That is disappointing. You are a poster I really admire. So be it.
1 Like
What is so difficult to understand about the OP? If anybody hasn’t done so, I second that. All in favor, say aye.
1 Like
To quote yourself:
][quote=“toreyj01, post:79, topic:229064”]
That is disappointing. You are a poster I really admire. So be it.
[/quote
Your post was directed at only one side.
You could have replied, “Well, I didn’t really mean for my statement to come across as one sided…” But no, you chose to denigrate me for pointing out what you said.
So be it.
Libs in this thread took umbrage at the notion that they have done precisely what is being paid on Conservatives.
I gave examples from three such libs. I really don’t want to have to do it for you too.
3 Likes
Relax bud
Damn. If that post sounded bitter to you, I really can’t help you further.
Look. I gave you a quote of you doing what you and your lib colleagues are complaining about. That should be enough for you to slink away in shame. But I really don’t expect that from any lib here.
So be it.
1 Like
And stop…
1 Like
You are correct…
Yep. This COVID thing is the only time I’ve seen the claim of others wanting people to die, which is different from the claim of not being as concerned about it, which is what was showcased in the quotes. Relative concern over matters of death is a common political debate (ex, terrorism, drug policy, etc)
That’s my defense of the quotes attributed to you and I - which should be rightly allowed to be defended for the false equivalency, and the nature of the accusation, namely that I or you have claimed that others want people to die.
Level of concern when people die != actively hoping people die. The former is the root of political differences on matters related to security. The latter is just sociopathic.
2 Likes
Agreed. I’m glad you addressed it as I just didn’t have the energy. But you are 100% correct.
2 Likes
Nicely put.
A little credit should be given for not mentioning guns.
1 Like
But I guess that means ■■■■ all to you.
Typical.
Happy thoughts?
ahhh… the caveats!
I can’t say “you want people to die” to gain cheap political points (not that I would).
but
You can say I “don’t care if people die” to gain cheap political points (which you did)
seems a distinction without a difference
2 Likes
I did not say that. What I said was that circumstances of death in terms of significance are primary political topics when it comes to national policy on a variety of matter.
It’s why some care more when an illegal immigrant kills someone vs. a cop killing a black person. It’s not that they don’t care, it’s that they differ on its significance
However, hoping innocent people die would be like saying cons hope the black guy is killed. Which is of course absurd
1 Like
Being indifferent versus desiring. Seems like a distinction and a difference.
is the result different? no.
If i’m indifferent to people dying because it benefits my political viewpoint and as a result nothing is done to stop it… people die
If I desire people to die because it would benefit my political viewpoint and as a result nothing is done to stop it… people die
keep in mind, no-one has said anything about acting on either the indifference or desire.
It is literally a distinction without a difference.
We will have to disagree.
Yes. The first is regarding a practical policy decision, namely at what point does the Federal Government take action. Ex: someone drinks bleach and dies. Does this mean we should outlaw bleach? Of course not. The death is not significant enough to warrant a policy. Thus, the indifference.
However, hoping people drink bleach and die so that you CAN outlaw it, is sociopathic at best.
Both people die, but the personal motivation and personal reward/expectation is what we are discussing.
