CBS says it's OK to "punch a Nazi"

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-23-2019, 03:54 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: All excellent points.  But, only one of us made a thread about CBS advocating violence and none about Trump advocating violence.  Although it's possible I missed it.

There was no thread about Trump's statements?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-23-2019, 10:39 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There was no thread about Trump's statements?

I don't recall you making a thread to condemn a political candidate advocating violence against protesters at his rally and offering to pay his supporter's legal fees, but I freely admit I could have missed it.

Just seems like the pendulum has swung from Fair and Balanced to Opinion Done Right.

(04-17-2019, 06:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have to say, this whole clip sickens me.  Saying you can't punch a Nazi because of their opinions is not an endorsement, tacit or otherwise, of their beliefs.  For a major network to be advocating violence against people for their political view, regardless of how abhorrent, is a very bad sign.  I would hope that we all here recognize just how dangerous a concept is being advocated here and just how vile CBS's little public service announcement is.

I agree it is a very bad sign.  Just imagine if a politician advocated violence against others for their political views.  I can't imagine how upset you would be if that happened.

Maybe if I saw some consistency I couldn't be accused of whataboutism for sharing a cartoon.

[fredtoast]

(04-23-2019, 10:39 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There was no thread about Trump's statements?

You should know.

I assume you started at least one the way this behavior upsets you so much.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-23-2019, 11:11 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I don't recall you making a thread to condemn a political candidate advocating violence against protesters at his rally and offering to pay his supporter's legal fees, but I freely admit I could have missed it.

Just seems like the pendulum has swung from Fair and Balanced to Opinion Done Right.

OIC, I should have started yet another thread about Trump so I could maintain the ability to start future threads about similar behavior in others.  This makes a lot of sense, if you didn't make your own, individual, thread about a topic you can henceforth never make a thread on a similar topic.  Which internet rule is that?  I know it's not one, two or thirty-four.

Quote:I agree it is a very bad sign.  Just imagine if a politician advocated violence against others for their political views.  I can't imagine how upset you would be if that happened.

Not that it makes it any better, but I rather think his statements were directed at people disrupting his rallies.  So, not based on their politics so much as their disrupting his event.  (yes I get that they were disrupting his rallies based on their politics, still not the same thing as attacking them directly for their politics (again not that this excuses the behavior)).  Again, not that it makes it acceptable.  I feel the need to constantly state the obvious now based on the myriad obtuse replies to this thread.

Quote:Maybe if I saw some consistency I couldn't be accused of whataboutism for sharing a cartoon.

No, you'd be, correctly, accused of it regardless as it's precisely what you are doing.  It's not that complicated, you can say CBS did an oopsie and not have this be tacit, or explicit, approval, or ignoring of, Trump's statements.  See, this thread is about CBS's unacceptable behavior.  If we want to discuss Trump's unacceptable, similar, behavior we can do that in one of the myriad threads about it.

Ironically you and the others with a similar opinion are doing exactly what you're accusing me of.  You're ignoring the extremely poor decision by CBS to focus on Trump just as you accuse me of ignoring Trump to focus on CBS.  Lot's of projection going on in this thread.

[fredtoast]

(04-23-2019, 11:45 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ironically you and the others with a similar opinion are doing exactly what you're accusing me of.  You're ignoring the extremely poor decision by CBS to focus on Trump just as you accuse me of ignoring Trump to focus on CBS.  Lot's of projection going on in this thread.

All we are doing is pointing out mass hypocrisy.  This is not just about one thread that you started.  It is about the entire right wing populace getting the screaming fantods over something that their dear leader bragged about.

The party of "I'd like to punch him in the face" is suddenly sickened by the suggestion of violence.

Maybe instead of us being hypocrites we are just admitting that your side was right all along.  How would it make you feel if we just said "We were wrong and you were right".

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-23-2019, 11:45 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: OIC, I should have started yet another thread about Trump so I could maintain the ability to start future threads about similar behavior in others.  This makes a lot of sense, if you didn't make your own, individual, thread about a topic you can henceforth never make a thread on a similar topic.  Which internet rule is that?  I know it's not one, two or thirty-four.

I didn't write that.  I suggested there could be more consistency and less selective outrage.  It's just my opinion.  No need to go all Shakespearean soliloquy on me.  Again.

Quote:Not that it makes it any better, but I rather think his statements were directed at people disrupting his rallies.  So, not based on their politics so much as their disrupting his event.  (yes I get that they were disrupting his rallies based on their politics, still not the same thing as attacking them directly for their politics (again not that this excuses the behavior)).  Again, not that it makes it acceptable.  I feel the need to constantly state the obvious now based on the myriad obtuse replies to this thread.

How were they disrupting his rally?  Words? Shouting? A picket sign? What were they doing which was so disruptive? That's an honest question because I'm not unaware of any behavior that justified Trump encouraging others to kick their ass.

If you're truly upset about others advocating violence I wouldn't expect you to split the finest of frog's hair to make that argument which gives me the impression you're more upset at who advocated violence rather than what they advocated.

Before we travel down the road of swappin' passive aggressive insults, can you do me the favor of making your point without passive aggressive insults such as "myriad obtuse replies"?  I know what you're doing.  You know what you're doing.  Is it really necessary?  You're like two posts away from calling me "your ilk" again because I shared a cartoon.  I'm not above it and more than willing to participate, but maybe I don't get myself banned on my first day back?  Okay?

Quote:No, you'd be, correctly, accused of it regardless as it's precisely what you are doing.  It's not that complicated, you can say CBS did an oopsie and not have this be tacit, or explicit, approval, or ignoring of, Trump's statements.  See, this thread is about CBS's unacceptable behavior.  If we want to discuss Trump's unacceptable, similar, behavior we can do that in one of the myriad threads about it.

Okay.  Where did I write CBS committed an oopsie?  I didn't. I agreed with your assessment violence shouldn't be advocated based upon what others say.  If sharing a cartoon and making a sarcastic joke while agreeing with you makes me guilty of whataboutism; fine, guilty as charged.  

Quote:Ironically you and the others with a similar opinion are doing exactly what you're accusing me of.  You're ignoring the extremely poor decision by CBS to focus on Trump just as you accuse me of ignoring Trump to focus on CBS.  Lot's of projection going on in this thread.

Okay, I'll be sure to think twice and reconsider all the ramifications before sharing the next cartoon.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-23-2019, 11:57 AM)fredtoast Wrote: All we are doing is pointing out mass hypocrisy.  This is not just about one thread that you started.  It is about the entire right wing populace getting the screaming fantods over something that their dear leader bragged about.

The party of "I'd like to punch him in the face" is suddenly sickened by the suggestion of violence.

Maybe instead of us being hypocrites we are just admitting that your side was right all along.  How would it make you feel if we just said "We were wrong and you were right".

SSF doesn't have a side.  He has varying opinions on varying subjects that put him, in my opinion, on both the left or right side of the political spectrum depending upon the issue.  They don't fit neatly on one side.

Not that we're going to get anywhere or change anybody's opinion around this joint, but we're going to get nowhere faster with talk of sides.

[fredtoast]

(04-23-2019, 01:10 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: SSF doesn't have a side.  He has varying opinions on varying subjects that put him, in my opinion, on both the left or right side of the political spectrum depending upon the issue.  They don't fit neatly on one side.

Not that we're going to get anywhere or change anybody's opinion around this joint, but we're going to get nowhere faster with talk of sides.

Go look at the list of threads he has started in P&R.  Everyone one of them is from a right wing perspective.  And you can tell by the language and phrases he uses that his arguments come from right wing sources.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-23-2019, 01:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Go look at the list of threads he has started in P&R.  Everyone one of them is from a right wing perspective.  And you can tell by the language and phrases he uses that his arguments come from right wing sources.

I'm familiar with it.  How long have you been reading his opinions?  Close to a decade?  And during that time would you say his political views have been all conservative?  I would say I have seen a mix of both liberal and conservative views from him over the years.  I would say I've seen more conservative views from him since the 2016 election cycle.  I wouldn't label him a conservative so much as some of his views.  In my own opinion, I've noticed a reaction to the reaction to Trump particularly in California in his view.  But, if he was here in Georgia where we had a conservative Republican state representative on cable television duped into using his bare ass to threaten would be terrorists with homosexual sex acts the reaction might be a little different.

Off the top of my head, I think (and I could be mistaken) SSF supports marriage equality for homosexuals, transgender individuals serving openly in the military, and Rowe vs. Wade.  Three topics which would make most conservative Christians lose their mind. Does that sound like a conservative to you?

Long story short, I disagree with your assessment.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-23-2019, 01:01 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I didn't write that.  I suggested there could be more consistency and less selective outrage.  It's just my opinion.  No need to go all Shakespearean soliloquy on me.  Again.

I completely agree with you on this.

Quote:How were they disrupting his rally?  Words? Shouting? A picket sign? What were they doing which was so disruptive? That's an honest question because I'm not unaware of any behavior that justified Trump encouraging others to kick their ass.

If you're truly upset about others advocating violence I wouldn't expect you to split the finest of frog's hair to make that argument which gives me the impression you're more upset at who advocated violence rather than what they advocated.

I didn't say his statements or reactions or justified, in fact I said the exact opposite.  I am pointing out that there is a difference, not that that difference justifies or excuses anything.

Quote:Before we travel down the road of swappin' passive aggressive insults, can you do me the favor of making your point without passive aggressive insults such as "myriad obtuse replies"?  I know what you're doing.  You know what you're doing.  Is it really necessary?  You're like two posts away from calling me "your ilk" again because I shared a cartoon.  I'm not above it and more than willing to participate, but maybe I don't get myself banned on my first day back?  Okay?

I honestly apologize as my response was more in general than directed at you.  Seeing as I was, obviously, responding to your post it did come across as unintendedly personal to you.

Quote:Okay.  Where did I write CBS committed an oopsie?  I didn't. I agreed with your assessment violence shouldn't be advocated based upon what others say.  If sharing a cartoon and making a sarcastic joke while agreeing with you makes me guilty of whataboutism; fine, guilty as charged.  

Again, more directed to the general response to this thread from some and should not have been directed at you in such a way.  Again, I apologize.

Quote:Okay, I'll be sure to think twice and reconsider all the ramifications before sharing the next cartoon.

If you feel it's necessary.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-23-2019, 02:55 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm familiar with it.  How long have you been reading his opinions?  Close to a decade?  And during that time would you say his political views have been all conservative?  I would say I have seen a mix of both liberal and conservative views from him over the years.  I would say I've seen more conservative views from him since the 2016 election cycle.  I wouldn't label him a conservative so much as some of his views.  In my own opinion, I've noticed a reaction to the reaction to Trump particularly in California in his view.  But, if he was here in Georgia where we had a conservative Republican state representative on cable television duped into using his bare ass to threaten would be terrorists with homosexual sex acts the reaction might be a little different.

Off the top of my head, I think (and I could be mistaken) SSF supports marriage equality for homosexuals, transgender individuals serving openly in the military, and Rowe vs. Wade.  Three topics which would make most conservative Christians lose their mind. Does that sound like a conservative to you?

Long story short, I disagree with your assessment.

I appreciate the honest, fact based and historically accurate assessment.  You are also correct that this view of me coincides with the 2016 election and is not confined to this message board.  For a significant number of people you're either outraged by Trump on a daily basis or your a cursed Trump supporter.  Also an astute reading of my demeanor in regards to the state I reside in.  CA has gone so overblown far left a centrist looks like a born again Christian by comparison.

[Belsnickel]

(04-23-2019, 03:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I appreciate the honest, fact based and historically accurate assessment.  You are also correct that this view of me coincides with the 2016 election and is not confined to this message board.  For a significant number of people you're either outraged by Trump on a daily basis or your a cursed Trump supporter.  Also an astute reading of my demeanor in regards to the state I reside in.  CA has gone so overblown far left a centrist looks like a born again Christian by comparison.

There are also those that don't think supporting gun rights can be a liberal position. They are wrong, of course, but many people see it that way.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-23-2019, 03:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I completely agree with you on this.



I didn't say his statements or reactions or justified, in fact I said the exact opposite.  I am pointing out that there is a difference, not that that difference justifies or excuses anything.



I honestly apologize as my response was more in general than directed at you.  Seeing as I was, obviously, responding to your post it did come across as unintendedly personal to you.




Again, more directed to the general response to this thread from some and should not have been directed at you in such a way.  Again, I apologize.



If you feel it's necessary.

Apology accepted.  I'm probably too quick to anger or take offense to slights perceived or real based upon my upbringing.  If you're interested, read a book called Hillbilly Elegy which will give you some insight into the mind of a southern Ohio hillbilly.  My wife laughed hysterically because it's practically my autobiography.  Even some of the family member names are the same.  I even have a brother with the same first name.  A real life Larry, Daryl, and Daryl.  The book isn't supposed to be a comedy so you probably won't find it as funny as my wife or daughter did.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-23-2019, 06:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There are also those that don't think supporting gun rights can be a liberal position. They are wrong, of course, but many people see it that way.

To me any individual liberty is a liberal, in the classic sense of the word, position.  Gun ownership is no different.

(04-23-2019, 06:35 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Apology accepted.  I'm probably too quick to anger or take offense to slights perceived or real based upon my upbringing.  If you're interested, read a book called Hillbilly Elegy which will give you some insight into the mind of a southern Ohio hillbilly.  My wife laughed hysterically because it's practically my autobiography.  Even some of the family member names are the same.  I even have a brother with the same first name.  A real life Larry, Daryl, and Daryl.  The book isn't supposed to be a comedy so you probably won't find it as funny as my wife or daughter did.

No worries, as I said, I reread the post and it definitely could be perceived as a personal swipe.  The number of people who are open to a honest exchange of ideas on this board has regrettably shrunk and seems to do so with every passing year. 

[Vas Deferens]

This is great. Welcome back jimbo and good on ya SSF.

[Vas Deferens]

(04-23-2019, 06:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There are also those that don't think supporting gun rights can be a liberal position. They are wrong, of course, but many people see it that way.

While I’m not sure I was adamantly on the wrong side of this position, I was damn close. The honest discussions I had here with roto, ssf and you bels helped inform me and now I’m well on the other side. ‘Preciate ‘chas

[Belsnickel]

(04-23-2019, 06:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To me any individual liberty is a liberal, in the classic sense of the word, position.  Gun ownership is no different.

Doesn't even need to be classical liberalism for the position to be liberal. But that discussion would get this thread wayyyyyyyyyyyy off track.

[Dill]

(04-24-2019, 11:25 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Doesn't even need to be classical liberalism for the position to be liberal. But that discussion would get this thread wayyyyyyyyyyyy off track.

I wouldn't agree with SSF that any individual liberty signals "classical liberal," but he might be right that most Second Amendment defenses of the right to bear arms do, or at least depend on the conception of the individual (and hence individual liberty) constructed in classical liberalism. 

Discussing that wouldn't necessarily send this thread off track, if we understand the right to bear arms as deduced from the same legal ground as the injunction against an imagined "right to punch."  

[fredtoast]

(04-23-2019, 02:55 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm familiar with it.  How long have you been reading his opinions?  Close to a decade?  And during that time would you say his political views have been all conservative?  I would say I have seen a mix of both liberal and conservative views from him over the years.  I would say I've seen more conservative views from him since the 2016 election cycle.  I wouldn't label him a conservative so much as some of his views.  In my own opinion, I've noticed a reaction to the reaction to Trump particularly in California in his view.  But, if he was here in Georgia where we had a conservative Republican state representative on cable television duped into using his bare ass to threaten would be terrorists with homosexual sex acts the reaction might be a little different.

Off the top of my head, I think (and I could be mistaken) SSF supports marriage equality for homosexuals, transgender individuals serving openly in the military, and Rowe vs. Wade.  Three topics which would make most conservative Christians lose their mind. Does that sound like a conservative to you?

Long story short, I disagree with your assessment.

Bernie Sanders agrees with Trump on steel tariffs.  That does not mean Sanders is not a liberal?

Go look at all of SSF's threads.  They are all from the right wing perspective.  He even uses the language of right wing news sources at the same time that he claims not to listen to biased news sources.

He is not some middle-of-the-road cetrist.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-24-2019, 03:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Bernie Sanders agrees with Trump on steel tariffs.  That does not mean Sanders is not a liberal?

Yes, it's only one issue, like tariffs, that Jim mentioned. I'm missing that eye rolling emoji right now.

Quote:Go look at all of SSF's threads.  They are all from the right wing perspective.  He even uses the language of right wing news sources at the same time that he claims not to listen to biased news sources.

I've never made that claim at all, ever.  I read far right sources like Breitbart and I read far left sources like HuffPo and The Guardian.  I also read more balanced sites like BBC news, PBS Newshour the NYT and the Wall Street Journal.  I enjoy getting the perspective of all the different sources, especially when they cover the same story.  Odd that you follow me so closely and yet haven't seen me mention this, as I have done so repeatedly.

Quote:He is not some middle-of-the-road cetrist.

Keep banging that drum, Fred, you may eventually get someone to march behind you.  Never give up!