Chanting FUCK JOE BIDEN during the World Series pregame show is the most white trash MAGA thing ever

[haw-key]

We aren’t racists, we just don’t want kapernick bringing politics into sports!!!!

Yeah that’s right. The dislike for him is purely because he’s black. And if God knows anything, he knows how much Americans hate black football players. Or ex football players.

I’d guess it’s probably more about his America hating attitude, his scorn for the pro football process while enriching himself in it and his complete race bating, charlatan, grifting shtick.

 

[haw-key]

Yes genius, De Niro saying something during an acceptance speech is exactly the same as a pilot giving out offensive political commentary before he flies you somewhere.
I mean one you can turn your TV off and the other you're strapped in a metal tube and trusting your life to...but exactly the same.

Offensive? I’d say the meme is the opposite of offensive. In fact its oft quoted as a way to avoid being offensive yet convey the same feelings. Wouldn’t you agree?

 

[notlongago]

You're still not understanding what I write. At this point it's stupidity or intentional because you're a chanter.

You can start your "FVCK JOE BIDEN" chants at Kinnick if you need the emotional support. I won't say anything, I'll just think you're pathetic.

Try it at work too, maybe that'll help you understand the concept of a time and a place.

I understand what you're typing very well. Why you are refusing to acknowledge your inconsistent logic is what I don't understand.

 

[hawkeye_power]

I love it. We have a puppet for a president and America is crumbling as we speak.

 

[IaHawk44]

They are awesome

You need to #GTFO.

Human rights?. Calling police pigs, ya human rights, calling the NFL combine a modern day version of the slave trade. You and Kapermook are one in the same. Wow, think much?

You're a phucking idiot.

 

[ThorneStockton]

I understand what you're typing very well. Why you are refusing to acknowledge your inconsistent logic is what I don't understand.

Just saying you understand doesn't make it so. It's evident when you repeat back my position or ask questions like: "Why is one more important?" and talking about who is more educated about the topic, and just the insincerity - or again - stupidity to frame the chanting as a mere "political opinion".

Those lines of questioning made it clear you didn't understand what was written.

I suspect your logic is just as poor as your reading comprehension.

 

[notlongago]

Just saying you understand doesn't make it so. It's evident when you repeat back my position or ask questions like: "Why is one more important?" and talking about who is more educated about the topic, and just the insincerity - or again - stupidity to frame the chanting as a mere "political opinion".

Those lines of questioning made it clear you didn't understand what was written.

I suspect your logic is just as poor as your reading comprehension.

You can keep insulting all you want, but your answers still lack any sort of consistency. If you don't think political commentary (does that word suit you better?) should be present outside of a political setting, that's a fine position to have, but only if that's your position across the board. What about that are you not understanding?

Personally, I believe anyone has the clearance to throw out their political opinions in whatever setting they choose whether that be celebrities at award shows, musicians through their music, writers through their writing, average joes on social media, athletes on the field, or anyone in front of a camera. I agree with your "if you don't like it, tune it out" mantra, but I don't selectively apply it.

 

[ThorneStockton]

You can keep insulting all you want, but your answers still lack any sort of consistency. If you don't think political commentary (does that word suit you better?) should be present outside of a political setting, that's a fine position to have, but only if that's your position across the board. What about that are you not understanding?

Personally, I believe anyone has the clearance to throw out their political opinions in whatever setting they choose whether that be celebrities at award shows, musicians through their music, writers through their writing, average joes on social media, athletes on the field, or anyone in front of a camera. I agree with your "if you don't like it, tune it out" mantra, but I don't selectively apply it.

I am sorry you take them as insults as opposed to genuine observations. I'll try one more time.

I'm not talking about "political commentary" in general, or whether it "should" be present. I don't have some grand position that spans across the board. There's an important concept called context.

The context I've been talking about is chanting "FVCK JOE BIDEN" at sporting events. Based on the context that this occurs, I think these people are pathetic, and worthy of pity. I have explained why in simple terms and in several different ways.

My comments about DeNiro have been to point out that the context is different, and that accordingly your application of "logic" does not fit. This has only been in the context of posters trying to pull some whataboutisms.

Your second paragraph leads me again to confirm that you are not understanding what I am typing. Clearance? I've never said they don't have the right to chant, or that they don't have the clearance to chant. My position is that they are pathetic for chanting as opposed to enjoying the reasons most people attend sporting events, while polluting the environment for the rest of the people who are there to enjoy the event.

One thing you do seem to understand, is that I am selectively applying my comments to this specific context of the subject of this thread: miserable people who can't pause politics to enjoy a sporting event and instead choose to chant vulgarities.

Wonderful to hear about your consistent, non selective application of your meticulous logic. I'm sure that would hold true if dozens of people surrounded your dining table at a restaurant and started chanting "Black Lives Matter" or chanted the same outside your house in the middle of the night with a bullhorn.

You'd endure it because you don't selectively apply the "if you don't like it, tune it out" mantra.

I appreciate people trying to use logic, but you might want to google "logical fallacies" and do some investigation.

 

[onlyTheObvious]

I would prefer nobody knows anything about anybody’s politics but that isn’t going to happen.

I know almost nothing about any of the political beliefs of any of my friends. I like to keep it that way.

the grandstanding from celebs, athletes, and anybody with a platform and the resulting blowback in all directions is why.

we are way past the point of changing that. All you can do is sit back and observe and ask yourself how we got here and is there really a point to it? IMO it’s just social media napalm.

 

[HawkeyeInCentralIowa]

GRAB YOUR GUNS, BEAT UP COPS AND TAKE ON ALL THE SUCKERS AND LOSERS WHO LOVE THEIR COUNTRY OVER TRUMP. LIBERATE COVID!

Similar to liberals purchasing Trump rally tickets, only to not show up? Like it or not, both sides are ****heads.

 

[notlongago]

I am sorry you take them as insults as opposed to genuine observations. I'll try one more time.

I'm not talking about "political commentary" in general, or whether it "should" be present. I don't have some grand position that spans across the board. There's an important concept called context.

The context I've been talking about is chanting "FVCK JOE BIDEN" at sporting events. Based on the context that this occurs, I think these people are pathetic, and worthy of pity. I have explained why in simple terms and in several different ways.

My comments about DeNiro have been to point out that the context is different, and that accordingly your application of "logic" does not fit. This has only been in the context of posters trying to pull some whataboutisms.

Your second paragraph leads me again to confirm that you are not understanding what I am typing. Clearance? I've never said they don't have the right to chant, or that they don't have the clearance to chant. My position is that they are pathetic for chanting as opposed to enjoying the reasons most people attend sporting events, while polluting the environment for the rest of the people who are there to enjoy the event.

One thing you do seem to understand, is that I am selectively applying my comments to this specific context of the subject of this thread: miserable people who can't pause politics to enjoy a sporting event and instead choose to chant vulgarities.

Wonderful to hear about your consistent, non selective application of your meticulous logic. I'm sure that would hold true if dozens of people surrounded your dining table at a restaurant and started chanting "Black Lives Matter" or chanted the same outside your house in the middle of the night with a bullhorn.

You'd endure it because you don't selectively apply the "if you don't like it, tune it out" mantra.

I appreciate people trying to use logic, but you might want to google "logical fallacies" and do some investigation.

You seem to like to refer to the "context" of the situation, but you're making one very large (and incorrect) assumption in that you are trying assert the examples (award show vs sporting sporting events) are different situations - one where political commentary is fitting and one where it is not, but that is simply incorrect and why that idea is beyond you, I cannot comprehend. Neither are political settings, both are entertainment events.

As to your last comment, it does show your ignorance and stereotyping thought process, but to address your specific examples overtly: A restaurant setting where another table chants anything is not hard to ignore and eventually leave if I dont like the content, noise or what have you. Ive left restaurants sooner than I otherwise wouldve because of loud guests. Ive left concerts early because the artist decided to step up on their soapbox and talk about political issues. Not a big deal. As to your bullhorn example, well that would be an illegal act, so thats an asinine hypothetical.

Simply put: My position is consistent, yours is selective and arbitrary.

 

[ThorneStockton]

You seem to like to refer to the "context" of the situation, but you're making one very large (and incorrect) assumption in that you are trying assert the examples (award show vs sporting sporting events) are different situations - one where political commentary is fitting and one where it is not, but that is simply incorrect and why that idea is beyond you, I cannot comprehend. Neither are political settings, both are entertainment events.

As to your last comment, it does show your ignorance and stereotyping thought process, but to address your specific examples overtly: A restaurant setting where another table chants anything is not hard to ignore and eventually leave if I dont like the content, noise or what have you. Ive left restaurants sooner than I otherwise wouldve because of loud guests. Ive left concerts early because the artist decided to step up on their soapbox and talk about political issues. Not a big deal. As to your bullhorn example, well that would be an illegal act, so thats an asinine hypothetical.

Simply put: My position is consistent, yours is selective and arbitrary.

I see, you don't have to be consistent as long as you declare something a asinine hypothetical. Wonderful logic at work, also very convenient for you.

Maybe you'll let me use your strategy: Sporting events and awards shows are different because one is a asinine hypothetical, thus I'm still consistent!

 

[BigDelHawk]

GRAB YOUR GUNS, BEAT UP COPS AND TAKE ON ALL THE SUCKERS AND LOSERS WHO LOVE THEIR COUNTRY OVER TRUMP. LIBERATE COVID!

So you are against people voicing their displeasure over how the government works? Where were you when Antifa was taking over Portland?

 

[Dr. Spaceman]

As to your last comment, it does show your ignorance and stereotyping thought process, but to address your specific examples overtly: A restaurant setting where another table chants anything is not hard to ignore and eventually leave if I dont like the content, noise or what have you. Ive left restaurants sooner than I otherwise wouldve because of loud guests. Ive left concerts early because the artist decided to step up on their soapbox and talk about political issues. Not a big deal. As to your bullhorn example, well that would be an illegal act, so thats an asinine hypothetical.

Simply put: My position is consistent, yours is selective and arbitrary.

You seem like a fun guy and not at all overly sensitive.

 

[CleteyColgate]

So you are against people voicing their displeasure over how the government works? Where were you when Antifa was taking over Portland?

Your people were loud and clear on January 6 that they oppose freedom

 

[notlongago]

I see, you don't have to be consistent as long as you declare something a asinine hypothetical. Wonderful logic at work, also very convenient for you.

Maybe you'll let me use your strategy: Sporting events and awards shows are different because one is a asinine hypothetical, thus I'm still consistent!

So you're in favor of flouting laws if it supports your (selective) position? What an odd hill to die on.

Your last sentence would have a point if either award shows or sporting events were illegal, but theyre not, so another fail on your part.

 

[notlongago]

You seem like a fun guy and not at all overly sensitive.

never claimed to be fun, and on the contrary, that would be an example of not being overly sensitive. An overly sensitive person would choose to complain to management about other guests. I just choose to remove myself from a situation if i dont like it. Could not be any less drama.

 

[ThorneStockton]

So you're in favor of flouting laws if it supports your (selective) position? What an odd hill to die on.

Your last sentence would have a point if either award shows or sporting events were illegal, but theyre not, so another fail on your part.

How in the world do you interpret my post as being in favor of flouting laws? Another piece of evidence that you don't comprehend what is being communicated. Dying on a hill? WTH?

Why does the legality of it matter with your consistency? I thought you were consistent across the board, but now you are trying to play some sort of context card. Is there room in your logic for that?

 

[notlongago]

How in the world do you interpret my post as being in favor of flouting laws? Another piece of evidence that you don't comprehend what is being communicated. Dying on a hill? WTH?

Why does the legality of it matter with your consistency? I thought you were consistent across the board, but now you are trying to play some sort of context card. Is there room in your logic for that?

When I pointed out your example of bullhorn is illegal thus an asinine hypothetical, your response was some blathering about not having to be consistent. Just so we're totally clear, your bullhorn example is asinine BECAUSE it's illegal. And yea, the entire bounds of my logic is framed by law. Didn't think we'd need that qualifier, but here we are. Any other ridiculous qualifiers we need to explicitly state or are you caught up?

 

[ThorneStockton]

When I pointed out your example of bullhorn is illegal thus an asinine hypothetical, your response was some blathering about not having to be consistent. Just so we're totally clear, your bullhorn example is asinine BECAUSE it's illegal. And yea, the entire bounds of my logic is framed by law. Didn't think we'd need that qualifier, but here we are. Any other ridiculous qualifiers we need to explicitly state or are you caught up?

Why would you need to explicitly state qualifiers if you are a logical guy who is consistent across the board?

Don't worry about it though, you don't need to answer it, just like you won't touch the bizarre in favor of flouting laws and dying on a hill. Nor the nonsense about why is one more important and talking about who is more educated about the topic. It all goes back to your difficulty with comprehending what you read and your insistence on appearing "logical".

Want another hypothetical? How about a group of students chanting "FVCK JOE BIDEN" in a high school algebra class? Would those kids be pathetic or do they have clearance and the rest of the kids just need to tune it out?

What about in a professional office setting?

Those aren't illegal, are they also declared asinine? Do you have another contextual exception to your consistent across the board application of logic?

 

[BelemNole]

So you are against people voicing their displeasure over how the government works? Where were you when Antifa was taking over Portland?

Always interesting to see how long it takes people to start defending insurrection. In the first week or so after the event it was all "those weren't trump supporters, they were antifa in disguise!!"
Now you all have moved on to "it was just voicing displeasure." And when your guys start killing more and more folks it will be "well, they started it with their liberal agenda."

 

[notlongago]

Why would you need to explicitly state qualifiers if you are a logical guy who is consistent across the board?

Don't worry about it though, you don't need to answer it, just like you won't touch the bizarre in favor of flouting laws and dying on a hill. Nor the nonsense about why is one more important and talking about who is more educated about the topic. It all goes back to your difficulty with comprehending what you read and your insistence on appearing "logical".

Want another hypothetical? How about a group of students chanting "FVCK JOE BIDEN" in a high school algebra class? Would those kids be pathetic or do they have clearance and the rest of the kids just need to tune it out?

What about in a professional office setting?

Those aren't illegal, are they also declared asinine? Do you have another contextual exception to your consistent across the board application of logic?

I wouldnt think I would need to explicitly state qualifiers, but you're the one proposing illegal activities as if somehow supports your position.

Group of students in algebra? Perhaps a bit arbitrary (or maybe not), but no, not pathetic. Student led walkouts/protests/rallies etc in support or defiance of political issues is commonplace. No different than a teacher getting on their soapbox and speaking on political issues in an algebra class (which ive had happen).

Professional office setting? Also hear/see vulgar political expression there as well. So no, again, not pathetic and not wrong.

They're not illegal, so not, theyre not asinine - good job, you're learning. What other examples you got? How about an awards show BUT its a sports award show....now your conflicting worlds collide. We good to give political commentary there?

 

[ThorneStockton]

I wouldnt think I would need to explicitly state qualifiers, but you're the one proposing illegal activities as if somehow supports your position.

Group of students in algebra? Perhaps a bit arbitrary (or maybe not), but no, not pathetic. Student led walkouts/protests/rallies etc in support or defiance of political issues is commonplace. No different than a teacher getting on their soapbox and speaking on political issues in an algebra class (which ive had happen).

Professional office setting? Also hear/see vulgar political expression there as well. So no, again, not pathetic and not wrong.

They're not illegal, so not, theyre not asinine - good job, you're learning. What other examples you got? How about an awards show BUT its a sports award show....now your conflicting worlds collide. We good to give political commentary there?

Of course it's useful to explicitly state qualifiers when you profess to be consistent in application across the board. I'm not proposing illegal activities to support my position, I proposed a hypothetical to reveal that your position isn't as firm as you professed. Another reading comprehension fail.

Disrupting dozens of students and colleagues just to yell political obscenities. Totally not pathetic, totally normal, all cool - all just to protect your fragile consistent logical identity (with a legal exception). Man, you are pathetic, and amusing.

Sports award show? It would depend on what award, the recipient and what was said, you know: context. The thing I've been consistent about all along. Your reading comprehension issues show up in nearly every post, you think I have conflicting worlds colliding. Ironic, right after your professed consistent across the board methodology was revealed to have an exception, talk about conflicting...

I have enjoyed this, but I suspect you'll get the last word, unless you can come up with a compelling reason for further amusement.

 

[notlongago]

Of course it's useful to explicitly state qualifiers when you profess to be consistent in application across the board. I'm not proposing illegal activities to support my position, I proposed a hypothetical to reveal that your position isn't as firm as you professed. Another reading comprehension fail.

Disrupting dozens of students and colleagues just to yell political obscenities. Totally not pathetic, totally normal, all cool - all just to protect your fragile consistent logical identity (with a legal exception). Man, you are pathetic, and amusing.

Sports award show? It would depend on what award, the recipient and what was said, you know: context. The thing I've been consistent about all along. Your reading comprehension issues show up in nearly every post, you think I have conflicting worlds colliding. Ironic, right after your professed consistent across the board methodology was revealed to have an exception, talk about conflicting...

I have enjoyed this, but I suspect you'll get the last word, unless you can come up with a compelling reason for further amusement.

When you need to resort to illegal activities to support your position, thats the sign your position is wrong.

(and being consistently inconsistent doesnt support you position either.)

 

[ThorneStockton]

When you need to resort to illegal activities to support your position, thats the sign your position is wrong.

Another reading comprehension fail: "I'm not proposing illegal activities to support my position, I proposed a hypothetical to reveal that your position isn't as firm as you professed."

 

[notlongago]

Another reading comprehension fail: "I'm not proposing illegal activities to support my position, I proposed a hypothetical to reveal that your position isn't as firm as you professed."

a hypothetical illegal activity.

 

[ThorneStockton]

a hypothetical illegal activity.

Yes. Not in support of my position. My position is that that illegal activity is also pathetic. It was a hypothetical that demonstrated you weren't so consistent in application of your logical methodology across the board.

 

[notlongago]

You dont like that my position is consistent while yours is arbitrary (you call it "context"), so youve spent the last handful of posts lobbing hypothetical situations hoping to catch me in a "gotcha" so you can turn the inconsistent argument on me as I have done to you, yea? So far, the only way youve found to accomplish that is by proposing an illegal activity, correct? You still have not proposed a situation where my logic doesnt hold true, assuming the situation is all legal.

 

[ThorneStockton]

You dont like that my position is consistent while yours is arbitrary (you call it "context"), so youve spent the last handful of posts lobbing hypothetical situations hoping to catch me in a "gotcha" so you can turn the inconsistent argument on me as I have done to you, yea? So far, the only way youve found to accomplish that is by proposing an illegal activity, correct? You still have not proposed a situation where my logic doesnt hold true, assuming the situation is all legal.

Again you misunderstand, I don't dislike your position, I find your position amusing, what is more amusing is how you'll twist or condone something in order to maintain your appearance of a "logical" thinker, like it's an identity. This aspect is what has made you entertaining, it's not dislike.

You've also made a fool of yourself by giving "clearance" to disrupting classrooms and workplaces with political expletives all just to remain logically consistent. So that was also amusing.

It's a shame you view a breach in consistent logic as a mere "gotcha", but I suppose that's what happens when you back yourself into a bright line rule with your keen implementation of logic.

 

[notlongago]

Again you misunderstand, I don't dislike your position, I find your position amusing, what is more amusing is how you'll twist or condone something in order to maintain your appearance of a "logical" thinker, like it's an identity. This aspect is what has made you entertaining, it's not dislike.

You've also made a fool of yourself by giving "clearance" to disrupting classrooms and workplaces with political expletives all just to remain logically consistent. So that was also amusing.

It's a shame you view a breach in consistent logic as a mere "gotcha", but I suppose that's what happens when you back yourself into a bright line rule with your keen implementation of logic.

What is unfortunate is you see intellectual consistency as some sort of fault. I havent twisted anything, but yes, ill condone a lot. Dont conflate or confuse condonation with support nor shirking of consequences from those actions though.

 

[ThorneStockton]

What is unfortunate is you see intellectual consistency as some sort of fault. I havent twisted anything, but yes, ill condone a lot. Dont conflate or confuse condonation with support nor shirking of consequences from those actions though.

What is unfortunate is you think simplifying away all nuance, context, or complexities is somehow intellectual. Of course you twisted your logical consistency to make a illegal/legal exception. If we legislated "FVCK JOE BIDEN" chants as illegal, does it all of a sudden become asinine? Nice application of principles there.

There's no need to condone the absurd or the pathetic just in the name of fitting into some simple little cozy and lazy "logical" box. It makes you look like a fool.

Of course I don't actually think you're genuine. If your kid's class was consistently interrupted by teachers, administrators and fellow students shouting political expletives, I don't expect you'd say: "Welp, my kid could just tune it out, there is my logical consistency I have to consider". No, you'd realize it's absolute nonsense and inappropriate given the time, place, manner and effects.

 

[notlongago]

What is unfortunate is you think simplifying away all nuance, context, or complexities is somehow intellectual. Of course you twisted your logical consistency to make a illegal/legal exception. If we legislated "FVCK JOE BIDEN" chants as illegal, does it all of a sudden become asinine? Nice application of principles there.

There's no need to condone the absurd or the pathetic just in the name of fitting into some simple little cozy and lazy "logical" box. It makes you look like a fool.

Of course I don't actually think you're genuine. If your kid's class was consistently interrupted by teachers, administrators and fellow students shouting political expletives, I don't expect you'd say: "Welp, my kid could just tune it out, there is my logical consistency I have to consider". No, you'd realize it's absolute nonsense and inappropriate given the time, place, manner and effects.

Using the law as guide rails for my position is not "twisted". Its another extremely logical position.
If we legislated a political statement like that, that would be an infringement on the first amendment, and killed so quickly in the courts, the ink wouldnt be dried on the signature - another asinine hypothetical from you.

I couldnt really care less if you think im genuine, you change your position faster than the wind changes direction to suit your winding road of logic and call it "context" so you're not some sort of bastion . As to your last point, I would expect the administration to keep control of the situation, if they dont, I would find alternate schooling options. Like I said, condonation does not equate to support nor freedom of consequence.

 

[ThorneStockton]

Using the law as guide rails for my position is not "twisted". Its another extremely logical position.
If we legislated a political statement like that, that would be an infringement on the first amendment, and killed so quickly in the courts, the ink wouldnt be dried on the signature - another asinine hypothetical from you.

I couldnt really care less if you think im genuine, you change your position faster than the wind changes direction to suit your winding road of logic and call it "context" so you're not some sort of bastion . As to your last point, I would expect the administration to keep control of the situation, if they dont, I would find alternate schooling options. Like I said, condonation does not equate to support nor freedom of consequence.

What do you know, another twist in your logic. Exceptions: if something is illegal, or if it's something that you have faith would be be remedied by the courts because of the constitution.

Of course you haven't been able to actually point out any change in my position, because it's remained consistent. You know, rather than making broad overarching positions based on "logic", I form my positions based on the unique circumstances and the respective fact patterns, acknowledging that it's utterly stupid to try and simplify things down in order to fit my cozy little "logic" box.

Yeah, you'd find alternative schooling options rather than saying: "You know this isn't right, we can do better than this, there should be standards for behaviors and conduct and they should be enforced." What a coward.

 

[notlongago]

What do you know, another twist in your logic. Exceptions: if something is illegal, or if it's something that you have faith would be be remedied by the courts because of the constitution.

Of course you haven't been able to actually point out any change in my position, because it's remained consistent. You know, rather than making broad overarching positions based on "logic", I form my positions based on the unique circumstances and the respective fact patterns, acknowledging that it's utterly stupid to try and simplify things down in order to fit my cozy little "logic" box.

Yeah, you'd find alternative schooling options rather than saying: "You know this isn't right, we can do better than this, there should be standards for behaviors and conduct and they should be enforced." What a coward.

Such vitriol.
To overtly address your first point - I would honor it as long it were law. I'm telling you that duration would be incredibly short, ergo, your hypothetical = asinine.

All your position is is change. You have no baseline, you have no compass, you seem to make your decisions arbitrarily with no regard to precedent.

Do better based on who's standards? Yours? Thank-you, no.
(And for someone who ridicules reading comprehension so extensively, you may wanna look in the mirror. For the 3rd time now I'm stating those behaviors are not immune from consequence)

 

[globalhawk]

Out of curisoity, do you see award shows as a platform for political opinions, or do you consider that "odd, pathetic and worthy of pity" as well? If not, whats your rationale?

Was the audience chanting F J B?

 

[ThorneStockton]

Such vitriol.
To overtly address your first point - I would honor it as long it were law. I'm telling you that duration would be incredibly short, ergo, your hypothetical = asinine.

All your position is is change. You have no baseline, you have no compass, you seem to make your decisions arbitrarily with no regard to precedent.

Do better based on who's standards? Yours? Thank-you, no.
(And for someone who ridicules reading comprehension so extensively, you may wanna look in the mirror. For the 3rd time now I'm stating those behaviors are not immune from consequence)

I'm curious what relevance you think your statements about behaviors not being immune from consequence has? I read it each time and disregarded it as irrelevant, just like your questions about whose opinion is more important, or who is equally educated about a topic. I figured it was just part of your schtick.

How does it fit into your logic?

 

[notlongago]

I'm curious what relevance you think your statements about behaviors not being immune from consequence has? I read it each time and disregarded it as irrelevant, just like your questions about whose opinion is more important, or who is equally educated about a topic. I figured it was just part of your schtick.

How does it fit into your logic?

Im not sure whats unclear about it? Just because I believe someone (or a group of people) has the bandwidth to interject political commentary outside of political settings doesnt mean I dont believe there arent consequences to those actions, which includes, "...there should be standards for behaviors and conduct and they should be enforced." (as you put it)

To put it as simply as I can: I dont believe in telling people what they can't do (qualifier of law here). I do believe in telling people they can do XYZ, but these are the potential results (again, qualifier of law).

 

[ThorneStockton]

Im not sure whats unclear about it? Just because I believe someone (or a group of people) has the bandwidth to interject political commentary outside of political settings doesnt mean I dont believe there arent consequences to those actions, which includes, "...there should be standards for behaviors and conduct and they should be enforced." (as you put it)

To put it as simply as I can: I dont believe in telling people what they can't do (qualifier of law here). I do believe in telling people they can do XYZ, but these are the potential results (again, qualifier of law).

That's great. Nothing was unclear about it. If you understood my post, you'd identify that I was questioning the relevance of the repeated comments, in the context of our logic discussion.

At this point, I think we've beaten the shit out of the horse and its losing its entertainment value.

 

[IamHawkeye]

GRAB YOUR GUNS, BEAT UP COPS AND TAKE ON ALL THE SUCKERS AND LOSERS WHO LOVE THEIR COUNTRY OVER TRUMP. LIBERATE COVID!

I guess it's all right to chant that word in front of kids, but DONT LET THEM
SEE IT IN SCHOOL LIBRARY BOOKS1