be met with severe consequences constitutes Argumentum ad Baculum, or appeal to force, which neither supports nor refutes one stance or another. It's on a par with "confess or we put out your eyes!" Joe Rogan may or may not be spreading disinformation. I really don't know, since everything I know about him I got secondhand. I would be much more impressed if Neil and Joni were to hold a news conference where they used rock solid data to refute whatever it was with which they disagreed, irrefutably line and verse. Saying "if you disagree with me, I'm taking my bat and ball and going home" makes one suspect they don't personally have a clue either way. As Frank Zappa put it, "Shut up and player guitar." BSBD, Winsor

The inelegance of your attempts at humor makes Boy Scouts look polished and sophisticated. Straight out of Kruger and Dunning's work.

Ah yes, ignore the message and attack the messenger. That's the ticket! Your paraphrasing what you think I said makes clear that you had no idea what I said in the first place. Given that you do so consistently, I suspect it is willful.

?

Any more or any less than anyone else? Not a chance. To suggest otherwise is racist.

You're projecting again.

What I have read from the authors of CRT indicates a standpoint where racism is the primary bias. Putting events in a less blinkered racist context does not make Tulsa the slightest bit more palatable, nor does it make any other racial conflict better or worse. "Indian Wars" anyone? I bridle at putting events in a racist context, where the value judgement of good/bad is carried by the races of the actors involved. Noting that racism was at play is fine, but claiming standards that differ for one group or another is racist and I don't buy it. BSBD, Winsor

Just an aside, but 'black lives matter' would be much more convincing if blacks being shot weren't overwhelmingly shot by other blacks. There's a big difference between the right to self defense and using people for target practice as a matter of course. In competitive shooting circles, nobody really cares about race. Safety is paramount. BSBD, Winsor

What you have demonstrated conclusively is my thesis that when either side of the aisle does something that is inconceivably fucked up, the other side will not be outdone. The subject of 'History' in U.S. schools has routinely been simplistic enough to render it less than worthless. To point out dicta from either side that render it just that much worse is to show just what an All American process it is. I have history books addressing the period between 1933 and 1945 in both English and German. Suffice it to say, the focus of each is different - in English the Eastern Front was good for a couple of pages, and in German the War in the Pacific got two pages as well. It is hardly surprising that the average American knows precious little about History. I suppose that when choosing what treatment is either mandated or proscribed, it's a matter of "name your poison." BSBD, Winsor

Out of curiosity, who the hell told you that? 'Gun control' is historically quite demonstrably racist. A key argument against giving citizenship to freed slaves was the contention that <blacks>, if armed, would shoot anything that moved. Look it up. BSBD, Winsor

The Children of Israel are one big, dysfunctional family. Once adopted into the family, the race of one's biological parents is immaterial. Of course you knew that is why you have people of a broad range of ethnicities in most congregations. If Israel was to adopt the same level of inclusiveness as, say, Saudi Arabia, few, if any, Israelis would tolerate such inhumanity.. Then again, I don't hear you bitching about the antisemitism and atrocities of the muslim world, so perhaps you'd be cool with it. BSBD, Winsor

Hey, I'm not the one who ran for office promising that I would appoint people to the Supreme Court based on such criteria. Frankly, I'm not cool with any Justice who rules on the basis of their own opinions. At worst, what I'd like to hear is "I personally oppose this, but the law is clear on the matter..."

So long as the appointee is a trans lesbian of color, all the necessary qualifications are met.

Clues, $0.05.

We should invade the Bahamas.

That too.

In hockey you're expected to hit people in the face. Whatever making "monkey signs" is, it's insufficiently violent and thus unprofessional. Why do you always talk about racism? It's reminiscent of the patient who sees prurient images in every ink blot. "You have a dirty mind!" "Hey, you're the one showing me all the dirty pictures."

Nothing Woke about firing someone for conduct unbecoming.

Since we're talking legislators, their commonality is much greater with biker trash than NASA. Same math and science requirements. In lawmaking "compromise" has more in common with working out the details of gang rape than of systems optimization for space flight. In context my analogy holds.

Okay, that says it all.

It's like C^2. If C is a vector, are we talking a dot or cross product? There's a difference.

I'm in favor of cooperation, which is vastly different from compromise. Focus on commonality instead of diversity and you have a shot. I'm puzzled by how you might conclude that there's a dime's worth of difference between one side of the aisle and the other, beyond the subset of the population to which they pander. BSBD, Winsor