Re: Why Won't You Answer, Glenn V.?

On Sunday, March 21, 2021 at 8:41:53 AM UTC-4, Glenn V. wrote:
> On Sunday, March 21, 2021 at 3:03:46 AM UTC+1, BT George wrote: 
> Brock, just a couple of comments here.
> > > Aren't you aware that the media lie a lot? Remember, they said Trump 
> > > called white supremacists "good people."
> This is a clip what Trump actually said about Charlottesville: 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmaZR8E12bs 

  Typical Trump, pushing back against the false narrative that one side is 
justified to use violence because their cause is just, and the other side 
is just evil.

  Footage shows that it was the counter protestors responsible for most of 
the violence.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCXs2l7l2zo

> Calling Neo Nazis and a range of other right wing extremists org's present
> in Charlottesville "very fine people".

  Quoting out of context. He also allowed that there were people among the 
counter protestors who were very fine people.

> Remember what they chanted? Thousands and thousands of them? 
> 
> "Jews will not replace us!.....Jews will not replace us!....." 

  They are just out there chanting, using their voices...

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p213G6sgdXE

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_qkvXLuGsc

> These are the facts about Charlottesville.

 No, this is the agreed upon narrative about the event.

 The fact it shows most glaringly is the hypocrisy of the left.

> Now, I don't know how Breitbart 
> and other right wing outlets have portrayed this to their audiences, but 
> judging from some of the things said in this thread, the above seems to be 
> a complete surprise. 
> 
> Or, right wing media have simply lied about this - the discussion in this 
> thread unfortunately gives me no reason to believe otherwise.

  Your biased outlook on things is reaffirmed by your biased 
interpretation of these discussions.

  If you were to apply the same standards to violence on the left you 
might have some credibility.

  You brought up Georgia voting, here is an interesting article on that...

  https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/georgia-voting-rights-activists-pressure-big-corporations-to-oppose-gop-backed-ballot-restrictions/ar-BB1ezoMN

  Let`s say that right wing groups did billions of dollars worth of damage 
to businesses across the country, and then went to corporations to make 
demands. This would be seen as coercion, with an implied threat of 
violence used to get corporations to play ball. But if the left does it, 
it is fine, there is no connection made between one thing and the 
other.

> Now, some 
> people here don't seem to agree that this is racist, that's another and 
> far more chilling possibility.

  Tired of seeing the race card being constantly played, especially by 
racists who seem to think black people are so inept that they can`t 
overcome the slightest difficulty that white people seem to have no 
problem dealing with.

  Also tired of being reminded how racist white people are whenever 
something like this happens...

  https://www.aol.com/asian-americans-atlanta-fear-safety-202142964.html

 One sick individual and the media has to write some false narrative about 
it. If the guy is racially motivated, why doesn`t he go to the "chinatown" 
area and start shooting Asians? Why doe she go specifically to massage 
parlors? If you look at the victims of many serial killers that targeted 
prostitutes you will see all kinds of races represented, it is the 
individual having problems with women and sexuality, not race. But my 
whole race and gender is indicted by some contrived false narrative 
because of the actions of one guy. Blacks have been killing Asian 
storeowners here in Philly for as long as I can remember and no 
correlation about race has ever been made. I`m sick and tired of the 
hypocrisy of the media and the left.

> But that's not something I'll dig into 
> here. 

  Better to remain silent and be perceived a fool then to speak and remove 
all doubt.

> IOW, what John is referring to above as (left wing) media lies about this, 
> where a young woman was killed by some crack pot idiot, are no lies at 
> all. As I've stated a couple of times in this thread, unfortunately John 
> is constantly talking about things of which he doesn't have a clue.

  Again, a leftist decides which lives are significant, and which aren`t. 
In context, the counter protestors could have stayed home rather than 
showing up and violently attacking the people there. The left does 
everything it can do to trigger a reaction, and then when they trigger 
some wingnut they act surprised.

  63 people died in the LA riots. Many died in the BLM riots. Don`t see 
     the left wringing their hands about those.

> > > 
> > Come on .John. This is still *me*. I believe by now you know me well 
> > enough to know I am *well* aware the MSM often lies and distorts 
> > right-wing stands! (Fact: So does some a the right wing 
> > media---depending on the source.) incidentally Glenn knows very well I 
> > feel form private conversations that I fell that way and am *passionate* 
> > about the injustice and he has even agreed he has seen that too sometimes 
> > and also disapproves. But as my other comments make clear, I would think 
> > since you and he are debating this at particular *issue* at length, this 
> > should be something your own research would have confirmed or denied. 
> > > And they lied about a call he made to a Georgia official. 
> > > 
> > > And they lied about a guard at the Capitol in Washington being 
> > > bludgeoned by a fire extinguisher. 
> > > >If you answer that, then he will 
> > > >be in no place to refuse to directly confirm his position on banning Trump 
> > > >and other Conservatives. 
> > > > 
> > > Again, nonsense. I don't even know whether his polling station claim 
> > > is true. 
> > > 
> > > But he knows perfectly well whether he approves of Trump being banned. 
> > > 
> > > Why do you think he won't answer? 
> > > 
> > I am withholding judgement for now---because I know on past discussions. 
> > Based on those, I believe it unlikely he has a good feeling about that 
> > kind of censorship. His point seems to be he is still awaiting your 
> > answer to his questions and then he will address yours, because he is 
> > accusing you of changing the subject. Regarding the answers he says he 
> > wants, if he is right about it targeting certain districts, it's a valid 
> > question that wouldn't hurt you to answer and leave him *no excuse* to 
> > remain silent on this point. Of course, if he is wrong about it being 
> > only in certain districts, then he is missing a key justification for why 
> > the Republican efforts in Georgia are so bad. (And as I already said, 
> > feeding hungry voters is generally suspect; all the more so if it can be 
> > done by partisans who want to influence a vote, so that doesn't bother me 
> > much on the Republican effort.) So maybe then all you need to do is point 
> > out how that is a misrepresentation of the Republican effort.
> Let me clarify what I was referring to, as far as reducing polling 
> stations in Georgia, I wasn't all that clear about this, agreed. 
> 
> In 2013, a split decision - along party lines - by the US Supreme Court 
> made some changes to the Voting Rights Act. Since then, Georgia's 
> notoriety as the leading US state in voter disenfranchisement has gone 
> overboard. 

  Yet you refuse to show any.

> They since, have closed **213 polling stations**, many of them in rural 
> areas, heavily populated by black voters. 

  This means many of them are not.

> These are the facts, Brock. Of which John is unaware. And that's fine, no 
> one who hasn't looked into this, would know about it. 

  You are saying things but showing nothing.

> But it's not acceptable to argue as if these things didn't happen, and 
> what the motives are. This is why I mentioned Stacey Abrams previously, 
> she has been taking on this problem ever since, and that has a large part 
> to do with why Trump lost here, and why those two Senate seats were also 
> lost in this last election. It's got nothing to do with voter fraud, as 
> the state's republican election officials have repeatedly said. It was all 
> about hard work to overcome voter disenfranchisement. 

  That is merely the narrative you have decided to accept.

  The left says it is not about voter fraud while opposing any effort that 
might curtail voter fraud. Millions of Americans have lost confidence that 
elections are conducted honestly, the obvious answer to this is to tighten 
the controls that prevent voter fraud, it is merely common sense.

> Someone above talked about (in general, not about Georgia specifically) 
> "why throw money at elections, it doesn't solve anything". 
> 
> And that's exactly why I argued, and will continue to do so, that 
> elections need proper resources allocated, without this you simply cannot 
> have free and fair elections. It's a matter of fact. The US, or Georgia, 
> are in no shortage of money. Period. The shortage is elsewhere, and I know 
> exactly where that happens to be. 
> 
> I hope this clarifies things. 
> 
> > 
> > > .John 
> > > ------------------------------- 
> > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm