Issues of a Domestic Nature (READ WARNING ON PAGE 1 BEFORE POSTING)

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Wrathe

Lurking in the shadows....
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
3,054
Reaction score
2,506
Points
113
Wait, I attacked a source?

I stated a source was biased. I didn't dismiss anything that came from the source because it was biased. There's a huge difference between the two and you're appearing to jump down my throat for absolutely nothing.
*sigh*

So, I'm not jumping down your throat, actually the entire tone of my post was pretty tame, albeit defeating in nature.
I even made sure to give you the benefit of knowing how to form an opinion based off of multiple sources.

Your quote, however: "What is this tweet--from an obviously biased source--trying to convey?"

Remove the prepositional phrase, and you're left w/ "What is this tweet trying to convey?" An honest, straightforward question. What is the value add of the omitted prepositional phrase if not to cast aspersions against the source?

I'm not trying to engage in an argument, in fact, that was the entire point of my post. There's no point in it. There's almost never an actual conversation. Here we are, again, talking about the conversation around the conversation. It's all so "meta" at this point.
 

Out of the Rafters at the Q

Out of the Rafters
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
7,852
Reaction score
12,398
Points
123
*sigh*

So, I'm not jumping down your throat, actually the entire tone of my post was pretty tame, albeit defeating in nature.
I even made sure to give you the benefit of knowing how to form an opinion based off of multiple sources.

Your quote, however: "What is this tweet--from an obviously biased source--trying to convey?"

Remove the prepositional phrase, and you're left w/ "What is this tweet trying to convey?" An honest, straightforward question. What is the value add of the omitted prepositional phrase if not to cast aspersions against the source?

I'm not trying to engage in an argument, in fact, that was the entire point of my post. There's no point in it. There's almost never an actual conversation. Here we are, again, talking about the conversation around the conversation. It's all so "meta" at this point.
I don't get the exasperation with the topic you raised.

The value add of the "from an obviously biased source" was simply to call out that the source was obviously biased. That doesn't discredit the source. It just helps to frame the conversation.

For instance, if we were discussing the MLB teams' negotiations, and something came out from the MLBPA, it would be helpful to realize that the MLBPA is certainly not an unbiased source here, and the things they say should also be viewed through the lens of "why are they putting this out there"?
 

Marcus

So Hot Right Now
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
13,119
Reaction score
12,238
Points
123
Big, big win for those that are pro-choice:


Interested to hear the thoughts from those that voted for Trump on the basis of having more conservative judges on the bench. This is just the latest in a string of SCOTUS decisions that have gone against traditional conservative views in recent weeks (LGBTQ and DACA being the others that I can think of off the top of my head).

@MediumBaller @Wrathe @cavsfan1985 etc.

ETA: I realize that my last statement may be taken as me painting conservatives with a broad brush; that is not my intent.
 
Last edited:

cavsfan1985

^ kind of a big deal!
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
5,306
Reaction score
3,540
Points
113
Big, big win for those that are pro-choice:


Interested to hear the thoughts from those that voted for Trump on the basis of having more conservative judges on the bench. This is just the latest in a string of SCOTUS decisions that have gone against traditional conservative views in recent weeks (LGBTQ and DACA being the others that I can think of off the top of my head).

@MediumBaller @Wrathe @cavsfan1985 etc.
I am not to familiar with this one. But the last 2 it did not bother me. I actually support the DACA and wish congress would take it up and solve it once and for all. I have a hard time sending a kid back, when they did not choose to come here, there parents forced them. These kids grew up in the US and IMO should be considered Americans.

For the LGBTQ case, this is another one where congress has failed us, this should have been passed a long time ago.

The only issue I have with the supreme court on these two cases, is that they are making law, and there job is to uphold and interpret the law. I also think the majority of America would agree with these two, and I wish both sides would get off there hands and make these into law the way the system is supposed to work.
 

-Akronite-

All-Star
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
8,802
Reaction score
8,411
Points
113
The only issue I have with the supreme court on these two cases, is that they are making law, and there job is to uphold and interpret the law. I also think the majority of America would agree with these two, and I wish both sides would get off there hands and make these into law the way the system is supposed to work.
In my opinion, the discrimination ruling was fair based on the court's interpretation of existing law (Civil Rights Act), but I can see the argument that it's on congress to make the extension of those protections to LGBT+ explicit through legislation. In the case of this abortion ruling, what's the law they are creating?
 

MediumBaller

All-Star
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
7,340
Reaction score
8,694
Points
113
Big, big win for those that are pro-choice:


Interested to hear the thoughts from those that voted for Trump on the basis of having more conservative judges on the bench. This is just the latest in a string of SCOTUS decisions that have gone against traditional conservative views in recent weeks (LGBTQ and DACA being the others that I can think of off the top of my head).

@MediumBaller @Wrathe @cavsfan1985 etc.

ETA: I realize that my last statement may be taken as me painting conservatives with a broad brush; that is not my intent.
This abortion one doesn't bother me. I don't want to have kids, so if my girlfriend ever got pregnant I would want her to get an abortion. Closing abortion clinics won't stop abortion, it'll just make it a lot less safe for the women trying to get abortion. For the LGBTQ case, I haven't looked at the actual case and why they ruled the way they did, but firing someone because they're gay is super effed up and shouldn't happen, so I was happy with that decision too. With DACA it sounded like the Court basically said you can't rescind it this way, go back and do it another way.

The Supreme Court gets most of the attention, but imho the lower courts are almost as important, so I'm glad Trump has been able to appoint a number of them. I'm sure the Supreme Court will make some decisions that I do disagree with, but I feel better with a 5-4 "conservative" majority (conservative in quotes since it's not supposed to be set up that way even though it is).
 

CleveRocks

There go the Cavs!
Browns Moderator
Administrator
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
6,328
Reaction score
3,489
Points
113
IDC about the politics of the supreme court as long as they are not changing the meaning of the constitution to implement laws that are not passed by the legislature. This is not a red or blue position. This is about how the law works at all. Legislation from the bench in as unwieldy as it is unworkable and leads to laws we cannot enforce.
 

Lee

Gold Star Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
25,571
Reaction score
31,307
Points
148


Not sure if this one is being discussed, but this is when protests go too far. Most of the media is talking about the home owners with weapons on a "peaceful" protest.

What is missing is there are around 500 protestors, not 100, some of the protestors are armed, and here is the big one, the protestors were in the wrong, the were trespassing on private property and tore down a gate to get to the private property, not so peaceful at all.

This is a perfect example of how both sides of the media spin articles, its quite frankly why i hate both sides. And to be clear, most of the protests are peaceful, but this one was 100% in the wrong.
 

Out of the Rafters at the Q

Out of the Rafters
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
7,852
Reaction score
12,398
Points
123


Not sure if this one is being discussed, but this is when protests go too far. Most of the media is talking about the home owners with weapons on a "peaceful" protest.

What is missing is there are around 500 protestors, not 100, some of the protestors are armed, and here is the big one, the protestors were in the wrong, the were trespassing on private property and tore down a gate to get to the private property, not so peaceful at all.

This is a perfect example of how both sides of the media spin articles, its quite frankly why i hate both sides. And to be clear, most of the protests are peaceful, but this one was 100% in the wrong.
I don't know all the details, but that article does state that the protesters were headed towards the Mayor, and other roads were blocked, so they took a different road.

It turns out that road was private.

I don't have a problem with protesters walking into a gated community as long as it's peaceful.

Sure it's trespassing, and against the law, but that's kinda the point of protesting... the laws and the system have been set up in an unfair way. Right? I'm all for showing that you can be defiant as long as you're also showing that you're above the chaos/panic/bullshit.

It sounds like these are the people who need to be confronted with reality rather than living in their little zone of isolation.

The article states that the protesters didn't destroy any property--using an open door next to the gates. But it sounds like the couple claims the protesters smashed down the gates to get in. Not sure what happened there.
 

Lee

Gold Star Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
25,571
Reaction score
31,307
Points
148
I don't know all the details, but that article does state that the protesters were headed towards the Mayor, and other roads were blocked, so they took a different road.

It turns out that road was private.

I don't have a problem with protesters walking into a gated community as long as it's peaceful.

It sounds like these are the people who need to be confronted with reality rather than living in their little zone of isolation.

The article states that the protesters didn't destroy any property--using an open door next to the gates. But it sounds like the couple claims the protesters smashed down the gates to get in. Not sure what happened there.
Other articles have pictures of the smashed down gate and I have HUGE problems with protestors going into a private community because its PRIVATE PROPERTY....how would you feel if 500 protestors were on your lawn, or back yard, its the same...its owned by the residences, you have ZERO right to be on that property and it is TRESPASSING.

PS, here is the picture of the gate that the article conveniently left out....doesn't take much research so the author knew...i picked it because it wasnt spin as bad as some....but you dont get to destroy private property to go onto private property in a protest, and this is by no means peaceful anymore.


1593543607222.png
 

-Akronite-

All-Star
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
8,802
Reaction score
8,411
Points
113
Other articles have pictures of the smashed down gate and I have HUGE problems with protestors going into a private community because its PRIVATE PROPERTY....how would you feel if 500 protestors were on your lawn, or back yard, its the same...its owned by the residences, you have ZERO right to be on that property and it is TRESPASSING.
You're treating TRESPASSING on PRIVATE PROPERTY (aka walking down the street of a gated community) like it's some unthinkable crime.

I don't agree that, even if a gate was smashed, it justifies these people going out to wave their guns around at people. Luckily, no one was attacked or shot.
 

Out of the Rafters at the Q

Out of the Rafters
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
7,852
Reaction score
12,398
Points
123
Other articles have pictures of the smashed down gate and I have HUGE problems with protestors going into a private community because its PRIVATE PROPERTY....how would you feel if 500 protestors were on your lawn, or back yard, its the same...its owned by the residences, you have ZERO right to be on that property and it is TRESPASSING.

PS, here is the picture of the gate that the article conveniently left out....doesn't take much research so the author knew...i picked it because it wasnt spin as bad as some....but you dont get to destroy private property to go onto private property in a protest, and this is by no means peaceful anymore.


View attachment 3755
If they were cutting through my backyard to get to the mayor's house, I'd open both gates so they didn't have to climb over the fence, and ask if anyone needed water bottles.

:conf (11):

It's not like they were looting and destroying a neighborhood. They were protesting in front of the residence of the chief executive of the community. I... don't see the reason for fear and panic?

At some point, you have to put the letter of the law aside. Sure it's trespassing, but where's the harm? A thin shitty gate that got a little mangled? Is it wrong that I don't care?
 

Lee

Gold Star Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
25,571
Reaction score
31,307
Points
148
You're treating TRESPASSING on PRIVATE PROPERTY (aka walking down the street of a gated community) like it's some unthinkable crime.

I don't agree that, even if a gate was smashed, it justifies these people going out to wave their guns around at people. Luckily, no one was attacked or shot.

The people in the crowd had guns, made threats of burning down the house, the people look like entitled white people I get it, heck they are entitled white people, but when 500 angry people smash down a gate, trespass on your property, and threaten you with violence, waiving a guy back at them is justified.

PS, the crowd committed a crime of assault by intimidation, I think its best to leave it alone because of anger, but this one is on the protestors 100%...they had guns, were on private property, shouting things at the home owners, and had already broke the law by breaking and entering. It is justified.
 

Lee

Gold Star Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
25,571
Reaction score
31,307
Points
148
If they were cutting through my backyard to get to the mayor's house, I'd open both gates so they didn't have to climb over the fence, and ask if anyone needed water bottles.

:conf (11):
And that is your right as the home owner, but they have a right to not want an angry crowd of 500 breaking down their gate and cutting through their private property while yelling their going to burn their house down and all types of horrible things.
 

Out of the Rafters at the Q

Out of the Rafters
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
7,852
Reaction score
12,398
Points
123
And that is your right as the home owner, but they have a right to not want an angry crowd of 500 breaking down their gate and cutting through their private property while yelling their going to burn their house down and all types of horrible things.
I agree that they have every right to not want the protesters on their yard.

I also agree that the protesters shouldn't be intimidating people with threats of violence.

But... if we're going to be super technical about this, isn't it true that the road is likely not THEIR private property? The gate is likely not theirs. So, they don't have a right to tell others what they can and cannot do on it. That would fall on the owner of the property, which is likely the developer. Right?

By the way, is it possible that the poor little thin shitty waist-high metal gate was mangled by people fleeing to leave after the two people pointed guns at them? If that's the case, if I'm the developer or whoever owns the gate, I think it would be pretty easy to show that the two homeowners were responsible for the destruction of property. An ironic twist for sure.
 
Last edited:

September Through December Server Costs

Total amount
$1,200.00
Goal
$1,200.00
Donation ends:

Advertisement

Radio

Top