Democrats and Election Fraud

[Alpo]

And I don't think he wants a time out before Christmas.

Fix it Jamil.

 

[jamil]

Jamil took a comment out of a post that was a reply to another post. Changed the meaning and replied to what was termed an imagined position or reality. Now for part two where people see the word deserve in his post, I get the attribution and the responses. Sometimes context matters. If the right feels justified using violence against the left then I can understand why the left feels justified using violence against the right and vice versa.

Again you're using unclear language. I'm not doing anything untoward. I'm not twisting anything. I'm simply saying what you said, and suggesting that you change your language. The language you used, even given all the context, sounds like you're saying they deserved it. What I think you might be trying to say, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that having the attitude JB has isn't much different from the attitude that MAGA haters have. And if that's all it is, it's pretty easy to say without it sounding like it's on some level, deserved. If it's that you insist that JB's attitude gives you some understanding into why MAGA haters attack MAGA people, it's not the same thing as what you said. Attacks on MAGA people were unprovoked. Animosity towards those people are not unprovoked. That seems to me is the part that you've failed to communicate that you understand.

Maga people weren't interested in violence until they became victims of violence just for supporting Trump. The left behaves as if they think voting for Trump is a crime against society. Well, they kinda brought it upon themselves. Don't want people to hate you? Try not hating them first, so much to attack them for bull**** reasons.

And something I want to make quite clear. I do not hold animosity towards democrat voters. Not all democrats are MAGA hating ideologues. I do have some animosity towards the ideologues who have wrought violence upon people for daring to disagree with them, and creating the last 4 years of insane hyperbole. I understand that it wears on people. I don't agree with JB but I think I understand it.

 

[foszoe]

Again you're using unclear language. I'm not doing anything untoward. I'm not twisting anything. I'm simply saying what you said, and suggesting that you change your language. The language you used, even given all the context, sounds like you're saying they deserved it. What I think you might be trying to say, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that having the attitude JB has isn't much different from the attitude that MAGA haters have. And if that's all it is, it's pretty easy to say without it sounding like it's on some level, deserved. If it's that you insist that JB's attitude gives you some understanding into why MAGA haters attack MAGA people, it's not the same thing as what you said. Attacks on MAGA people were unprovoked. Animosity towards those people are not unprovoked. That seems to me is the part that you've failed to communicate that you understand.

Maga people weren't interested in violence until they became victims of violence just for supporting Trump. The left behaves as if they think voting for Trump is a crime against society. Well, they kinda brought it upon themselves. Don't want people to hate you? Try not hating them first, so much to attack them for bull**** reasons.

And something I want to make quite clear. I do not hold animosity towards democrat voters. Not all democrats are MAGA hating ideologues. I do have some animosity towards the ideologues who have wrought violence upon people for daring to disagree with them, and creating the last 4 years of insane hyperbole. I understand that it wears on people. I don't agree with JB but I think I understand it.

So if I say I understand your criticism I might as well say I deserve it.

I will choose to say neither and let my post stand as is.

I will let you have the last paragraphs

 

[jamil]

That is where we differ i guess, I am constantly lookin for reasons to doubt, especially when it comes to viewing other people negatively, which is why I asked if he spoke in hyperbole.

You seem to deal in preconceptions not intuitions. In one post I used the word tolerance and you corrected me on its meaning, that seemed to be the overarching issue you wished to address not what I was trying to say. Now instead of arguing the word you have chosen to change it then justify to yourself the change and used a word that clearly has a more negative tone . Hard to have a meaningful discussion with those types of tactics

There was a time I posted much longer positions, but, just like what you did, one sentence would be taken out of context, have its meaning changed, and then the changed meaning got the replies. So i quit posting lengthy nuanced responses . When you take a minority position, you get a LOT of such responses and I don't have the time to discuss every little change.

Preconceptions come from intuition. And the point about "tolerance" I made it clear that it was a tangent. It really had nothing to do with the point you were making. I wasn't saying anything about you. You'll just need to accept that.

Something else you'll just need to accept. I'm not trying to justify using "deserve" interchangeably with "understand". I took the sentence as a whole. Stop acting like I'm using "tactics". I'm just trying to make points as much as you are. I'm not trying to twist what you're saying into something I already believe. I'm interpreting what you're saying within my own intuition, because you did not make it all that clear. So then instead of pouting and accusing me of "tactics", maybe try to get to the root of why I'm interpreting it this way, and keep working the language until we both understand it the same way. And that language we would eventually agree on will necessarily look a lot different from "Makes it easy to understand why MAGA hat wearers are attacked." If you don't get why, even with the context of the whole post and your rebuttals afterward, someone would think you don't have a full understanding of the issue.

And about minority nuances, I do that a lot as well. I get plenty of heat for it too. Sometimes you just have to deal with some shade and misunderstanding. Bug and I have gone around and around as well as many other ardent Trumpers. We're not sitting across the table drinking beers. We're communicating by typing thoughts to each other, and that has its challenges. Just keep trying to make your points and correcting misunderstandings.

 

[jamil]

So if I say I understand your criticism I might as well say I deserve it.

I will choose to say neither and let my post stand as is.

I will let you have the last paragraphs

First, I think it's reasonable to assume that since you didn't correct me, I have restated what you were trying to say in a way that you agree with it. That's not the same thing at all as "Makes it easy to understand why MAGA hat wearers are attacked." The language you used there makes it sound an awful lot like they had it coming, when there is much clearer language available. I'm not accusing you of anything untoward at this point. I'd prefer that you stop treating me as if I'm saying something untoward, although the "I will choose to say neither and let my post stand as is" seems stubborn. I don't think you used language that communicated what you meant very well.

 

[OneBadV8]

I feel like you two just have a slight miscommunication somewhere. If you were close, you should have a cheeseburger summit. Face to face time is great for that

 

[jamil]

I'm not speaking to you. You type dirty words.

"dirty words" is a social construct. They're just sounds we make and interpret. I could say the same thing using words that INGO doesn't translate to *'s but represents the same thing. Language is language. Thoughts are dirty regardless of language.

 

[jamil]

Dude, why don't you fix the word, So This Thread don't get nuked also. I tried to p.m. you, but your box is full. Site supporter status would fix that.

.

Dammit twice! First, my site supporter expired before I could get around to re-upping. Second, INGO needs to fix that. If you can't say **********, you shouldn't be able to change the suffix and use that word. I thought INGO would star it out. Anyway, fixed. Thanks for the warning. No harm intended.

 

[jamil]

I feel like you two just have a slight miscommunication somewhere. If you were close, you should have a cheeseburger summit. Face to face time is great for that

Agreed. I have to stay away from cheeseburgers though. Unfortunately.

 

[Slapstick]

I feel like you two just have a slight miscommunication somewhere. If you were close, you should have a cheeseburger summit. Face to face time is great for that

This seems appropriate for the moment, (and it's a great clip)

[video=youtube;452XjnaHr1A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=452XjnaHr1A[/video]

 

[drillsgt]

Agreed. I have to stay away from cheeseburgers though. Unfortunately.

Could there be a salad summit?

 

[Alpo]

Bunny rabbit convention.

 

[Ziggidy]

The 2A(guns), doesn’t insure freedom, the 1st(speech), does. The pen is truly mightier than the sword.

As soon as they take the guns, our voice will be next.

The difference between a Socialist and a Communist is that the Socialist doesn't have all the guns yet.

 

[drillsgt]

As soon as they take the guns, our voice will be next.

The difference between a Socialist and a Communist is that the Socialist doesn't have all the guns yet.

They won't even need the guns for that, they are doing just fine. With big media and big tech being able to drive the narratives and control what is or isn't seen will largely make the first amendment irrelevant. That and the addition of the whole cancel culture movement will drive dissenting speech away even further.

 

[BigRed]

Nor did I say what you said.....but it's no longer an infringement if an amendment is passed correct? Who gets to vote on constitutional amendments? I would be its a lot of people who are elected by......the popular vote. So how do you keep them out? Outvote them.

No longer an infringement if an amendment is passed?

I've always believed that if a progressive drones on long enough, it will become exceedingly clear what they are all about.

Thank you for illustrating the point.

 

[BugI02]

It's interesting that you can use the words understand JB's position use the word understand. I used the word understand in my post but now in yours you have changed it to deserve. Why is that?

Because, due to the fact that free quarks don't exist, there is a lower bound on hairsplitting?

 

[BugI02]

Jamil took a comment out of a post that was a reply to another post. Changed the meaning and replied to what was termed an imagined position or reality. Now for part two where people see the word deserve in his post, I get the attribution and the responses. Sometimes context matters. If the right feels justified using violence against the left then I can understand why the left feels justified using violence against the right and vice versa.

As a member of the right, I would specify that from where I sit, it is obvious that the left not only feels justified in using violence against the right but is already doing so. Those actions are what justify responding to violence with violence sufficient to end the threat. Feelings have nothing to do with it

Edit: Don't confuse action and reaction

 

[BigRed]

As a member of the right, I would specify that from where I sit, it is obvious that the left not only feels justified in using violence against the right but is already doing so. Those actions are what justify responding to violence with violence sufficient to end the threat. Feelings have nothing to do with it

Edit: Don't confuse action and reaction

[video=youtube;YhHbkMHsjW0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhHbkMHsjW0[/video]

 

[BugI02]

This seems appropriate for the moment, (and it's a great clip)

[video=youtube;452XjnaHr1A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=452XjnaHr1A[/video]

Lolz. The "What we've got here is failure to communicate! Some men you just can't reach." portion of the clip is the message I have on my cell when it goes to voicemail

 

[jamil]

As a member of the right, I would specify that from where I sit, it is obvious that the left not only feels justified in using violence against the right but is already doing so. Those actions are what justify responding to violence with violence sufficient to end the threat. Feelings have nothing to do with it

Edit: Don't confuse action and reaction

A Trumper’s house was bombed recently. Could be hoax hate but the MO looks a lot like Antifa. We’ll see. And perhaps we’ll see if Foz can understand why Antifa would do that.