+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+--- Thread: It's Kamala! (/Thread-It-s-Kamala)
RE: It's Kamala! - BmorePat87 - 09-01-2020
(09-01-2020, 12:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I agree that certainly wasn't her intent, but it is the end result. I don't think you would argue that her promoting the organization with her official twitter account didn't result in an increase in raised funds. Some of those funds were then used to bail out two attempted murderers and a child rapist. If she came out and denounced the bailing out of violent criminals and sexual predators and/or tweeted that this organization should not be supported then I think you'd have a solid point. To my knowledge she has done neither.
Your assumptions and premise noted, the piece stated:
"Harris was so eager to be on the rioters’ team that she literally raised money for them in the hopes that they could be released and foster further mayhem"
We're at the point where we start with an extreme and then try to walk it as far back as we can so that the less distorted version is accepted as a reasonable standpoint.
RE: It's Kamala! - fredtoast - 09-01-2020
(08-31-2020, 07:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To violent offenders being released. You and I both know what a high bail amount is for, why are you pretending like you do not?
Are you complaining abouty violent offenders being granted bond or are you complaining about Kamala Harris raising money for bond.
I see two totally different issues.
RE: It's Kamala! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 09-01-2020
(09-01-2020, 02:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Are you complaining abouty violent offenders being granted bond or are you complaining about Kamala Harris raising money for bond.
I see two totally different issues.
Neither. What I'm pointing out (not complaining btw) is very clearly explained above. BTW, you didn't answer me, why did you neglect to mention those who have been remanded in your jail population comment? Also, why didn't you answer as to what purpose a high bail amount serves? If you actually want to have a good faith discussion I'm happy to do so.
RE: It's Kamala! - PhilHos - 09-01-2020
(08-29-2020, 01:55 AM)Dill Wrote: Well I appreciate your going into detail to explain your views.
No problem. It's the way political discourse SHOULD happen, IMO. BTW, I apologize for not responding sooner. I was celebrating my 6th wedding anniversary with my wife over the weekend.
(08-29-2020, 01:55 AM)Dill Wrote: You didn't think MY definition was somehow "changed" or "edited," did you? The Dictionary.com definition you used is distilled from the one I articulated.I think you're definition was not really a definition, IMO. I think you were making the argument that 'race' was not a social construct but rather a biological one. That's a different argument and while it COULD have a bearing on whether or not something or someone was racist, I don't think it really matters in this discussion.
(08-29-2020, 01:55 AM)Dill Wrote: It does not support a claim that any and every race-based selection for a position is automatically "racist."Are you talking about my definition or yours? Mine certainly does support that claim.
(08-29-2020, 01:55 AM)Dill Wrote: I don't see how Biden could be guilty of either version.I disagree. Though Biden only said he 'preferred' a certain type of candidate and didn't outright saying he was ONLY looking at women of color, had he done the latter, he most certainly would have been guilty of expressing his "prejudice" towards the "particular racial or ethnic group" that is commonly referred to as 'whites'.
He didn't choose Kamala to express his "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism" against her "particular racial or ethnic group"--rather the opposite.
(08-29-2020, 01:55 AM)Dill Wrote: If choosing her was discrimination against whites, that would suggest that choosing whites discriminates against blacks.
Uh, no. Discriminating against whites is racism.
But, if you want, I could make the argument by not looking for the best person for the job, only the best black woman, that Biden is saying that a black woman could NOT be the best person. I'd rather not make that convoluted an argument at this point, though.
(08-29-2020, 01:55 AM)Dill Wrote: If there had never been a white vp candidate in 250 years of US history and he said "now's the time," I would not think that racist either--unless he did it to "antagonize" the man's race or ethnic group.
Well, at least you'd be consistent.
RE: It's Kamala! - fredtoast - 09-01-2020
(09-01-2020, 02:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Neither. What I'm pointing out (not complaining btw) is very clearly explained above.
Not trying to be difficult but where? You have made a bunch of comments "above"
(09-01-2020, 02:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: BTW, you didn't answer me, why did you neglect to mention those who have been remanded in your jail population comment?
I think you may be using the term differently than we do here. In Tennessee you can be remanded with a bond, but if you can't afford the bond you have to stay in jail. The And I was talking about people having to stay in jail because they can't afford bail. I assume you may be talking about people who made bail but then were put back in jail for not appearing or violating the terms of their bond agreement. If so do you have any information on the percentage of people in jail waiting for trial who made bail, but then were remanded back to jail? That would be interesting to know. In Tennessee the only people who don't get bond are defendants facing a possible death penalty or violations pf probation.
(09-01-2020, 02:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Also, why didn't you answer as to what purpose a high bail amount serves?
To secure the defendants appearance. The bigger the penalty he is potentially facing the the greater his flight risk. Therefore he has a higher bond. But an out of state defendant will also get a higher bond than a local. And a person who has failed to appear in court before will usually get a higher bail. There are lot's of elements to setting bail very high.
But my question for you is why these people should get bond at all if you already know they are guilty of attempted murder and child molestation? You have repeatedly said they were guilty so why do they deserve a bond at all?
RE: It's Kamala! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 09-01-2020
(09-01-2020, 05:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not trying to be difficult but where? You have made a bunch of comments "above"
Seriously, you're pulling this again?
Quote:I think you may be using the term differently than we do here. In Tennessee you can be remanded with a bond, but if you can't afford the bond you have to stay in jail. The And I was talking about people having to stay in jail because they can't afford bail. I assume you may be talking about people who made bail but then were put back in jail for not appearing or violating the terms of their bond agreement. If so do you have any information on the percentage of people in jail waiting for trial who made bail, but then were remanded back to jail? That would be interesting to know. In Tennessee the only people who don't get bond are defendants facing a possible death penalty or violations pf probation.
Possibly so, that does clear things up. It doesn't work quite that way in CA.
Quote:To secure the defendants appearance. The bigger the penalty he is potentially facing the the greater his flight risk. Therefore he has a higher bond. But an out of state defendant will also get a higher bond than a local. And a person who has failed to appear in court before will usually get a higher bail. There are lot's of elements to setting bail very high.
Exactly. Now, with all that in mind do you not see the problem with this "non-profit" posting the high bail amount for these three defendants?
Quote:But my question for you is why these people should get bond at all if you already know they are guilty of attempted murder and child molestation? You have repeatedly said they were guilty so why do they deserve a bond at all?
Oh, Fred. I do hope you can conduct yourself without stating outright false information. Please post where I said they were guilty. Seeing as I've apparently said it numerous times it should be easy to find. Also, please don't obfuscate and tap dance around this, find the post in which I said they were "guilty" or kindly retract your blatantly false statement. I'm not going to tolerate you spreading falsehoods about my statements.
RE: It's Kamala! - bfine32 - 09-01-2020
Simple answer. Kamala can come out and condemn the organization for posting bail for these violent offenders. Does anyone know if she's done so?
Kamala stop reading if you are:
If not, she better. I guarantee it's going to come up in a debate.
RE: It's Kamala! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 09-01-2020
(09-01-2020, 05:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Simple answer. Kamala can come out and condemn the organization for posting bail for these violent offenders. Does anyone know if she's done so?
Kamala stop reading if you are:
If not, she better. I guarantee it's going to come up in a debate.
I made this exact point earlier in the thread. For some reason it wasn't responded to.
RE: It's Kamala! - fredtoast - 09-01-2020
(09-01-2020, 05:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Exactly. Now, with all that in mind do you not see the problem with this "non-profit" posting the high bail amount for these three defendants?
No. Why would it be okay for a person to get out with their own money, but not with money from a charity.
Bond is either fair or it is not fair. It does not matter who actually pays the money.
RE: It's Kamala! - fredtoast - 09-01-2020
(09-01-2020, 05:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, Fred. I do hope you can conduct yourself without stating outright false information. Please post where I said they were guilty. Seeing as I've apparently said it numerous times it should be easy to find. Also, please don't obfuscate and tap dance around this, find the post in which I said they were "guilty" or kindly retract your blatantly false statement. I'm not going to tolerate you spreading falsehoods about my statements.
Here are a few examples.
(08-31-2020, 07:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think bailing out attempted murderers and child molesters was on their promotion materials.
(08-31-2020, 10:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: They spent over half a million dollars bailing out two attempted murderers and a child molester.
(09-01-2020, 11:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Apparently attempted murderers and child molesters.
(09-01-2020, 12:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Harris promoted an organization that apparently raised money under false pretenses and then spent over half a million dollars to bail out two attempted murderers and a child molester.
I cannot see how any non-criminal would think bailing out violent criminals and child molesters with non-profit money would be a good idea.
(09-01-2020, 12:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Some of those funds were then used to bail out two attempted murderers and a child rapist.
How can you call a person a "child rapist" or an "attempted murderer" if they have not been found guilty of those charges?
RE: It's Kamala! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 09-01-2020
(09-01-2020, 05:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No. Why would it be okay for a person to get out with their own money, but not with money from a charity.
Bond is either fair or it is not fair. It does not matter who actually pays the money.
Read your own explanation of why a high bail is an incentive to actually showing up to court and do the math. It's not complicated.
RE: It's Kamala! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 09-01-2020
(09-01-2020, 05:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here are a few examples.
How can you call a person a "child rapist" or an "attempted murderer" if they have not been found guilty of those charges?
Ahh, so, as expected, you couldn't produce a single instance of my saying they were guilty. I'll expect the retraction of your blatantly false statement now.
RE: It's Kamala! - fredtoast - 09-01-2020
(09-01-2020, 05:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Seriously, you're pulling this again?
I don't understand why you do this.
All I did was ask for a clarification of your position. What do yu you think I have to gain by acting confused? What possible trick could I be "pulling again".
You claim that you want to have adult conversations but it is hard to do when I don't know exactly what pint you are arguing. Sorry if this bothers you, but it is the truth.
I don't know why you would think I would lie about something like that.
RE: It's Kamala! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 09-01-2020
(09-01-2020, 05:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't understand why you do this.
All I did was ask for a clarification of your position. What do yu you think I have to gain by acting confused? What possible trick could I be "pulling again".
Just read what I've posted in this thread. It's odd that no one has this problem but you and your friends
Quote:You claim that you want to have adult conversations but it is hard to do when I don't know exactly what pint you are arguing. Sorry if this bothers you, but it is the truth.
It doesn't bother me.
Quote:I don't know why you would think I would lie about something like that.
I have a hard time figuring it out as well.
RE: It's Kamala! - fredtoast - 09-01-2020
(09-01-2020, 05:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Read your own explanation of why a high bail is an incentive to actually showing up to court and do the math. It's not complicated.
Since 90% of people probably pay a bail bond fee instead of putting up the entire amount the financial part of it makes no real difference. They never get back the 10% or so they pay to get the bondsmen to sign for their release.
RE: It's Kamala! - bfine32 - 09-01-2020
(09-01-2020, 05:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I made this exact point earlier in the thread. For some reason it wasn't responded to.
We're pretty liberal on how we assign guilt by association.
Now close your eyes and imagine. A bunch of conservatives get locked up for acting a fool while defending statues. Pence gives money and worse solicits others to do the same using his position, It is found out that a couple of them are tied to white supremacy and violence.
Now ask yourself; Would we be getting the same "benefits of the doubt" on here by the open minded.
RE: It's Kamala! - fredtoast - 09-01-2020
(09-01-2020, 05:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It doesn't bother me.
If it does not bother you then why not just answer the simple question instead of accusing me of "pulling something"? It would make the discussions much more civil.
What exactly do you think I am trying to pull?
I promise you that if you ever want a clarification of my position I will do my best to explain it to you instead of accusing you of some trickery.
RE: It's Kamala! - fredtoast - 09-01-2020
(09-01-2020, 05:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ahh, so, as expected, you couldn't produce a single instance of my saying they were guilty. I'll expect the retraction of your blatantly false statement now.
I will withdraw it when you explain how you can call a person a "child rapist" when he has not been found guilty of raping a child.
RE: It's Kamala! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 09-01-2020
(09-01-2020, 06:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I will withdraw it when you explain how you can call a person a "child rapist" when he has not been found guilty of raping a child.
So you won't withdraw your false allegation? You said I claimed they were guilty, I did not make that claim. You can infer what you like, but I don't appreciate you stating something as fact that was not stated. More of the same I suppose.
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 09-01-2020
(09-01-2020, 01:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, she absolutely does. While I agree the article is highly partisan (which is to be expected given the source) it is not incorrect about the Democratic position and how it has recently changed. As we all know the protests have been described as "largely peaceful" by both the Dems and the media. While it was largely true in the beginning it has become less and less so as time wears on. The Dems wanted to keep the focus on the actual protests, which is understandable, however, in so doing they began to look more and more out of touch with the reality of what was actually happening at many of them. As you say, it finally took some people being killed, in self defense or not, for them to finally take a real stand against the ever increasing violence. Now, a more cynical person would quote Don Lemon and his comments about how the violent protests are helping Trump and it's the only thing that's "sticking" as the reason for the sudden Dem about face, but I'm clearly not that cynical.
There has been nightly violence in Portland for over three straight months, finally condemning the violence now is far too little and too damn late.
These are reasonable points. But it's not quite accurate to say Dems in general have not been condemning the violence. Here's Biden on May 31, three months ago.
https://medium.com/@JoeBiden/we-are-a-nation-furious-at-injustice-9dcffd81978f
Protesting such brutality is right and necessary. It’s an utterly American response. But burning down communities and needless destruction is not. Violence that endangers lives is not. Violence that guts and shutters businesses that serve the community is not.
The act of protesting should never be allowed to overshadow the reason we protest. It should not drive people away from the just cause that protest is meant to advance.
Kamala might be a little late, but other Dems certainly aren't. Starting with the Dem majors of every city hit by riots.