The Debates

Quote: ams288

No?

Quote: ams288

Maybe you guys can create your own thread for all your back-and-forth wall of text posts that no one else reads. That might be the better solution.

Okay, so what would, "Back-and-forth wall of texts posts that no one else reads," do if not making threads unreadable?

In the "Back and forth..." case, you would have to skip posts. In the case of blocking us, you would have to skip posts...but what you would be skipping would sometimes be shorter in the latter case.

Quote: Mission146

Okay, so what would, "Back-and-forth wall of texts posts that no one else reads," do if not making threads unreadable?

In the "Back and forth..." case, you would have to skip posts. In the case of blocking us, you would have to skip posts...but what you would be skipping would sometimes be shorter in the latter case.

I don't think he'll use the block feature because he's kind of obsessed with AZ, which Ace mentioned earlier.
Ace also said that he even has AZ in his sig (which I can't verify since I blocked his ass a long time ago) haha. 👍

Quote: Mission146

Okay, so what would, "Back-and-forth wall of texts posts that no one else reads," do if not making threads unreadable?

In the "Back and forth..." case, you would have to skip posts. In the case of blocking us, you would have to skip posts...but what you would be skipping would sometimes be shorter in the latter case.

But by blocking you I'd miss all your posts, not just the ones where you're enabling Confederate Flag Man to engage in his favorite pastime of mindlessly bashing BLM and other anti-racist groups.

And by blocking Duffman, I'd miss out on his next insane mindfart a la "A straight man will not go for kids." We can't have that!

Quote: Shrek

I don't think he'll use the block feature because he's kind of obsessed with AZ, which Ace mentioned earlier.
Ace also said that he even has AZ in his sig (which I can't verify since I blocked his ass a long time ago) haha. 👍

Someone tell him that there is no pee tape of me either as I find that idea as disgusting as Trump finds it. Maybe that gets him to move on?

Quote: Shrek

I don't think he'll use the block feature because he's kind of obsessed with AZ, which Ace mentioned earlier.
Ace also said that he even has AZ in his sig (which I can't verify since I blocked his ass a long time ago) haha. 👍

Apparently, you have me blocked from Private Messages (unless you just shut them off entirely)

That far left champion of political correctness, Rick Santorum, also thinks Trump should have just went ahead and condemned White Supremacy. Santorum stipulates that the Chris Wallace question wasn't fair---not because it was in no way related to policy---but, because Wallace was basically asking Trump to condemn a segment of his voter base.

Quote: AZDuffman

Someone tell him that there is no pee tape of me either as I find that idea as disgusting as Trump finds it.

So.... you’re totally into it?

Gross.

Quote: Mission146

I basically agree with the thought that there's no reason to bring it up, but it having been brought up, you might as well denounce it if you're Donald Trump...unless you think doing so will cost you votes. If the question is whether or not I consider it a legitimate debate question, my answer is, "No, I do not." I'm not the one moderating the debate, though.

You cannot just denounce it because then they bring up the next unrelated thing and the next and the next. Kind of like how you have to take the fifth for everything if you go that route or else they will follow on what sounds like a harmless question with something you get forced to answer that you do not want to. Nobody asks Democrats to denounce things like Black Nationalism or socialism. So when asked to "denounce White Supremacy" the answer should not be "YES" but rather, "why on earth are you asking a question like that?"

Quote:

People should not take things from other people. People should also not intimidate other people. If there are people in BLM engaging in that sort of behavior, then those people are wrong, but that doesn't make BLM categorically wrong.

OK. Burning crosses on someone's lawn is wrong. If there are people in the KKK burning crosses on someone's lawn they are wrong. So does that mean the KKK is categorically wrong?

Quote:

I've met Terapined. Terapined says he's BLM, I'm not BLM, but I don't think Terapined has harrassed, intimidated or taken anything from anyone. I don't think most people in BLM have. Definitely some. Maybe many.

But when he says "I AM BLM" he endorses these people because they are BLM and in many cases leaders in the BLM movement. Terapined wants to say he is BLM but then pick and choose what that means. IMHO he said "I AM BLM" to troll but when called on it he is afraid to back down.

Quote:

BLM mainly seems to be a loose alliance of groups and people, so that also makes it really hard to condemn. If I really wanted to take a deep long look into it, which I don't, I could probably find individual groups within BLM that I would denounce. If there are any individual groups within that promote violence or rioting, then I would denounce those groups, but BLM (as a group) also does not seem to promote violence or rioting.

Why does that make it hard to condemn? The mafia is a loose alliance of groups and people. The KKK is a loose alliance of groups and people. BLM engages in violence. It engages in harassment. It engages in extortion. It calls to defund police departments. And most of all it defends thugs against the cops. If you notice, no part of BLM calls out these bad parts.

I see what BLM does. I am not going to play the "well, this one is good this one is bad" game. If it is "easy" to call out the Proud Boys (or whoever) it is easy to call out BLM.

Quote: Mission146

That far left champion of political correctness, Rick Santorum, also thinks Trump should have just went ahead and condemned White Supremacy. Santorum stipulates that the Chris Wallace question wasn't fair---not because it was in no way related to policy---but, because Wallace was basically asking Trump to condemn a segment of his voter base.

The real question is why not call out "Black Supremacy" or "Latino Supremacy" or any other "pride" movement as well?

Quote: AZDuffman

You cannot just denounce it because then they bring up the next unrelated thing and the next and the next. Kind of like how you have to take the fifth for everything if you go that route or else they will follow on what sounds like a harmless question with something you get forced to answer that you do not want to. Nobody asks Democrats to denounce things like Black Nationalism or socialism. So when asked to "denounce White Supremacy" the answer should not be "YES" but rather, "why on earth are you asking a question like that?"

The second thing you said would be an improvement over his actual answer. Or, he could just shut the door on it, "Yes, I denounce White Supremacy. All people are equal. Do you have a policy question you would like to ask?"

Quote:

OK. Burning crosses on someone's lawn is wrong. If there are people in the KKK burning crosses on someone's lawn they are wrong. So does that mean the KKK is categorically wrong?

I would denounce the KKK as being White Supremacists, which I think is categorically wrong. I would denounce Black Supremacist groups, if such groups exist, as being categorically wrong. You'll know racial equality has happened when nobody is talking about race anymore.

However, that doesn't mean that I denounce the KKK to the extent that I would call them a criminal group. I imagine the majority of KKK members do not commit any crimes. I would also go as far as to say that not everyone in the group is responsible for crimes that may be committed by other people in the group.

Again, individuals commit crimes.

Quote:

But when he says "I AM BLM" he endorses these people because they are BLM and in many cases leaders in the BLM movement. Terapined wants to say he is BLM but then pick and choose what that means. IMHO he said "I AM BLM" to troll but when called on it he is afraid to back down.

Everything means something at leasts slightly different to one person than it does others. I don't claim to speak for Terapined, but I should imagine he is against individual people rioting, looting and/or committing acts of violence regardless of what group they do or don't belong to.

Quote:

Why does that make it hard to condemn? The mafia is a loose alliance of groups and people. The KKK is a loose alliance of groups and people. BLM engages in violence. It engages in harassment. It engages in extortion. It calls to defund police departments. And most of all it defends thugs against the cops. If you notice, no part of BLM calls out these bad parts.

I see what BLM does. I am not going to play the "well, this one is good this one is bad" game. If it is "easy" to call out the Proud Boys (or whoever) it is easy to call out BLM.

It makes it hard to condemn because you don't know who you're condemning. You certainly wouldn't want to condemn every single individual who considers themselves BLM, so you have nuance. Biden's nuance is pretty simple and common-sensical: he condemns people who do looting, rioting and/or engage in acts of violence.

What does calling for the defunding of police departments have to do with anything? That's just having an opinion on something. They can have opinions on things.

Also, I'm obviously not a fan of the KKK, but as long as all they are doing is exercising their right to free speech, I'm not opposed to them doing that. A person can identify as, "KKK," if they wish and not be a person who engages in violence or criminal activity. I'm not going to have a cup of tea with that person, but I'm not going to say that every single person in the group is a criminal, or anything.