Why we won't be coming together (Page 22): You come on with a long insult at me and then get upset when I come back at you with good facts and common sense and a little shot at your...

E

alabuck wrote:

color=blue WOW! You’ve gone way beyond just perso... (show quote)

You come on with a long insult at me and then get upset when I come back at you with good facts and common sense and a little shot at your mammy after you gave me a shot. Well, I am that old sailor and you could never make me blush. Now, it is time to go to bed so mommy can go to work the night shift. And when you kiss her good night, don't forget to wash the camel drool off of her labia. Now you really want to take me on, management will bar both of us and I will still out insult you anywhere and any time. Now it is time to get back to factual arguments and logical opinions and stop with your cheap shots. That is a game you can never win.

PeterS

Ranger7374 wrote:

I agree with you. We in the Public must quit condemning people with "No Evidence". What I mean is simply this, the accused is always innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, by a jury of their peers.

Roy Moore was never tried or convicted of the crimes he was accused of. Remember a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Lesson should be learned that the public committed character assassination against Roy Moore. Just like the media did on Trump and any one that aligns with Trump. And Trump didn't want Moore anyways.

The system does work slow however, and to get a case into court one must accuse. That is understandable, but that is up to the accuser and the one being accused and a court of law, it is not up to public opinion. By taking it to the court of the "mob" or even the "court of public opinion", you taint the jury box, so there would be no trial, and at the same time you commit character assassination. By doing this you are not honorable.

Now granted, it is true that Moore fed into the media reports, while claiming to be innocent. And frankly, that is dishonorable anyways, but self-incrimination is not a charge that can be held against a person, for any legal or government reasons. We have a fifth amendment for a reason. So, "dirty politics" like character assassination is an example of crooked people doing what they do. The Democrats really need to do some soul searching if they truly want to come out of all of this as "angels" and not bearers of the dirty.

And for anyone running in public office to stoop to such levels and/or tactics, Shame on you! Some people would call that harassment. Plain and simple, and due to the fact that it is coming from "an organization or group", that form of harassment can also be discrimination also. The ACLU should be on Trump and Moore's side, because of all the harassment and discrimination they are enduring through character assassination. This alone is the reason, the sole reason, why the ACLU was formed in the first place, to prevent character assassination, looks like the ACLU is hypocritical, huh?

We all know, how dirty politics can get, but do we have to make it worse? Come on folks, do you really want to live in this type of atmosphere?

I agree with you. We in the Public must quit conde... (show quote)

How is this atmosphere any different than that created by you conservatives regarding Obama? We have a string of women who accuse Trump of doing EXACTLY what he said he did to women and he had the balls to say that on tape and in the presence of a witness. If we flipped the coin and Obama had done the something you guys would have sued for impeachment. So please, please, please stop asking that we give Trump any considerations that he doesn't deserve. As for Moore, he was twice kicked out of the Alabama Supreme Court because he couldn't' do a simple thing such as follow the law. If he was unfit for state office he sure as hell wasn't fit for national office. I have no sympathy for the man and conservatives dodged a bullet because if elected he would have been a political albatross around conservatives neck...

E

PeterS wrote:

You do understand that Fascism is a right wing ideology don't you? Do you really think Rachel Maddow is a right wing conservative? Marxism is part of a left wing ideology. If you are going to denigrate people use the correct terminology.

You do understand that Fascism is a right wing ideology don't you? >>> Then why are the worst facists in America, Antifa, working for the left? At least their tactics are right out of the Nazi playbook.

PeterS

E wrote:

Personally I prefer that they are true over the bias of the site they come from... >>> And so do I. That is why it is so easy to doubt most of what you write.

And why is that? What sites have I used that you doubt?

E

PeterS wrote:

And why is that? What sites have I used that you doubt?

It is your logic and comments that are unsupportable wherever they come from. I've argued with you before and total illogical comments in a steady stream.

PeterS

E wrote:

You do understand that Fascism is a right wing ideology don't you? >>> Then why are the worst facists in America, Antifa, working for the left? At least their tactics are right out of the Nazi playbook.

So how is Antifa suppose to treat Neo-Nazi's? Are they suppose to do as the president did and assume that there are good people in their too? Here's a simple fact: when you become a Neo-Nazi you've abandoned everything good so just how are they suppose to be approached? How did we approach the Nazi's during WWII? Why do you think our approach now should be any different? If you think that's fascism to stand up with a fist to Fascism then you quite simply don't know what you are talking about...

PeterS

E wrote:

It is your logic and comments that are unsupportable wherever they come from. I've argued with you before and total illogical comments in a steady stream.

So what was illogical? Did I use fallacies? If so what are they? I spot logical fallacies amongst conservatives all the time and have no problem pointing it out. It's one thing to call someone's rhetoric illogical but if you can't demonstrate why it's illogical then perhaps the faulty logic is yours....

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

PeterS wrote:

How is this atmosphere any different than that cre... (show quote)

If Obama was actually born in America, he would be guilty of high Treason, but he is actually a foreign terrorist who damaged the United States with impunity...as a matter of fact his treasonous buddy..Eric Holder is currently conspiring with a terrorist by working with Obama..

PeterS

byronglimish wrote:

If Obama was actually born in America, he would be guilty of high Treason, but he is actually a foreign terrorist who damaged the United States with impunity...as a matter of fact his treasonous buddy..Eric Holder is currently conspiring with a terrorist by working with Obama..

And I assume you want to be taken seriously correct?

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

PeterS wrote:

And I assume you want to be taken seriously correct?

Only by honest people and I couldn't care less who says that Obama is American born..

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

Ranger7374 wrote:

I agree with you. We in the Public must quit condemning people with "No Evidence". What I mean is simply this, the accused is always innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, by a jury of their peers.

Roy Moore was never tried or convicted of the crimes he was accused of. Remember a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Lesson should be learned that the public committed character assassination against Roy Moore. Just like the media did on Trump and any one that aligns with Trump. And Trump didn't want Moore anyways.

The system does work slow however, and to get a case into court one must accuse. That is understandable, but that is up to the accuser and the one being accused and a court of law, it is not up to public opinion. By taking it to the court of the "mob" or even the "court of public opinion", you taint the jury box, so there would be no trial, and at the same time you commit character assassination. By doing this you are not honorable.

Now granted, it is true that Moore fed into the media reports, while claiming to be innocent. And frankly, that is dishonorable anyways, but self-incrimination is not a charge that can be held against a person, for any legal or government reasons. We have a fifth amendment for a reason. So, "dirty politics" like character assassination is an example of crooked people doing what they do. The Democrats really need to do some soul searching if they truly want to come out of all of this as "angels" and not bearers of the dirty.

And for anyone running in public office to stoop to such levels and/or tactics, Shame on you! Some people would call that harassment. Plain and simple, and due to the fact that it is coming from "an organization or group", that form of harassment can also be discrimination also. The ACLU should be on Trump and Moore's side, because of all the harassment and discrimination they are enduring through character assassination. This alone is the reason, the sole reason, why the ACLU was formed in the first place, to prevent character assassination, looks like the ACLU is hypocritical, huh?

We all know, how dirty politics can get, but do we have to make it worse? Come on folks, do you really want to live in this type of atmosphere?

I agree with you. We in the Public must quit conde... (show quote)

OK, so let's assume that you all are correct and that conviction in the court of public opinion is wrong without proof.
How do we obtain proof? Haul them both into court and let a jury decide? By the time that occurs, it could be years down the road and a serial abuser could have molested/assaulted many more women while in office. Justice wouldn't be served in the case of the president because of all the legal roadblocks that being in office would bring. So how do we determine if the charges are true?
Most times, even when true, the case is a "he said/she said" situation where the ultimate resolution is only in who the jury believes. Does an empaneled jury have better judgement than the court of public opinion? Does a charge of sexual assault render a person incapable of public office?
The problem as I see it is that if there is only one or two accusers, and there is no proof, then it could be just revenge for something personal. However, when there are nineteen that have not talked to each other, never coordinated with one another, and have no real motive except bringing moral justice to their own situations, there is probably sufficient cause to prevent them from taking office, being elected, or being removed from office. Ask Bill Clinton if this isn't true.
Yes, accusations without proof are dangerous things, but proof in these cases is almost impossible to get. No predator in their right mind is going to allow witnesses to these predations. So do we just let these offenses continue? Or is the court of public opinion as valid as a jury trial when there are such multiples of accusers?
Male and female opinions tend to line up with their genders, but there has to be an answer somewhere. I'd sure like to find one.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

PeterS wrote:

So how is Antifa suppose to treat Neo-Nazi's? Are they suppose to do as the president did and assume that there are good people in their too? Here's a simple fact: when you become a Neo-Nazi you've abandoned everything good so just how are they suppose to be approached? How did we approach the Nazi's during WWII? Why do you think our approach now should be any different? If you think that's fascism to stand up with a fist to Fascism then you quite simply don't know what you are talking about...

C'mon. There's enough hate on both sides to go around. In this case, they're both out of bounds. The ACLU defended the Nazi's right to march in Skokie, which was the legal thing to do. Vigilante justice on either side against the other is wrong and should be persecuted.
Yes, Nazi's are hateful but they have the right to be hateful so long as they don't get physical or try to overthrow the government. Yes, Antifa is just as repugnant, but the same stipulations remain. Neither side has the right to impose their views on the other ... or anyone else, for that matter. The only proper course for resolution is through either political discourse and elections, or through the courts.
As to the reference to how to treat the Nazi's during WWII, that was actual aggression against another country/countries. In fact, here in this country, if you remember, the German-American Bund was allowed to function for years prior to the war, and no less than Charles Lindbergh was a supporter. It was only after hostilities broke out that the Bund was suppressed as an arm of a belligerent country.
No, I'm not supporting that cause ... I'm merely upholding their right to have their views and try to convince others to join their cause. I do not support ISIS or any terrorist/fascist group. But if we start to suppress their right to free speech, then we start to suppress dissent against all parties and political persuasions. And that, my friend, is a very dangerous slippery slope to start sliding down. When they resort to violence and terror, they deserve the harshest punishment possible, but until that occurs, their right to say their minds is (to me) inviolable.
<donning my flame retardant suit and alerting my doctor for burn treatments>

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

byronglimish wrote:

If Obama was actually born in America, he would be guilty of high Treason, but he is actually a foreign terrorist who damaged the United States with impunity...as a matter of fact his treasonous buddy..Eric Holder is currently conspiring with a terrorist by working with Obama..

Prove your case with facts, not rhetoric. And quoting Sean Hannity isn't proof. Do your own research and prove to me that you're right. Until then what you're saying is merely your opinion not backed up with anything.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

whitnebrat wrote:

Prove your case with facts, not rhetoric. And quoting Sean Hannity isn't proof. Do your own research and prove to me that you're right. Until then what you're saying is merely your opinion not backed up with anything.

You can believe and swear that the Kenyan is American born to your heart's content...and Rachel the " lying croc" Maddow will approve of your gullibility...

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

At this point it doesn't matter if he was born here or not. He couldn't have been more Anti-American if he'd been born (God forbid)
in Russia.

byronglimish wrote:

You can believe and swear that the Kenyan is American born to your heart's content...and Rachel the " lying croc" Maddow will approve of your gullibility...