Jump to content

Larry Elder attacked by a person in a gorilla mask with little or no mention of it from the main stream media!


auburn41

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Truth gets a facepalm…..lmao

And then follows it with a thumbs down.  I would guess the Brit’s option was discussed, but I doubt the country was in a position to take on that much debt at the time, so America paid the toll in blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





10 hours ago, homersapien said:

So someone throws an egg at Larry Elder (and misses) and everyone is supposed to be outraged it didn't dominate the national news?   :rolleyes:

  Your aligned with the upper echelon of the media, so yeah..your smuggieness needed no notice lol

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, SaturdayGT said:

  Your aligned with the upper echelon of the media, so yeah..your smuggieness needed no notice lol

As opposed to YOUR "echelon" of the media?

:laugh:

Edited by homersapien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those not acquainted with a dictionary,

Assault is trying to strike someone.

Battery is actually hitting someone.

So, “throwing” an item and not hitting someone. is actually Assault. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2021 at 8:04 AM, DKW 86 said:

Some of you are truly showing who you are. This is about a black man that was physically attacked for nothing more than statements we may disagree with. 

Anything more than that is “straw manning” or “whataboutism”

Let's be clear. This is racism. I am not remotely surprised by those that support it nor the attempt to justify it. Shameful.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry Elder's campaign accidently launched a pre-made website claiming that Newsom's "election win" was fraudulent. lol

 

Are Republican voters really not smart enough to realize that all this "fraud" and "election integrity" is complete, made up  bullcrap and is simply used by their politicians as a way to fundraise and drum up the base? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Larry Elder's campaign accidently launched a pre-made website claiming that Newsom's "election win" was fraudulent. lol

 

Are Republican voters really not smart enough to realize that all this "fraud" and "election integrity" is complete, made up  bullcrap and is simply used by their politicians as a way to fundraise and drum up the base? 

Expect it for every election they don't win.

The disturbing thing is the number of people out there who are ready to believe it.

Edited by homersapien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have to go back 20 years to find the closest example of Democrats doing what Republicans are doing now, then your comparison probably isn't as relevant as you think it is.  Additionally, 2000 and 2020 were 2 completely different electoral situations and really have nothing in common with each other. Everyone knows for a fact that the 2020 election was counted fairly and is accurate. Nobody knows 100% for sure what would have happened if Florida had done a full, audited recount in 2000. 

in 2000, there actually was some controversy, and saying that Bush won "despite all evidence to the contrary" is a mistake of fact. 

Bush won because the Supreme Court ruled that Florida wasn't allowed to do a re-count and so the initial count was final. full stop. no matter what. 

 

A full recount of the Florida ballots has never been been conducted. It's factually unknown what if any changes in election outcome it could have caused. 

After the election, a study on the Florida ballots was conducted and the AP concluded:

AP: A vote-by-vote review of untallied ballots in the 2000 Florida presidential election indicates George W. Bush would have narrowly prevailed in the partial recounts sought by Al Gore, but Gore might have reversed the outcome – by the barest of margins – had he pursued and gained a complete statewide recount.

Edited by CoffeeTiger
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

If you have to go back 20 years to find the closest example of Democrats doing what Republicans are doing now, then your comparison probably isn't as relevant as you think it is.  Additionally, 2000 and 2020 were 2 completely different electoral situations and really have nothing in common with each other. Everyone knows for a fact that the 2020 election was counted fairly and is accurate. Nobody knows 100% for sure what would have happened if Florida had done a full, audited recount in 2000. 

in 2000, there actually was some controversy, and saying that Bush won "despite all evidence to the contrary" is a mistake of fact. 

Bush won because the Supreme Court ruled that Florida wasn't allowed to do a re-count and so the initial count was final. full stop. no matter what. 

 

A full recount of the Florida ballots has never been been conducted. It's factually unknown what if any changes in election outcome it could have caused. 

After the election, a study on the Florida ballots was conducted and the AP concluded:

AP: A vote-by-vote review of untallied ballots in the 2000 Florida presidential election indicates George W. Bush would have narrowly prevailed in the partial recounts sought by Al Gore, but Gore might have reversed the outcome – by the barest of margins – had he pursued and gained a complete statewide recount.

Congrats, you win today's clueless award. The real answer here is that FACTUALLY, both parties are filled with fruitcakes and loons. DWS was THE HEAD OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY. I could go on and on with the tone deaf in America today that STILL swear, even though not one researcher, writer, investigative reporter could make it work under any scenario that Gore won in 2000. He didnt. If you want to only address one party in this, then you are the problem. If you want to debate that there isnt an equivalence? Well how about this then: Both parties have members that are rabidly anti-democracy? The FACT that we have here a former leader of the DNC stating publicly that she is a black helicopter, bat s*** crazy conspiracist and you cant 100% call her out on it makes you Blue Maga. Your Mom must be so proud....

  • Haha 1
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

A full recount of the Florida ballots has never been been conducted. It's factually unknown what if any changes in election outcome it could have caused. 

After the election, a study on the Florida ballots was conducted and the AP concluded:

AP: A vote-by-vote review of untallied ballots in the 2000 Florida presidential election indicates George W. Bush would have narrowly prevailed in the partial recounts sought by Al Gore, but Gore might have reversed the outcome – by the barest of margins – had he pursued and gained a complete statewide recount.

IOW, facts be damned. Congrats, you have proved MY POINT. No matter how many times it was counted, by dozens of writers, researchers, investigative reporters, literally dozens of them, UNDER NO SCENARIO did Bush43 the Idiot Lose. Gore was never championed as the winner. NEVER. And saying "Gore might have reversed the outcome – by the barest of margins – had he pursued and gained a complete statewide recount" is just sounding exactly like the trumpsters here. We do not talk in might haves and maybes. That is the realm of the bat-shitters....

  • Haha 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Congrats, you win today's clueless award. The real answer here is that FACTUALLY, both parties are filled with fruitcakes and loons. DWS was THE HEAD OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY. I could go on and on with the tone deaf in America today that STILL swear, even though not one researcher, writer, investigative reporter could make it work under any scenario that Gore won in 2000. He didnt. If you want to only address one party in this, then you are the problem. If you want to debate that there isnt an equivalence? Well how about this then: Both parties have members that are rabidly anti-democracy? The FACT that we have here a former leader of the DNC stating publicly that she is a black helicopter, bat s*** crazy conspiracist and you cant 100% call her out on it makes you Blue Maga. Your Mom must be so proud....

confused-meme.gif

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Thanks for surrendering....lmao

My point was that there is little to no comparison between the Democrats response to the 2000 election and the Republican one to 2020. 

In 2000, the Republican supreme court ruled that a recount in Florida wouldn't be allowed and Bush was declared the winner by default. Gore and a majority of Democrats conceded the defeat and decision and we moved on as a nation. This is when the Democrat's legitimately had a reason to question the Florida count because Florida bungled it up so badly, and the ballots were messed up and inconsistent. No, I'm not going to say Democrats were just as crazy about 2000 as Republicans are now about 2020 because that's not true. The situations were completely different. 

 

You want me to say that DWS is wrong? Ok...she's wrong. Bush won 2000 and Gore didn't. There you go. 

Edited by CoffeeTiger
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

You want me to say that DWS is wrong? Ok...she's wrong. Bush won 2000 and Gore didn't. There you go. 

Now, ask yourself why you want to be congratulated for admitting to...facts

That is the same disease Trump and the Red Magas have.

For the record, I did not ever support Bush43, nor any Bush in any vote. I am simply pointing out facts that there are folks in the DNC that are just as dense Blue Maga as the Red Magas

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 11:52 AM, CoffeeTiger said:

Larry Elder's campaign accidently launched a pre-made website claiming that Newsom's "election win" was fraudulent. lol

 

Are Republican voters really not smart enough to realize that all this "fraud" and "election integrity" is complete, made up  bullcrap and is simply used by their politicians as a way to fundraise and drum up the base? 

You can holler "WOLF" only so often without proving it.

(Unless you are a MAGA Republican.  In that case, you swallow whatever the cult leader is offering up.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

You can holler "WOLF" only so often without proving it.

(Unless you are a MAGA Republican.  In that case, you swallow whatever the cult leader is offering up.)

Perhaps we should revisit what you swallow? ;D

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2021 at 9:55 AM, I_M4_AU said:

At least quote the man.

Here’s a direct quote of Larry Elder’s position on reparations, via PragerU:

“When people talk about reparations, do they really want to have that conversation? Because, like it or not, slavery was legal. Their legal property was taken away from them after the Civil War, so you could make an argument that the people that are owed reparations are not only just Black people but also the people whose ‘property’ was taken away after the end of the Civil War.”

He had mentioned earlier that this is what happened in England in July of 1834.  

 

If we hear at all about Britain’s involvement in slavery, there’s often a slight whiff of self-congratulation – for abolishing it in 1833, 32 years ahead of the US, where the legacy of slavery is still more of an open wound. Less well known, however, is the enormous cost of this decision for the taxpayer – the British government spent £20 million, a staggering 40% of its budget in 1833, to buy freedom for slaves. That’s equivalent to approximately £20bn today, making it one of the biggest ever government bailouts. The cost was so high, the vast loans the government took out to fund it were only just paid off in 2015.

This article was originally published in February 2020

Which is mind-boggling stuff, but if you’re thinking you can’t put a price on freedom, brace yourself for bad news – the money didn’t go to the slaves, but to their owners. That’s right: the British taxpayer, until five years ago, was paying off debts that the government racked up in order to compensate British slave owners for their loss of ‘property’. Records show that ancestors of former Prime Minister David Cameron and authors George Orwell and Graham Greene all profited at the time from these massive pay-outs, as did Prime Minister William Gladstone, who helped his father claim for £106,769. That’s a payment of around £83 million in today’s money, to just a single family

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200205-how-britain-is-facing-up-to-its-secret-slavery-history

I am not siding with Elder on this, just pointing out his statements are based on history.  Some times the truth is hard to take.

The framing was that if we discuss reparations today then the discussion or slave owners being owed reparations is equally valid, which is honestly pretty disgusting. Elder is arguing this in bad faith since he is only saying this to obfuscate the issue of black reparations.To say that there is an equivalence between the material harm done to slaves and slave owners is dishonest and callous in its indifference to basic human rights.  

The legal argument that Elder makes was rendered moot the moment the Civil War happened and the South lost. Yes, some slave owners were compensated, but the ones that decided they'd prefer rebellion over any sort of diplomatic solution threw that to the wind.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2021 at 9:16 AM, AUDub said:

The framing was that if we discuss reparations today then the discussion or slave owners being owed reparations is equally valid, which is honestly pretty disgusting. Elder is arguing this in bad faith since he is only saying this to obfuscate the issue of black reparations.To say that there is an equivalence between the material harm done to slaves and slave owners is dishonest and callous in its indifference to basic human rights.  

The legal argument that Elder makes was rendered moot the moment the Civil War happened and the South lost. Yes, some slave owners were compensated, but the ones that decided they'd prefer rebellion over any sort of diplomatic solution threw that to the wind.

I understand your point of view.  I was just giving the whole statement and not just part of one.  Like I said; I would imagine compensation to the slave owners was discussed at the time, but a struggling new country couldn’t afford to borrow 40% of its worth, sooooo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

I understand your point of view.  I was just giving the whole statement and not just part of one.  Like I said; I would imagine compensation to the slave owners was discussed at the time, but a struggling new country couldn’t afford to borrow 40% of its worth, sooooo.

It's what England did. They basically bought out the remaining slaves. Because of the financial instrument used they didn't even finish paying off the loan until 6 years ago.

The south didn't even bother to negotiate before pitching a bitch and seceeding. Once a perceived threat to slavery, Lincoln, won the election, he hadn't even been sworn in before the confederates started seizing federal property and laid siege to Fort Sumter. They had no interest in a diplomatic solution. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...