What will impact be with voters if Trump is forced to take a mug shot?

[Dill]

(09-04-2023, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:I still see the "myth" as an effort to turn public attention away from the politicians who lead Americans into
war and focus public anger on those who protest such wars for being "un-American.

Yeah, except you didn't phrase it that way, at all.  You got caught claiming my father's friend lied, you literally stated several times it never happened and you're now try to wriggle out of it because almost everyone is appalled by your initial argument.  You could be a grown man and apologize for your statements, but we all know you won't.

LOL I just quoted myself "phrasing it that way" (from #64) in my post to OtherMike above, #120. Same direct "phrasing" in posts #68, 69, and 80. Two notes to maybe reduce the drama:

1. For me this discussion is about the value/ethics of historical inquiry, whether researchers are allowed to follow the facts wherever the facts take them, without ideological obstruction. Demanding that we not insult and demean the "lived experience" of returning troops by inquiring into whether soldiers were actually spit on, whether that was a common experience, and whether the claim it was a common experience has become politically useful to those who want a freer hand in military actions abroad, is just that sort of obstruction.  And rather ironic given that those taking the lead in such "demeaning" inquiries have always been Vietnam vets themselves. Whether your father or his friend actually "lied" is uninteresting to me and has never been my focus.  Framing my inquiry as a personal attack on your father or his friend (who aren't even mentioned in my posts), for which you can then demand a "manly" apology, is just that kind of obstruction--manufactured outrage to stop inquiry into the historical question, to protect the "myth."

2. Especially when speaking for "almost everyone," you should extend them and me the courtesy of showing us what you are talking about. This is not about masculinity, but accuracy, consistency and integrity. Where are the "outright lies" and "wriggling"? 

If the claim is that I "got caught claiming [your] father's friend lied," and I "literally stated several times it never happened," then you ought to be able to quote at least two such statements and post #s, right?  Not something like "the question is raised in college courses," or "The myth of the spitting protestors seems to have emerged in the 90s," all of which sound like someone pursuing a historical discussion about the "myth" that spitting was a common experience, and not at all interested in your father or his friend. And you can't quote something from a source and attribute it to me unless I have singled out that quote to agree with. 

So in the interest of accuracy and integrity, where did I claim your father or his friend lied?  
Show whomever it is you mean by "we" and "everyone" the exact quotes for which I should "apologize."  

If you actually can produce the asked for evidence, take it back to the Ramaswamy thread, or to "our" A-stan thread. It's off topic here. 
Of if you can't produce it, then maybe just stop telling people that I attacked your father and lied about the myth "multiple times."