|
|
Post by pixiechick on Feb 6, 2022 4:36:50 GMT
I thoroughly enjoyed the show. I looked forward to each episode every week, and I looked forward to the writers' podcast every Friday. I hope they do a second season. I hope so too! |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Feb 6, 2022 4:25:26 GMT
I want you to know I didn't mean to offend anyone. Really, I swear this thread did not come from a bad place. I think it's an interesting topic to ponder. And, as with many topics here, one in which people will have all varieties of opinions. If anyone is taking this to heart to the point where they are offended, I believe they'll have to own that problem. It's not on you. This. And it IS an interesting question. With all the conflicting expectations on how and what to post, it's almost impossible to please everyone. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Feb 6, 2022 4:00:53 GMT
Something tells me this will happen or she resigns. It would be "better" for her if she did resign. I don't watch The View, but I think it's ridiculous to fire, or suspend someone when they make a mistake. You have a conversation, you don't silence them. And it seems to be a conversation that needs to be aired. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Feb 6, 2022 3:04:50 GMT
And *this* is who theyâre enabling. Itâs not *just* medical misinformation during a pandemic. NSFW (or anywhere really) Blatant and vile racism contained within. đ„ș Heâs also made very clear on his opinion of transgender people. Fuck this guy. Fuck Spotify. He's not calling people the n-word, he's conveying what someone else has said. Granted he could've, and you could even argue should've, used the term "the n-word", but that's very different than calling someone that word. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 30, 2022 23:42:11 GMT
I apologize, I missed the title change. Thank you for correcting that. Apology accepted, thank you for that. Last night I was just going to let this go, and maybe I should, I will probably regret this. After thinking about it, hereâs the other part of this thread that bothers me (in addition to deliberately posting only half of the story). The OP wants to talk about political violence on both sides of the aisle. However, she has not yet acknowledged Trumpâs role on Jan 6. She has not denounced him for inviting his supporters to DC, stirring them up and inciting a violent insurrection to overturn the results of a free and fair election. So I donât get accused of misquoting her, here are her exact words. This was a disgusting event by a bunch of dumbass thugs who lost their minds. If they ever even had one to begin with.
It was completely wrong and NEVER should have happened. Nothing about Trumpâs central role in the insurrection. How do you have a conversation about political violence if one side fails to recognize a sitting presidentâs role in inciting violence? That is not equal representation or reasoned conversation, despite her claims. Thank you for showing, without a doubt, that you will continue to demand very precise conformity and performance only on your time frame and yet showing that it will NEVER, EVER be good enough. Thank you for showing that reasoned conversation with you is not possible. I got it now, it has sunk in. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 30, 2022 5:16:55 GMT
Nice attempt at gas lighting and deflecting. More than 24 hours after it was pointed out to you that you left out half of the story and no changes to your post or title. Clearly, time wasn't the issue. I guess half truths are OK if you're the one posting. Any attempt at a reasoned conversation is disingenuous when you leave out significant important details. Despite your claim to the contrary, this was clearly a gotcha post. And not an equal representation. Throwing out more verifiable lies to see what sticks again, or a theatrical show of "See I can admit when I'm wrong."? I changed the title more than 10 HOURS ago. It's right there for you to see and verify for yourself, you don't even have to go digging or research it. Just read the damn title that you claim hasn't been changed and look at the edit time in the bottom right of the post. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 30, 2022 2:27:11 GMT
Thank you for recognizing the bias of the writer. Perhaps we could have had a more reasoned conversation if you initially posted the other half of the story. No thanks. I don't need lessons on what *I* should do to have a reasoned discussion from someone committed to not having one. No lessons needed from someone who will do anything to avoid the appearance of ever being wrong, including throwing all manner of verifiable lies out to see what sticks or in hopes that people will just give up and walk away from your bullshit. Not from someone who says something isnât true, demands proof and yet no amount of proof is ever good enough. Someone who when she can't find a way to dismiss a fact, moves the goal posts. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 29, 2022 18:37:15 GMT
Yeah, I looked at his Twitter Page. Yikes. Iâm just not sure that his take was fair and balanced. đ€đ„Ž Caleb Howe @calebhowe Senior Fellow of Wearing American Flag shirts. Ed. Mediaite. Write/Pub'd Blaze, PJM, USA Today, AmSpec, DW, RedState, NRO, fortune cookies, manifestos, napkins. It's a lesson to all of us to note both the outlet and the writer when assessing the credibility or potential bias of a source. Good point. I was not aware that it was a writer from the Blaze. I appreciate his explanation, but I can't be the only person who has never heard that phrase mean anything but an assault. I am 63. It was a poor choice of words. I do wonder if this is a regional thing. I used âbackhandedâ growing up. And I say that because my mother backhanded me several times as a teen. I was mouthy. đ€ But could it vary by region? ETA: It was a poor choice of words, since it has two very different meanings. You obviously are not the only one and I get what you're saying but I always try to see from the other side. The opposite can be true, some only know the term in the way he says it was meant. It was a poor choice of words from your (and some others) perspective but perhaps not his until it was pointed out. Just like different languages and dialects can be differently interpreted / misinterpreted, this can too. I realize none of this was said for my benefit, but I can appreciate that you were all honest enough to include your thoughts here that do go along with the others. Thank you for doing so. He knew exactly what the phrase means. Iâm so tired of assholes trying to make excuses for their behavior after theyâve been called out. I hear you. I'm taking the word of some very reasoned peas, that he has no history of this. I'm also taking into account the bio of the writer. (Merge made a good point) I'm with you in general though. Yeah, I knew something was amiss. Violence isn't his style at all. Old-fashioned idioms are though. I've seen no other history of "violence" in his posts, I follow. Heâs not. Heâs passionate, sure - but itâs reasoned passion, Iâve never seen him advocate violence - ever, and there is years of his written and spoken content out there. My first thought on reading the tweet was backhand - I'm glad he deleted the tweet and accept his explanation. This is where I'm at now. That's what reasoned conversation does. Thank you to those that did that. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 29, 2022 4:26:59 GMT
I feel confident that he meant the older, original use of the phrase. Mainly because Iâve read his writings for years, so I guess that itâs a judgement call. YMMV That's very telling too. I have never read anything from him, so yes, I was swayed by the article. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 29, 2022 4:12:07 GMT
No, I didn't leave it off. You even quoted me with it in there. I bolded and underlined it since, you missed it. Lol, ok, sorry. you did say rebuke-although you left out the rest of it. You seem to be sure that he meant the first definition. Why is that? Obviously, I'd have to be a mind reader to truly know without a doubt what he meant to convey. And I'm not. But these points ARE very telling: âBack of the handâ can also be used idiomatically to mean rebuke. But then, so can the word ârebuke.â Reich chose the words he used." Previously, when he was chastising others for their rhetoric... "Reich was clear that the implications of rhetoric are the responsibility of the person speaking. Still, at this time Reich has taken no responsibility for his own violent imagery." |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 29, 2022 4:06:05 GMT
Nice. I've never read a book? I did read about the issue from the Left leaning Mediaite <Link  âBack of the handâ can also be used idiomatically to mean rebuke. But then, so can the word ârebuke.â Reich chose the words he used." Previously, when he was chastising others for their rhetoric... "Reich was clear that the implications of rhetoric are the responsibility of the person speaking. Still, at this time Reich has taken no responsibility for his own violent imagery." If you read it there as you claim, did you intentionally leave this part out? Reich deleted the tweet, but not before there was a big reaction, and many conservatives responded to him with a screenshot of the now-deleted tweet.
or this one, along with Reich's tweet wholeheartedly condemning violence At the time of this posting Reich has not apologized for the violent imagery in his tweet, instead, he blamed âconservative mediaâ for distorting and misinterpreting his remark.
If you read the article, perhaps a more balanced post or a more accurate, complete picture would have included the deleted tweet and the clarification. Since you chose to exclude that part from your post, this thread seems very much like a gotcha post, despite your claim. I have included the link to the entire article, so no, nothing was left out. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 29, 2022 3:53:33 GMT
Nice. I've never read a book? I did read about the issue from the Left leaning Mediaite <Link âBack of the handâ can also be used idiomatically to mean rebuke. But then, so can the word ârebuke.â Reich chose the words he used."Previously, when he was chastising others for their rhetoric... "Reich was clear that the implications of rhetoric are the responsibility of the person speaking. Still, at this time Reich has taken no responsibility for his own violent imagery." You left off the second meaning on that web page: idioms.thefreedictionary.com/give+someone+the+back+of+your+hand#:~:text=give%20(someone)%20the%20back%20of%20(one's)%20hand&text=2.,the%20back%20of%20her%20hand. The first meaning, which you cited, is the more modern meaning. The second meaning is the older, original one. back of one's hand, to give (someone) the To show contempt, to insult. âHereâs the back of my hand to you,â wrote Jonathan Swift (1738), perhaps signifying a challenging farewell. The back of the hand, of course, consists of knuckles, so the expression may once have meant a punch. Similarly, a backhanded compliment is actually malicious in intent. See also: back, give, of, to No, I didn't leave it off. You even quoted me with it in there. I bolded and underlined it since, you missed it. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 29, 2022 3:36:55 GMT
Perhaps if any of these outraged people had ever read a book, theyâd know that. Reminds me of the blowup over the use of the word âniggardlyâ a while back. That is exactly what went through my mind! Nice. I've never read a book? I did read about the issue from the Left leaning Mediaite <Link âBack of the handâ can also be used idiomatically to mean rebuke. But then, so can the word ârebuke.â Reich chose the words he used." Previously, when he was chastising others for their rhetoric... "Reich was clear that the implications of rhetoric are the responsibility of the person speaking. Still, at this time Reich has taken no responsibility for his own violent imagery." |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 29, 2022 3:29:50 GMT
>Here. 4th post on the page. You even responded to it. >And here. 5th post on the page. Congratulations, you acknowledged the role of dumbass thugs in the insurrection on Jan 6 and you acknowledged Biden won the election. Neither of those posts are a criticism of Trump. Where are your posts condemning the many players involved, particularly Trump, in the events leading up to Jan 6? Where are your posts condemning his role in inciting a riot and attempting to overturn the results of a free and fair election? Where are your posts condemning him for his inaction on Jan 6? Or his false claims of election fraud? 2 posts out of 1,063 after his presidency. Where are your posts during his 4 years in office or the year that he was running for election? WTF is wrong with you? You want people to speak up. They do. You demand proof. They show you. It's NEVER good enough. Nothing short of complete lockstep, will ever be good enough for you. I let you know AND APOLOGIZE when I get it wrong. You NEVER do. I speak up when I agree. Perhaps as you made excuses for the Left's silence, my post count is lacking because as you said "can be any number of reasons - choosing to not pick fights, not everyone reads every thread, or perhaps not something to get worked up over." Or does that only apply one way as so many other things you apply here. Huh, I just can't imagine why conservatives don't participate much here anymore.   |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 29, 2022 3:08:41 GMT
Back of the hand could be interpreted several ways. He deleted the post and his clarification condemning violence in absolute terms can't be interpreted in several ways. And Reich takes no personal responsibility? He deleted the post. You were here, posting on other threads. I can see why searching your history for criticism of Democrats could take a while. Sorry if asking you to edit a misleading or incomplete post is unreasonably pushy or demanding.Deleting the post, blaming others for HIS choice of words, and not apologizing for his violent imagery against a woman that didn't vote the way he demanded, is not taking responsibility. You wouldn't let that be described as taking responsibility by ANYONE on the right. You would never let that stand. And I said "You're being a bit unreasonably pushy and demanding that things get done in your time frame."
You left off the last part of my sentence. You have a bad habit of doing that. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 29, 2022 2:50:17 GMT
Not OK when anyone on either side encourages violence. I think it's also important to add this, Robert Reich deleted the tweet and posted this. Not really an equal representation. Perhaps you could edit your post or title. From the Left leaning > MediaiteâBack of the handâ can also be used idiomatically to mean rebuke. But then, so can the word ârebuke.â Reich chose the words he used." Previously, when he was chastising others for their rhetoric... "Reich was clear that the implications of rhetoric are the responsibility of the person speaking. Still, at this time Reich has taken no responsibility for his own violent imagery." From the Left leaning > Mediate
For someone who likes to zone in on particulars and details, point out inaccuracies etc., it's interesting to me that pixiechick so far has neglected to edit her own misleading or incomplete post or title. Holy hell. It doesn't occur to you that people do other things besides this board or what? Beside the fact that when I did comeback YOU had asked me to provide proof of something I said on another thread, so I was getting that. You're being a bit unreasonably pushy and demanding that things get done in your time frame. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 29, 2022 2:11:02 GMT
When & where did you condemn Jan 6? Or his false claims of winning the election? 4th post on the page. You even responded to it. >And here. 5th post on the page. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 28, 2022 23:30:17 GMT
I have not been silent about him for 5 years. I don't agree with every assessment posted about him, but when I do agree with the assessment, I have said so, OR "for any number of reasons, I don't read every thread, or perhaps it wasn't something to get worked up over." When exactly were you not silent? When did you agree with a negative assessment? When did you call trump out on anything? There have been plenty of things he's done to get worked up over. On the front page alone, there are threads about the Jan 6 committee, his family's grifting, covid etc. I have condemned Jan 6 and the ridiculous notion that he said he won. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 28, 2022 22:50:15 GMT
Clinton era labor secretary who rightfully condemns such things from the Right didn't see anything wrong with doing so himself. I know it'll be condemned here, it's not being posted as any kind of gotcha. Just equal representation of current events to discuss.  |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 28, 2022 22:27:50 GMT
Another false premise, false comparison and false equivalency. Which is exactly why most of the time you get called out for your whataboutisms. Calling conservatives out for whataboutisms as "nothing but deflection, trolling, crazy, derailing the thread and all around demonized as nothing but a tactic and then the Left turning around and doing it themselves is spot on equal comparison. Silence on your part when trump did something inexcusable is acceptance. And again, there's no expiration date on criticizing him, he continues to say reprehensible things. And you continue to remain silent, you've been silent for 5 years. I have not been silent about him for 5 years. I don't agree with every assessment posted about him, but when I do agree with the assessment, I have said so, OR "for any number of reasons, I don't read every thread, or perhaps it wasn't something to get worked up over." And which is it, you were here years ago or not? Just recently you claimed to be here during the Clinton scandal. I was on the old board and I've been here since this one started up. I was not here when conservatives were complaining about whataboutisms from the Left. You seem confused about what I said and confused that I wasn't here when I said I was, which Clinton scandal are you talking about that I "said I was here for"? |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 28, 2022 16:30:12 GMT
I wasn't here then. If you all don't like it when conservatives did it and "you" tried to put a stop to it then, why is it suddenly acceptable now? I never said it was acceptable. I said it is what it is. It isn't going to change. As long as people are going to call out the sitting President for a behavior that the previous President did, and they didn't call out the previous President, whataboutism isn't going to change. Crap, Hillary got brought up by Trumpers and she wasn't even the President. You don't have to say it. When it was always called out with major piles-ons whenever a conservative did it and most aren't calling it out now, it IS acceptance. As has been stated just recently, silence is acceptance. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 28, 2022 14:54:44 GMT
It was NEVER acceptable when it came from conservatives. It was labeled as deflection, trolling, crazy, derailing the thread and all around demonized as nothing but a tactic. Interesting how it's now acceptable when it suits your deflection and tactics. It was never acceptable for liberals when we talked about Bush compared to Obama. It is the same on both sides. I wasn't here then. If you all don't like it when conservatives did it and "you" tried to put a stop to it then, why is it suddenly acceptable now? |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 28, 2022 14:29:53 GMT
For the peas who don't like the "Whataboutism", it is a forever fact of life. Obama got brought up constantly during the Trump presidency. It is what it is. It was NEVER acceptable when it came from conservatives. It was labeled as deflection, trolling, crazy, derailing the thread and all around demonized as nothing but a tactic. Interesting how it's now acceptable when it suits your deflection and tactics. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 28, 2022 1:46:19 GMT
The Pfizer trials involved 43,000 plus people. None of the trails insurance I worked on came close to tens of thousands of subjects used during the three phases or even if there was a fourth phase of a trial.  |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 26, 2022 18:46:18 GMT
You said: "I have become increasingly disappointed with peas on "my side." The hypocrisy and whataboutisms are out of hand, don't do anyone any good, and I see it here all the time. It would be lovely to have discussions without them." I'm not really sure how those of us who disagreed with you were supposed to take that. What I saw, not unreasonably I think, is that you'd gone from censuring Biden to censuring those who aren't willing to call him to task for this incident. And then you made the comment that you'd rather have discussions without us. Perhaps you can clarify. I don't want to speak for Michy but I read her "them" not as people, but the whataboutisms. I don't want to have discussions without people who disagree with me. But I'd like to have a discussion without comparing everything to Trump. Me, not speaking for Michy. I would like to believe that Trump was an outlier and is not the new standard for behavior. We can all stand to do better. With that said, I was bothered by Biden's comment, but I can understand where it came from and I give him kudos for owning it and apologizing. Everyone gets heated from time to time. And that's my opinion on the matter. He did NOT apologize. "it's nothing personal, pal" is not an apology. Would you accept that as a real apology from Trump? And if its honestly a different question would you accept that as a real apology from any republican? The hypocrisy and whataboutisms are out of hand, don't do anyone any good, and I see it here all the time. It would be lovely to have discussions without them." I don't speak for Michy either, but I'm pretty sure this is the point she was making. You quoted 3 sentences. You'd have to completely ignore the sentence in the middle to make the mistake? leap? that you made. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 26, 2022 18:31:02 GMT
For swearing? For use of language? I can find absolutely nothing. If there is evidence, I will happily admit I am wrong. I don't know about swearing specifically, but I have heard them disagree with him, say what he should have said/done instead of what he did/said, call him out and such on "all manner of things Trump" through the years. I catch it when they do, because I usually agree with them. Not always, but usually. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 26, 2022 5:37:34 GMT
Talk about doddering - but it's drugs, not old age. The dude needs help. Hunter was a raging drug addict. With Hunter we know for certain it was drugs. Do we KNOW it's drugs with Jr? Or is it idiotically tweeting while drinking? I agree. But itâs a tiny blip for me. I do think that he needs to talk more about how inflation is a worldwide problem, and give updates on supply chain shortages. He could have taken it as an opportunity to reassure Americans about it. Instead, he decided to stoop to a level supposedly beneath him. I think if he said it directly to the reporter intentionally in a room full of reporters, I might feel differently. But, if the reporters were leaving and he kind of said it under his breath? I'm OK with that and willing to give him a pass, as long as he doesn't make a regular habit of it. He DID say it intentionally. HE chose those words and chose to say them. And I don't think it makes it better. Integrity is doing the right thing, even when you think no one is watching. Or listening in this case. He was given an opportunity to reassure Americans about inflation and the choice HE made was to insult a reporter instead. He actually does make a habit of snapping at reporters and people. He did several times during his campaign, he did it at this press conference, he did it last week to a reporter and I believe there was another one last week or the week before. So he doesn't deserve a pass based on the idea that he doesn't make a habit of it, because he clearly does make a habit of it. I donât really care that it happened though because him calling to apologize just elevates him. No deflecting, no blaming others, no pretending it didnât happen or that it was okay. Thatâs how we teach our children - when youâre in the wrong, and you absolutely will be at times because you are human, you humble yourself and apologize. He didn't apologize. His words "it's nothing personal, pal" is not an apology and sure does make it seem like he thinks it was okay. I don't recall Fox news ever calling out Trump. Do you watch Fox news? I've heard them call him out many, many, many times in the last 5-6 years. I have become increasingly disappointed with peas on "my side." The hypocrisy and whataboutisms are out of hand, don't do anyone any good, and I see it here all the time. It would be lovely to have discussions without them. This. SO MUCH THIS. And the fact that Biden actually called afterward to apologize more than redeems the slight infraction. Biden actually called afterward to apologize more than redeems the slight infraction. Especially since he apologized later. Itâs just providing a little clearer picture who this guy is. He made a mistake, took responsibility and called to apologize. "It's nothing personal, pal." is not an apology by any stretch of the imagination. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 22, 2022 23:53:52 GMT
He mis-spoke and tried to correct it. Yes, his statement was awkward and certainly could have been phrased better. The point he was trying to make was that poor children of all races deserve a chance. âWe have this notion that somehow if youâre poor, you cannot do it. Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.â
he immediately tried to clarify with, âWealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids. No, I really mean it. But think how we think about it. We think how weâre going to dumb it down. They can do anything anybody else can do, given a shot.âAnd the reality is that a higher percentage of Hispanic and black children live in poverty compared to white children www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/30/prior-to-covid-19-child-poverty-rates-had-reached-record-lows-in-u-s/Even so, Black and Hispanic children were still about three times as likely as Asian (7%) and White (8%) children to be living in poverty.I get this and I appreciate the clarity on all these comments. This one still doesnt sit right with me. That makes sense that it doesn't. Especially when, as you said, "If it's not right, it's not right. No matter which side does it." |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 22, 2022 16:06:14 GMT
pixiechick I didn't participate in that thread at all. But I'll tell you now that I don't think Biden words were right. I think they were racist. Certainly inappropriate. There are a lot of political posts I just skim because the arguments get really tiresome. Including this thread. It doesn't change my point. The republican party has a real problem with racism. I wonder if Biden thinking shifted after working with Obama? I think it was you on the thread about rainbow grandson said sometimes we need firsthand experience to change our thinking about things. I wonder if that was true for him? I really do understand your being tired of the arguments. That's why I enjoy discussing with you, you don't include personal attacks, which let's the conversation flow. On topic. Personal attacks are what really derail a thread. As far as him needing personal experience in being called out for being racist, it doesn't seem to be helping. He's still making racist comments. All of that aside, what Biden said 15 years ago wasnât OK. It wasn't just 15 years ago. It's an ongoing CURRENT racist issue with Biden himself. Only about 6 months ago Biden explained that the reason Latinos in America don't want the vaccine is because âtheyâre worried that theyâll be vaccinated and deported.â As if all Latinos in this country are illegal immigrants that need to be removed. As if it never occurred to Biden that 10s of millions are citizens of THIS country. Mid 2020 "If you don't know whether to vote for me or Trump, then you ain't black." and again "unlike the African American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things." As if all black people just flat out think alike. What incredibly ignorant, racist statements these are coming from Joe Biden. Again in mid 2020 in response to a question he didn't like asking if HE had taken a cognitive test, he tried to deflect by suggesting the black reporter was a drug addict. "Thatâs like saying you . . . before you got in this program, youâre take a test whether youâre taking cocaine or not. What do you think? Huh? Are you a junkie?" Yet again in mid 2020, "Black entrepreneurs don't have lawyers and don't have accountants." As if only black people can be low on funding. Mid 2019 "Poor Kids Are Just As Bright' As White Kids" as if only people of color can be poor. ...and on and on. Going back to 15 years ago and beyond. See? There's the difference. Thank you aj2hall Biden was called out. He recognized the level of offense. He wants to do better. But, he didn't recognize, he's not doing better. His racist comments are being dismissed as so "15 years ago", but they aren't. They are current and ongoing. we all make mistakes, and a very good way to atone is to sincerely apologize and mean it. If you keep doing it, do you really mean it? I also think that we have to look at the big picture and the actions that people are taking on a regular basisâincluding the policies that they are trying to enact or block. The big picture is Biden continues to make racist comments to this day and he is excused. The big picture is the Left uses racism as a weapon in response to disagreeing with their policies. As if the only possible reason you can disagree is because you are a racist. The Right can't possibly have other. better. ideas. Only the Left has those. It's a way to OTHER those on the Right. In the end, using race in that way, IS downright racist and it's watering down ACTUAL racism. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Jan 22, 2022 2:56:27 GMT
Is not saying something on here agreement? Is "silence" acceptance? Yeah, I think it is. And I'll tell you why...there are thread upon thread about what Republicans are up to. The latest is the Mitch McConnell thread. Not one of you who love to argue about President Biden's gaffes came into that thread and said a word about what McConnell said, except Keri. What is that bible saying about not taking the plank out of your own eye? So many of the Democratic peas on these threads have said that Biden's former words were not OK. Where is the same consideration from conservatives? If it's not right, it's not right. No matter which side does it. It would be really nice if conservatives could take a look at some of the elements of your party. I was a Republican, voting and working. And are there racist amongst the Democrats, most likely yes. But there is open racism, xenophobia and misogyny in the Republican party. It's gross and overwhelming. I don't want to be associated with that, no matter how much I want to curb wasteful government spending or how much I like my current healthcare plan. I just can't overlook it. I don't know how you do, honestly. Thank you for taking the time to answer me. I agree with some of what you said and disagree with some. So many of the Democratic peas on these threads have said that Biden's former words were not OK. It really wasn't "so many". I read it and didn't see what you saw, so I counted. Out of 34 in the other thread and how many in this thread? only 4 people on the Left between the 2 threads have addressed anything at all about Biden's racist words. One was Lucy who excused and dismissed the significance of Biden's racist words 3 times. The second one was PCA who gave a very generic version about "politicians" in general (not Biden specifically) (the very thing AJ2Hall called out someone on the Right for doing) in order to move quickly back to hand slapping someone on the Right. A third was AJ2Hall, once said as little as possible in order to do the same thing as PCA, moving quickly back to admonishing someone on the Right and repeatedly withlots to say. And a second time to excuse Biden's racist words. The fourth was mollycoddle who excused and dismissed Biden's racist words with snark. 30 on that thread of 34 on the Left were in complete silence about Biden's racist words. Including the people that answered my question about silence is agreement. Including you. So I disagree that "So many of the Democratic peas on these threads have said that Biden's former words were not OK." If I missed someone or something, I'm open to correction. The only real conclusion to draw is that you agree with them. đ€·đŒââïž I haven't been here in several days. I have only just NOW been able to come back and participate. I had just enough time this morning to ask a question in response to iamKristen (and others) saying you can't be taken seriously or have a discussion without condemning your own. So the only CORRECT conclusion you can draw from MY "silence" is that I haven't been here. I'm here now, I've read the threads, I'll go back through and respond in a bit. |
|
