Bengals players considering silent protest

[fredtoast]

(09-10-2020, 11:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Just stop. Even if it was against a SCOTUS nominee?

You stop.  

The problem with the Kavanaugh nomination was that the Republicans said there should not even be an investigation.  There were some facts that made me think she might have been telling the truth, but I never said I was certain he was guilty.

My biggest issue all along with that was the Republicans saying they should not even investigate her claims.

[Mickeypoo]

(09-10-2020, 11:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I was very proud of the players. All but one Chief stood in respect. The Texans remained in their locker room for both the Black and American National Anthems. They did this because they didn't want to be part of something that celebrated one and "threw shade" on another.

I will say the fans seemed classless during a moment of silence, but the players made me proud.

What I did not like was the Network's presentation. Part of it included a "hands up, don't shoot" image. Of course the network is ran by rich white dudes. 

I am glad to hear that about the players.  Sounds like they did the best they could to try and not upset both sides.

I better not comment on the rest.  lol

[fredtoast]

(09-10-2020, 11:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: FWIW, I've always been an innocent until proven guilty type guy. 

Then why did you stop now?

(09-10-2020, 11:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: WTS, if you accuse someone of sexual assault, place a PPO on that guy, then he breaks that PPO. I start leaning toward "If it walks like a duck.."

Because every person who violates a PPO is a rapist?

[*bfine32*]

(09-11-2020, 12:07 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You stop.  

The problem with the Kavanaugh nomination was that the Republicans said there should not even be an investigation.  There were some facts that made me think she might have been telling theb truth, but my biggest issue all along with that was the Republicans saying they should not even envestigate her claims.

So the most condemning you were on the Kav's case is "There's evidence she might be telling the truth"?

Evidence like:

She didn't know when it happened

She didn't know where it happened

She didn't know how she got there

She didn't know how she got home

Her "witness" didn't remember it happening

His "witness" said it never happened

[*bfine32*]

(09-11-2020, 12:11 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Then why did you stop now?



Because every person who violates a PPO is a rapist?

No. But every person accused of rape that violates a PPO makes me take pause and think perhaps there'e something to it.

Do you not take the Blake accuser at her word because she's not a rich white woman like Kav's? 

[fredtoast]

(09-11-2020, 12:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you not take the Blake accuser at her word because she's not a rich white woman like Kav's? 

I never took Kav's accuser at her word.  I just said that there was enough to her claim to justify an investigation.

Like I said, I have experience with false allegations.  The thing about Kavanaugh's accusor was that her story put another witness in the room who would obviously support Kavanaugh over her.  I have never known a person to do that when making up a false allegation.  It just did not make any sense.

But after the hearings I agreed that there was not enough evidence to block his nomination.

But I understand why the first reason that popped into your mind about judging the truthfulness of allegations was race.

[*bfine32*]

(09-10-2020, 11:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why am I not surprised that you don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to guys like Jacob Blake?

Guess that only applies to police officers.

(09-10-2020, 11:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I was never part of the crowd that believed every allegation of sexual assault.  In my line of work I am very familiar with false allegations.

But instead of talking about other people why don't you explain why you don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty" when to comes to guys like Jacob Blake?

(09-11-2020, 12:28 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I never took Kav's accuser at her word.  I just said that there was enough to her claim to justify an investigation.

Like I said, I have experience with false allegations.  The thing about Kavanaugh's accusor was that her story put another witness in the room who would obviously support Kavanaugh over her.  I have never known a person to do that when making up a false allegation.  It just did not make any sense.

But after the hearings I agreed that there was not enough evidence to block his nomination.

But I understand why the first reason that popped into your mind about judging the truthfulness of allegations was race.

Take my earlier advice and just stop. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-10-2020, 11:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Just stop. Even if it was against a SCOTUS nominee?
FWIW, I've always been an innocent until proven guilty type guy and it's seen me in the minority of many a debate around here.
WTS, if you accuse someone of sexual assault, place a PPO on that guy, then he breaks that PPO. I start leaning toward "If it walks like a duck.."
And I damn sure don't think it's a name that should be celebrated. How about you? 

As I’ve already pointed out, that’s not true.

If you are an innocent until proven guilty guy then you would advocate the idea Jacob Blake needs to be tried and if found guilty, punished for his crime. Instead you post a false meme about child rape.

If he is guilty of sexual assault, getting shot in the back seven times and paralyzed without a trial isn’t the innocent until proven guilty tact nor is it the punishment he would receive via the criminal justice system.

Just stop.

[GMDino]

No one knelt for this part.

I did read elsewhere that there were different images/phrases on the scoreboard and the booing didn't start until BLM was on but I didn't verify that yet.

How terrible of a person do you have to be to boo during a moment of silence in the name of unity? https://t.co/rTwbkjI7r6

— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) September 11, 2020

 

[fredtoast]

(09-11-2020, 12:33 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Take my earlier advice and just stop. 

Stop what?

I am not the one who posted a blatant lie from the right wing echo chamber.

[*bfine32*]

(09-11-2020, 11:37 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Stop what?

I am not the one who posted a blatant lie from the right wing echo chamber.

You were the one that tried to turn the motivation toward race, like a good liberal does, until the tables were turned then you suggested I was making it about race. I'm sorry that had to be explained to you.

[fredtoast]

(09-11-2020, 11:41 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You were the one that tried to turn the motivation toward race, like a good liberal does, until the tables were turned then you suggested I was making it about race. I'm sorry that had to be explained to you.

Not sure what you are trying to say.

You don't think the right wing attacks on Jacob Blake have anything to do with race issues and BLM?

Seriously?

Maybe you should go back to the source of that meme you posted and read some of the discussion there.

[*bfine32*]

(09-11-2020, 11:49 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Not sure what you are trying to say.

Just stop.

I've never placed any fault with George outside of a general "We should all follow Leo's guidance to avoid conflict"

I found much fault with Blake to include a sexual assault charge, violating a PPO, fighting Leos, having a knife, going into his car...

And guess what the difference doesn't have to do with.......Race

YOU tried to be a good Liberal and make this back and forth about race until the tables were turned on you.

[fredtoast]

(09-11-2020, 11:57 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Just stop.

I've never placed any fault with George outside of a general "We should all follow Leo's guidance to avoid conflict"

I found much fault with Blake to include a sexual assault charge, violating a PPO, fighting Leos, having a knife, going into his car...

And guess what the difference doesn't have to do with.......Race

YOU tried to be a good Liberal and make this back and forth about race until the tables were turned on you.

It is 100% about race. You would never even have heard of Jacob Blake if not for the current racial upheval going on in this country. 

You posted a racially biased lie from a racially biased source and now you are trying to play innocent and accuse me of "making it about race".

And you totally failed at "turning thr tables" on me because I clearly stated why I felt there was some substance to the story of Kavanaugh's accuser, and it had NOTHING to do with race.

[Mickeypoo]

(09-11-2020, 12:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is 100% about race. You would never even have heard of Jacob Blake if not for the current racial upheval going on in this country. 

You posted a racially biased lie from a racially biased source and now you are trying to play innocent and accuse me of "making it about race".

And you totally failed at "turning thr tables" on me because I clearly stated why I felt there was some substance to the story of Kavanaugh's accuser, and it had NOTHING to do with race.

Jacob Blake being shot had nothing to do with race and everything to do with another idiot (of any color) resisting arrest and fighting with the police.

You are correct though, the Left/Liberals have made this 100% about race to fit a false narrative that is neither supported by facts or stats.

Lebron FEELING like his people are being "hunted" doesn't make it true.  

In fact, there is not a shred of actual evidence that any of the recent police shootings had anything to do with race.  Again, if you are dumb enough to resist arrest and fight with police you can easily wind up dead/shot.  That has nothing to do with color and everything to do with common sense.

[*bfine32*]

(09-11-2020, 12:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is 100% about race. You would never even have heard of Jacob Blake if not for the current racial upheval going on in this country. 

You posted a racially biased lie from a racially biased source and now you are trying to play innocent and accuse me of "making it about race".

And you totally failed at "turning thr tables" on me because I clearly stated why I felt there was some substance to the story of Kavanaugh's accuser, and it had NOTHING to do with race.

And I asked you what was the substance of Kav's accuser's story that leads you to put more stock in it than Blake's accuser.

Your smoking gun was; She said someone else was there. She didn't know where, when, ect...bu she knew someone else was there. Oh and plus she was a respectable white woman. (Playing the race card os fun)

Meanwhile we know Blake has violated a PPO against his accuser and his accuser knows exactly, where, when, and how her assault report occurred.

I've clearly admitted the meme was incorrect in the age of the person he's accused of raping, but cling to it. it's all you got. It has nothing to do with race as I clearly demonstrated my stance toward George as opposed to Blake. How is that based on race? But keep trying to be a good liberal

[fredtoast]

(09-11-2020, 02:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And I asked you what was the substance of Kav's accuser's story that leads you to put more stock in it than Blake's accuser.

Your smoking gun was; She said someone else was there. She didn't know where, when, ect...bu she knew someone else was there. Oh and plus she was a respectable white woman. (Playing the race card os fun)

Meanwhile we know Blake has violated a PPO against his accuser and his accuser knows exactly, where, when, and how her assault report occurred.

Clearly my point went over your head.  I never said anything about Kavanaugh's accuser being a respectable white woman.  I said it was because I am familiar with false allegations and hers was unlike any I had ever heard before.  She placed a witness at the alleged crime scene that would support Kavanaugh's story instead of hers.

And if you really did know anything about fales claims you would realize that giving details about when and where it happened are almost always included.

But the biggest point you missed is that I never said Blakes accuser was lying and I never said that Kavanaugh was obviously guilty.  I treated both cases the same and said both men should be treated as innocent until proven guilty and I treated both women the same by saying their allegations should be fully investigated.  

You are the only one who treated them differently.  Care to explain why?

[*PhilHos*]

(09-11-2020, 12:07 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The problem with the Kavanaugh nomination was that the Republicans said there should not even be an investigation.  

Actually, the Republicans said there was already an investigation and there should not be ANOTHER one.

Leave it to Dems to not accept the results of an investigation because they didn't like the outcome and demand another one and another one til they get the results they want.

[*bfine32*]

(09-11-2020, 03:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Clearly my point went over your head.  I never said anything about Kavanaugh's accuser being a respectable white woman.  I said it was because I am familiar with false allegations and hers was unlike any I had ever heard before.  She placed a witness at the alleged crime scene that would support Kavanaugh's story instead of hers.

And if you really did know anything about fales claims you would realize that giving details about when and where it happened are almost always included.

But the biggest point you missed is that I never said Blakes accuser was lying and I never said that Kavanaugh was obviously guilty.  I treated both cases the same and said both men should be treated as innocent until proven guilty and I treated both women the same by saying their allegations should be fully investigated.  

You are the only one who treated them differently.  Care to explain why?

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Kavanaugh-SCOTUS-hearings?pid=595600#pid595600

Quote:There has never been a presumption of innocence outside of criminal court room, and that has not changed.  If your babysitter was charged with molesting children then you would never say "I will let him keep baby sitting until he is convicted because we have to presume he is innocent."  Not even BEFORE the "#metoo era".


Kavanaugh is not facing a criminal charge so there is no "presumption of innocence".

Some people here seem to think that a person can not be held responsible for improper actions unless there is DNA or a video recording of the misconduct, but that is not true.  A lot of improper actions are committed without any evidence except the testimony of the victim.  At that point the people setting in judgement have to look at a lot of information to determine what should be done.  They look at the motives each party has to lie.  They look at past actions by both parties.  They look at each persons record of veracity.  It is a very complicated, but if you are the victimof a crime and the only direct evidence is your own testimony there can still be a conviction. 

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Kavanaugh-SCOTUS-hearings?pid=595628#pid595628

Like I said: Stop it.

You have kept me entertained long enough. next topic

[*PhilHos*]

(09-11-2020, 03:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Kavanaugh-SCOTUS-hearings?pid=595600#pid595600


http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Kavanaugh-SCOTUS-hearings?pid=595628#pid595628

Like I said: Stop it.

You have kept me entertained long enough. next topic