 |
Rather sad that she has no concern whatsoever for the thousands of black people killed every year by other black people. It's not politically appealing, so she says nothing about it, just like the liberal dems on this board say nothing about it. She has no concern about the hundreds of black children killed in abortion DAILY and, in fact, celebrates it.Quote:
"We’ve got to get justice in this country and we cannot allow these killings to continue."
"Strain out a gnat and swallow a camel."
You certainly swallowed that camel, but why single out black people?
Because Black lives Matter, man!Quote:
but why single out black people?
It's all about 'Black lives'...you fail to recognize.
Pretend you have the very rare anemia called aplastic anemia, JL. You're in the ICU, getting your first transfusion. I'm your hematologist and say, "I'm going to fight for you, JL! We will do our best to get you feeling better and back home!"Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Do you see a gun in my hands? Am I pulling the medical staff together to commit violence?
They've been singled out and denigrated since the first slave ship left Africa for America in the early 1600s. After centuries of being told you don't matter, you believe it and don't care about yourself or anyone else.Quote:
but why single out black people?
Huh. That same argument could have been used for Mr. Trump. Unsurprisingly, you didn't bother to make it, despite the fact that he plainly advocated for a peaceful gathering. I wonder why you apply that logic to Waters, who is as unhinged as they get, and not to Trump. Political prejudice???Quote:
Pretend you have the very rare anemia called aplastic anemia, JL. You're in the ICU, getting your first transfusion. I'm your hematologist and say, "I'm going to fight for you, JL! We will do our best to get you feeling better and back home!"
I have no idea what you're talking about. And you totally missed my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Agreed.Quote:
I have no idea what you're talking about.
I understood your point exactly.Quote:
And you totally missed my point.
All lives matter, when you grasp that, you see the problem in a different light. How come no one is chanting kids lives matterQuote:
Originally Posted by waltero
That comment couldn't be more ignorant or more ridiculous. It ignores months of inciting and rhetoric to his followers that the election would be rigged if he lost. When he did lose, Trump went on a tear - still going on by that sociopath - that the election was stolen, a mantra heard loudly and often from the insurrectionists.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
No, political REALITY! Maxine Waters is a passionate advocate for her side and always has been. Her use of the word fight means she will work on behalf of those in question, as anybody with eyes can clearly see. Your comment shows that you are only semi-literate and cannot process language.Quote:
I wonder why you apply that logic to Waters, who is as unhinged as they get, and not to Trump. Political prejudice???
A Trump devotee calling Waters unhinged is an incredible feat of upside-down-ism.
Because no kids are available to do chanting. But Democratic Party adults have been metaphorically chanting louder and louder for decades. Every time they chant (try to pass gun legislation) the Republicans (an arm of the NRA) shoot them down (pun intended).Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
For your information, Black Lives Matter does NOT mean other lives don't matter. It means it's high time to acknowledge that Blacks are treated differently by the police than others. Often shot and killed for no legitimate reason. Don't believe me? Watch and listen to the media.
We don't always agree, but I completely agree with that. The very people who celebrate abortion want to wake up the next day and profess their supposed concern for life.Quote:
All lives matter, when you grasp that, you see the problem in a different light. How come no one is chanting kids lives matter.
The very people who fail to speak out against the police taking of black life, wake up the next day and complain about the termination of a fetus while ignoring the fully human lives ended.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I haven't met those people. I have met the others.Quote:
The very people who fail to speak out against the police taking of black life, wake up the next day and complain about the termination of a fetus while ignoring the fully human lives ended.
I have. YOU.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Ignoring the fully human lives ended because ... um, they weren't white....Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
If you can show that to be true, then fine. Otherwise it's another Aquinas statement of yours. (Hint. It's another Aquinas statement.)Quote:
I have. YOU.
A completely racist statement, especially coming from someone who doesn't give a rat's rear end about the three hundred thousand black babies killed in abortion every year. Are they somehow not "fully human"? What a wildly bizarre statement. Can you explain why you apparently believe some people are less than "fully human"? Are you suggesting that unborn children are not "fully human"? And if so, and I fully suspect it is so, then in what way are they less than "fully human"???Quote:
Ignoring the fully human lives ended because ... um, they weren't white....
I'm happy to associate it with the Aquinas statement since both are true. You seem obsessed with Aquinas.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
And you know this about me how?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Nah. Just remember the lying fashion in which you quoted him. It's a matter of record.Quote:
You seem obsessed with Aquinas.
It was a racist statement in that it was directed only at whites. You have passed on multiple opportunities to oppose abortion, so that's an easy one. But you can correct that now, and you can also answer what it means to be less than "fully human".Quote:
A completely racist statement, especially coming from someone who doesn't give a rat's rear end about the three hundred thousand black babies killed in abortion every year.
And you know this how?
You sound threatening, like a 3rd grade teacher.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
My Aquinas statement was explained to you since you didn't seem able to comprehend the point. It's a matter of record.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I notice that you deflected (avoided) from answering the Black Lives Matter explanation I made, the Trump rhetoric, the Maxine Waters use of "fight", and the Democratic response to the mass shootings while the Republicans did NOTHING.
Par for the course.
I comprehended that your “explanation” was a bunch of unsupported garbage with no other intention than to excuse what you did.
Your long winded statement was nonsense.
As I wrote, par for the course. No cogent responses.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Nothing cogent to respond to.
Another cry for peace from that famous peace-nik, Maxine Waters. "Asked about the Chauvin murder trial in nearby Minneapolis, Waters told reporters if the former police officer isn't found guilty of murdering Floyd, "We've got to stay on the street and we've got to get more active, we've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."
Judged in the court of public opinion, hard to see how he could get a fair trial even if he were innocent
There was plenty there. Read it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I see the problem! Some people don't know bad behavior let alone murder when they see it. Go ahead ask for evidence and show your utter ignorance.
I know and respect good cops, but the bad ones need prosecution. Like the female in Minnesota who mistook her own gun for a taser, and the cop in Chicago who shot a kid.
That just this week.
What do you suggest we do if he's not found guilty of murder - a murder witnessed by millions of people. Confrontation is mild. What is really needed is a revamping of police policies and procedures in every state in the union. And less idiocy from people like you.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The court of public opinion does not bring accused criminals to trial. As to the actual trial, it has been as fair as possible. The verdict is expected next week.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
So you're agreeing with MW that it would be OK to have riots if the verdict is innocent?Quote:
What do you suggest we do if he's not found guilty of murder - a murder witnessed by millions of people. Confrontation is mild. What is really needed is a revamping of police policies and procedures in every state in the union. And less idiocy from people like you.
You have no idea if that is true or not.Quote:
As to the actual trial, it has been as fair as possible.
She did not say that and you know she did not. Stop twisting words and their meanings to suit your bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Quote:
Fm Athos: As to the actual trial, it has been as fair as possible.
Of course, I do. I have an excellent idea. I've watched it every day. Sidebars with the Judge, witness testimonies, prosecutor's questions, defense questions, cross and re-direct examinations, videos of the murder, and the accused invoking the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination.Quote:
Fm Jl: You have no idea if that is true or not.
Ensuring fairness is a huge reason it is being televised.
Now I'll give you my opinion: The evidence is overwhelming that Chauvin is guilty as charged, way beyond a reasonable doubt.
You would have to be dense or very biased to equate confrontation with rioting.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Dead on to ALL the points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
It worked well enough for you guys with Trump. You had no problem in twisting his words to suit your bias, despite the fact he plainly spoke of a peaceful protest. Besides, say anything you want, but this does not sound peaceful to me. "We've got to stay on the street and we've got to get more active, we've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."Quote:
She did not say that and you know she did not. Stop twisting words and their meanings to suit your bias.
Then why is it you were so certain of this? "Not a single witness testified that Floyd likely would have survived if not for several underlying med conditions. NOT ONE! You're making this up out of whole cloth." How is it you were totally unaware that, as CNN reported, "Maryland's former chief medical examiner testified for Derek Chauvin's defense on Wednesday that George Floyd died due to his underlying heart disease -- not the police restraint." How did you manage to not know that, having watched it everyday as you claim to have done?Quote:
Of course, I do. I have an excellent idea. I've watched it every day. Sidebars with the Judge, witness testimonies, prosecutor's questions, defense questions, cross and re-direct examinations, videos of the murder, and the accused invoking the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination.
You are certainly welcome to your opinion.Quote:
Now I'll give you my opinion: The evidence is overwhelming that Chauvin is guilty as charged, way beyond a reasonable doubt.
His aides pleaded with him to say that AT THE END as his supporters were already headed toward the Capitol. For weeks NO! for MONTHS he had been whipping them up and being anything but peaceful in his rages and shouting.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Takeaways from Day 13 of the Derek Chauvin Trial - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
Quote:
Dr. David Fowler, a former chief medical examiner of Maryland who has testified in numerous high-profile police use-of-force cases, told jurors that he believed Mr. Floyd died after a combination of factors — including pre-existing heart conditions, drug use and exposure to vehicle exhaust from the police cruiser that he was next to — caused his heart to stop.
“You put all of those together, it’s very difficult to say which of those is the most accurate,” he said, characterizing Mr. Floyd’s cause of death as “undetermined.”
Quote:
Dr. Fowler’s testimony pointed to multiple possible causes of death other than Mr. Chauvin’s restraint: drug use, pre-existing heart conditions, even the exhaust from the vehicle that Mr. Floyd was pinned next to. Still, the prosecution came away with some victories, including that Dr. Fowler said sudden cardiac arrest is often reversible and that Mr. Floyd should have been given medical attention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
This is fully answered in post # 449 - both the Trump business and Maxine waters.
This one is answered in Tal's post #475.Quote:
Then why is it you were so certain of this? "Not a single witness testified that Floyd likely would have survived if not for several underlying med conditions. NOT ONE! You're making this up out of whole cloth." How is it you were totally unaware that, as CNN reported, "Maryland's former chief medical examiner testified for Derek Chauvin's defense on Wednesday that George Floyd died due to his underlying heart disease -- not the police restraint." How did you manage to not know that, having watched it everyday as you claim to have done?
Oh please. His rhetoric was no more aggressive than MW's. In fact, hers was moreso, or at least I think it was.Quote:
His aides pleaded with him to say that AT THE END as his supporters were already headed toward the Capitol. For weeks NO! for MONTHS he had been whipping them up and being anything but peaceful in his rages and shouting.
I don't read Tal's posts. You're the one who made the mistake. You need to clean it up. Just being honest enough to admit you missed it would be a good start.Quote:
This one is answered in Tal's post #475.
From newsweek.com fact check:Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
"Since the election in November, Trump and many of his allies have touted the unproven claims of mass election fraud. Former U.S. Attorney General William Barr announced in December that the Department of Justice uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election. All of the evidence Trump's team presented to try to prove voter fraud has been dismissed and he lost 61 of the 62 lawsuits filed challenging the presidential election results.
Still, up until the official certification of election results, Trump continued to push this false narrative to his most ardent supporters."
Then:
Trump reiterated "false claims that 'we won this election and we won it in a landslide'" and "willfully made statements that, in context, encourages and foreseeably resulted in lawless action at the Capitol." These statements include: "if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore."
The president did say that the crowd was going to march peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol. After the attack, Trump said he does not condone violence.
However, it does not necessarily mean the president did not incite violence with the rest of his speech or in his rhetoric prior to January 6.
"if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore."
Sounds a lot like this, doesn't it? "“They’re not going to be able to go to a restaurant, they’re not going to be able to stop at a gas station, they’re not going to be able to shop at a department store,” Waters said. “The people are going to turn on them, they’re going to protest, they’re going to absolutely harass them.”
Want to guess who said that?
If you don't read, you don't get your answer. Simple as that.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:02 PM. |