Covington High School Issue

[Dill]

(01-31-2019, 10:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I really think that SSF's issue is that he is in California. California liberals are a special breed and they have really ruined him. Were he here in Virginia, I bet he'd fit right in at my local Democratic committee meeting.

An interesting point. "Liberal" in CA might be rather different than liberal in VA. When you say they've ruined SSF I'm guessing that's a reference to the greater push there for gun control and multicultural sensitivity.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-31-2019, 10:55 PM)Dill Wrote: LOl an understatement.  And I would add a heightened mistrust of some entity called "the left," opposition to which is de rigeur on the right, not so much the center.  

Can one list some liberal stances and some conservative ones and then say a person who checks a few from each is therefore a "centrist"?

Some issues are far more defining than others. And people are far more committed to some than others. When push comes to shove, and one has to choose between keeping gay marriage legal and giving up one's semi-automatic rifle, what then?   

That's why I like to look at what people do, where they invest their political energy. What if someone claimed to accept the scientific consensus on climate change, but was more prone to attack environmentalists rather than Trump and big oil? I'd wonder about that, especially if that behavior continued over a range of issues, until one had quite a resume of attacks against "leftist" Trump opponents but little against pro-Trump issues and Trump supporters/defenders, of whom we have plenty in this forum. What stops our centrist friend from wading into threads about Trump's wall or his policy on illegal immigrants and demonstrating his non-right bona fides?

Why would someone have to choose between owning a rifle and gay marriage?

You have to look at where they spend and have spent their political energy. I can tell you that years ago SSF turned out to be the biggest 2A supporter here, I was surprised because I had never seen a liberal that adamant about the 2A.

Why doesn’t he wade in? I have a guess but only a guess. Lying with...


Finally, why would someone lie? I don’t say I’m liberal. You don’t say you’re conservative.

With that said, I think I’ll wrap up my part of talking about someone else as if they aren’t here. But I know what I’ve read over the last ten years. I may be average intelligence on a good day, but I remember things pretty well.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-31-2019, 11:40 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL  Doubtful someone who thinks "the left" has played into right wing definitions since Trump was elected can simply back off said definitions.  Nothing to replace them with.

You can hop from thread to thread asserting that this "left" has somehow become a mirror image of the right, and that's why you are always attacking it, but you can neither demonstrate what you are claiming, nor explain why there is never any energy left over to attack the right for balance. Repeatedly calling others "biased," "partisan" and "ridiculous" establishes nothing more than that you disagree, without explaining why.

I don't think "the left" is a mirror image of "the right"  I think they're their own special brand of bullshit.  This brand has become more bullshitty since Trump's election.

Quote:In the past you have several times claimed others twist your words and impute positions to you that you don't hold; it would be rather inconsistent if you frequently do what you accuse others of doing, especially if you can never seem to prove others twist what you say.

What I prove, and don't prove, is rather subject to interpretation.  As I'm talking to a person who has zero issue with an ideology that involves rampant misogyny and executing homosexuals I should hardly find this comment surprising. 

Quote:So after reaffirming your "actual respect" for the U.S. constitution, followed by your dislike of "the most oppressive ideology currently practiced on the planet outside North Korea," followed by a hyperbolic defense against all kinds of things of which you have never been accused--all a rather bad defense of "centrism," non-partisanship, and ideological impurity--could you perhaps calm down a little, shed the red herrings, and devote just a little time and space to demonstrate where I've called for or held people to "ideological purity"? You've had some trouble defending bald assertions like that in the past, unable to muster more than argument from sensibility. Another flurry of defensive hyperbole won't do the trick. Nor will ad hominem. Show us the posts which establish your claim, or leave it empty.

Kindly stick to defending, or disproving, points one at a time.  This jumbled word salad does nothing to refute my points.  A more cynical person might claim that this was intentional.

(01-31-2019, 11:48 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Why would someone have to choose between owning a rifle and gay marriage?

They don't except for ideological purists, hence the debate.  

Quote:You have to look at where they spend and have spent their political energy. I can tell you that years ago SSF turned out to be the biggest 2A supporter here, I was surprised because I had never seen a liberal that adamant about the 2A.

Why doesn’t he wade in?  I have a guess but only a guess. Lying with...

I'm very ideologically consistent, which is why Fred, GM and Dill are confused by me.  I believe that the government should not dictate what an adult can or cannot do as long as they, personally, aren't harming anyone.  This infuriates ideologues, who believe adults should be controlled based on the ideologues personal convictions. 

Quote:Finally, why would someone lie?  I don’t say I’m liberal. You don’t say you’re conservative.

Because the final refuge of the exposed is to accuse the exposer of lying.

Quote:With that said, I think I’ll wrap up my part of talking about someone else as if they aren’t here. But I know what I’ve read over the last ten years. I may be average intelligence on a good day, but I remember things pretty well.

Kudos to you for actually having a memory untainted by having to be proven right.  Sadly, most of our brethren don't possess this quality.  Far easier to dismiss the detractor as "other".  

[GMDino]

(01-31-2019, 11:48 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Why would someone have to choose between owning a rifle and gay marriage?  

You have to look at where they spend and have spent their political energy. I can tell you that years ago SSF turned out to be the biggest 2A supporter here, I was surprised because I had never seen a liberal that adamant about the 2A.

Why doesn’t he wade in?  I have a guess but only a guess. Lying with...


Finally, why would someone lie?  I don’t say I’m liberal. You don’t say you’re conservative.

With that said, I think I’ll wrap up my part of talking about someone else as if they aren’t here. But I know what I’ve read over the last ten years. I may be average intelligence on a good day, but I remember things pretty well.

I'm just saying that anyone (SSF, you, me, doesn't matter) can be pro-gun and pro-abortion anti-gay marriage and for green energy and still be a partisan.

They can fall back on whatever they support as "proof" of their "centrist" or "unbiased" political sense of self but that doesn't mean they are unbiased.

Some would say they only "defend" DJT because too many people "attack everything he says and does".  When caught they will say that "they too" don't like everything he says and does.  There's a bias at work whether anyone wants to admit it or not.  And when we passjudgeent on the OTHER guy for being biased, well...I'll give anyone three guesses what that judgment is based on.

A few will openly admit when they are being partisan.  Some can admit their own biases and explain where they come from and be open to suggestions that they are wrong.  Some refuse to admit anything and will go as far as to deny anything they may have done or said while accusing everyone who disagrees with them of doing it. All without a sense of irony.

Very few people are truly "open minded".  And even they have their biases and preferences and partisan moments.

[Dill]

(01-31-2019, 11:48 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Why would someone have to choose between owning a rifle and gay marriage?  

You have to look at where they spend and have spent their political energy. I can tell you that years ago SSF turned out to be the biggest 2A supporter here, I was surprised because I had never seen a liberal that adamant about the 2A.

Why doesn’t he wade in?  I have a guess but only a guess. Lying with...


Finally, why would someone lie?  I don’t say I’m liberal. You don’t say you’re conservative.

With that said, I think I’ll wrap up my part of talking about someone else as if they aren’t here. But I know what I’ve read over the last ten years. I may be average intelligence on a good day, but I remember things pretty well.

Well, our friend does "lie with . . .," all the time, but only in one side of the pen. That's what raises the question.

Mis-identification isn't necessarily a lie.  But I can think of reasons why someone might claim to be an centrist, if he or she mistook that for absence of bias or ideology or "partisanship."  Most people on the list are happy to be whatever they are--liberal, left, conservative, right, whatever--and not particularly troubled if others label them what they are. You'd only be confused if I called you a "leftist." Not angry. And I wouldn't call you "partisan" simply because you weren't a centrist.

Normally one does not have to choose between gay marriage and owning an automatic weapon. So one could be a happy centrist, or maybe a "libcon."  I was just posing a hypothetical, which would take the issue from both/and to either/or. Suppose you had to choose between two politicians, one who would support gay marriage but surely ban your weapon, and another who would surely criminalize gay marriage but protect your right to own.  And your endorsement would decide who won.  Unless you flip a coin, that's where you find out whether you are more lib or more con. Which issue is more important for you? (a rhetorical question; not really asking you that.)

I respect your unwillingness to talk about someone not here (though I think he is).  Had to get my last piece in though.

[BFritz21]

(01-31-2019, 08:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry I missed it.  What post number?

I've posted a bunch of videos and so has everyone else.  At no point is the Native American appear to be surrounded.  

He approached the boys and walked into the crowd, which you acknowledged, but you claim that the boy should have moved but fail to address what moving would have done because he would have just walked into a bigger wall of boys standing on the stairs.

You can see throughout this video that he is not surrounded.  The closest thing is when the teens are behind him to his right and chanting and doing their own thing, paying no attention to him (so definitely not surrounding him), with people from his side behind him, and then students in front of him and on the other side. 

Like I said, there have been numerous posts that show this.

At about 1:40 in this video, this guy points out that they did not surround him and that he's the one who approached them.

(01-31-2019, 08:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Let me make this simple for you.  You have been spinning around incircles claiming I said stuff I didn't then saying that even though I never said it that I meant it.  Then you tried to claim this poor boy was pinned and could not move.  So let me start over and make my position clear.

False.

I only call you out on false things that you post and contradictions that you make.

(01-31-2019, 08:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The young men were yelling back and forth with the African Hebrews (or whatever they are).  I could not make out everything they said but at one point they were using the same chants and tactics they use to try and intimidate and prove their superiority over their opponents at sporting events.  The Native American walks into the crowd of young men and they part t let him pass.  However when he reaches Sandman he refuses to move and "stands his ground".  The other young men surround them and some of them start making offensive gestures like the tomahawk chop and mock him with a phony "Indian whoop" or chant.

False!  I've pointed out many times that the chants weren't directed at the Israelites.  They were doing the school chants to drown them out.  And chanting things like "CCH" is trying to intimidate them?  CCH stands for Covington Catholic High.

You continue to post false information.  The NA locked eyes with Sandmann and walked up to him, which he didn't want Sandmann to move because there was a wall of students on stairs standing directly behind him, so where was he trying to go?

It was two, maybe three students doing the chop, and only a handful more doing the chant, which might be offensive, but it was only a few of them and they thought they were playing along with him.

Intimidate and prove their superiority?!  You're so fishing right now and it's ridiculous!  They chant and cheer at sporting events to have fun and be enthusiastic!  That photo that you (or whoever) posted showed kid or kids yelling at a black kid inbounding the ball, but even the kid came out afterwards and said that they weren't being hostile or racist!  

(01-31-2019, 08:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The original video was deceptive and made it look much worse than it was, but the fact is that if Sandman just stepped aside like everyone else did there would not have been a confrontation.  I don't see any indication that Phillips specifically targeted Sandman, but if you claim he did why did he?  What had Sandman done to draw the Natives attention?

In the end no one got violent.  It was just a bunch of teenage boys acting out like teenage boys.  I think the chaperons should have done a better job keeping them under control, but again, it was not that big of a deal.  There was no fighting or spitting or cursing.

The media reported on the first video they received that looked bad.  Even the Bishop of the school condemned the actions of the boys. But when addition videos cam out all of them that I saw also reported on those and gave both sides of the story.

Once again, the man locked eyes with Sandmann and walked up to him with steps and a wall of kids on the steps behind him, so let's say that Sandmann does step aside (which isn't what Phillips wanted), where does Phillips go?  He's going to walk into that wall of boys?  Or did he want them to move too so he could walk up to the Lincoln Memorial?!

The chaperones were getting the bus!!

The media made it into a controversy when the CCH kids did nothing wrong.

[Dill]

(02-01-2019, 12:09 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think "the left" is a mirror image of "the right"  I think they're their own special brand of bullshit.  This brand has become more bullshitty since Trump's election.

What I prove, and don't prove, is rather subject to interpretation.  As I'm talking to a person who has zero issue with an ideology that involves rampant misogyny and executing homosexuals I should hardly find this comment surprising.

What did I say about adjectival arguments? Arguments from sensibility. Can you do anything other than that?

Also, an argument with no proof is hardly "subject to interpretation."

(02-01-2019, 12:09 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Kindly stick to defending, or disproving, points one at a time.  This jumbled word salad does nothing to refute my points.  A more cynical person might claim that this was intentional.

LOL Too many participle phrases? The "jumble" in that perfectly grammatical sentence recounted the cascade of unsupported claims in your post. It wasn't intended to "refute your points." It was a question. To simplify: YOU are the one being asked to "defend or disprove" one point here.

. . . could you perhaps calm down a little, shed the red herrings, and devote just a little time and space to demonstrate where I've called for or held people to "ideological purity"? You've had some trouble defending bald assertions like that in the past, unable to muster more than argument from sensibility.

Another flurry of defensive hyperbole won't do the trick. Nor will ad hominem and other forms of adjectival argument.

Show us the posts which establish your claim, or leave it empty.  

[*bfine32*]

(02-01-2019, 12:23 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I've posted a bunch of videos and so has everyone else.  At no point is the Native American appear to be surrounded.  

He approached the boys and walked into the crowd, which you acknowledged, but you claim that the boy should have moved but fail to address what moving would have done because he would have just walked into a bigger wall of boys standing on the stairs.

I think at this point most realize that Fred is just grasping for straws. 

If they didn't move, they were "blocking him"

If they moved they were "surrounding him"

He and others have vented their hate on a bunch of kids that by and large were the least culpable in the entire situation. Some will back away silently. so will continue to feebly defend their hate, and very few will admit they were played by a media that has an agenda.  

I will say in Fred's defense that I do not believe he ever said the smiling boy ever got in the NA's face. He just made the "mistake" of not giving his ground when the NA got in his

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-01-2019, 12:42 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL Too many participle phrases? The "jumble" in that perfectly grammatical sentence recounted the cascade of unsupported claims in your post. It wasn't intended to "refute your points." It was a question. To simplify: YOU are the one being asked to "defend or disprove" one point here.

I'm not defending a damn thing.  You made a claim, so prove it.  You won't, as you've never done. You spout aspersions and then cower behind obfuscation.  Enjoy your support for ISIS.

[fredtoast]

(02-01-2019, 12:23 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I've posted a bunch of videos and so has everyone else.  At no point is the Native American appear to be surrounded.  

The video you posted shows him compleetly surrounded.  They are all around him.  

[BFritz21]

(02-01-2019, 03:17 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The video you posted shows him compleetly surrounded.  They are all around him.  

Ha!  Screenshot it then!

[fredtoast]

(02-01-2019, 12:23 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: False.

I only call you out on false things that you post and contradictions that you make.

No you don't.  You claim I said things I never did.  And when I ask you to quote the things you claim I said you never can.  Because I never said them.

[BFritz21]

(02-01-2019, 03:17 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The video you posted shows him compleetly surrounded.  They are all around him.  

Also, the guy in the video I posted says that they didn't surround him.  You think he's wrong?

[fredtoast]

(02-01-2019, 03:20 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Ha!  Screenshot it then!

Are you saying they are not behind him or not in front of him or not on his left or not on his right?  Just tell me where you claim they are not and I will post a screen shot to prove you wrong.

[BFritz21]

(02-01-2019, 03:20 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No you don't.  You claim I said things I never did.  And when I ask you to quote the things you claim I said you never can.  Because I never said them.

Are you serious?!  I always post them!

We've all been around long enough to know that this is typical for you.

[fredtoast]

(02-01-2019, 03:22 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Also, the guy in the video I posted says that they didn't surround him.  You think he's wrong?

Just tell me where they are not and I will post a screen shot.

When I watch the video I see them all around him.  I don't know how you are missing this, but just tell tell me wher they are not and I will post it.

[BFritz21]

(02-01-2019, 03:23 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Are you saying they are not behind him or not in front of him or not on his left or not on his right?  Just tell me where you claim they are not and I will post a screen shot to prove you wrong.

You're the one saying surrounding him and I've pointed out that they weren't on behind him.

There was the group that was on the other side wasn't even near him though.

Post all four sides that you're claiming.

[fredtoast]

(02-01-2019, 03:23 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Are you serious?!  I always post them!

We've all been around long enough to know that this is typical for you.

No you have not.  I have asked and you have refused.

I never said Sandman approached the Native.

I never said ALL the boys were doing the chop.

You can't post a quote of me saying these things because I never did.

[BFritz21]

(02-01-2019, 03:24 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Just tell me where they are not and I will post a screen shot.

When I watch the video I see them all around him.  I don't know how you are missing this, but just tell tell me wher they are not and I will post it.

One kid in the front that he approached.


Regardless, I'll post the video that shows him walking into the group of kids, which kills your argument regardless, but go ahead and post them.

[fredtoast]

(02-01-2019, 03:25 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: You're the one saying surrounding him and I've pointed out that they weren't on behind him.

The first ten seconds of the video you posted shows a large crowd of the boys behind him.

This is the most insne argument I have ever had.  The video clearly shows the boys all around him.