monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
Credible explanation? Likely to have occurred? Backed up by any sort of documented evidence? No, there isn't. Your postulation that the driver 'didn't hit anyone personally, he only hit cars which then hit other people' has been disproven at this point. You admit that, right?

I don't claim accused people to have been "proven" guilty based on one, small, inconclusive sliver of evidence. I'm sure there are probably plenty of videos, from many different angles, and that they will eventually all come out--at his trial, if nowhere else. Based on ALL the evidence, he will either be found guilty or not (or perhaps mistried).

Wow. You sure have backed up a lot since the posts of 'I saw a video that shows the car being attacked'. Backed WAY up. Squeaking like a little busted mouse.Squeak squeak!

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

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

I watched this one (but of course there is no car behind the guy being hit to stop him.

It depends on the speed, but in this simulation, the guy generally goes "backwards" and lands on the car that hit him (not one in front of him), or, at lower speeds, just falls to the ground.

0 Replies

Here's another video. It shows a dummy being hit by a car and lands on the hood of that car (the one that hit him).

I'll grant you that all these cases are different, and different from the Charlottesville incident, but it's obvious that there are a lot of factors that need to be considered. I trust that he forensics experts at Charlotte (and the FBI, which is now involved) will determine all the relevant factors involving speed, mass, recorded acceleration, etc., and have a good idea of what happened.

But I'm not going to claim to "know" based on my uninformed hunches, sorry.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote layman:

Quote:

Heh, Blicky, once again you go completely off topic and demonstrate that your thought processes are incoherent.

Today's "blah blah blah" moment is brought to you by layman.

Quote:

Now you pretend like the issue is a State's "right" to secede, and even though off-topic, your "arguments" are simply instances of circular reasoning, i.e., "begging the question," where your premise is your conclusion, and your conclusion is your premise.

Still nothing of substance from you so far. As the states' "right" to secede was the reason for the bloodiest war in US history, and you argued for it, the issue is hardly beside the point.

Quote layman:

Quote:

As a historical matter, a state's "right" to secede was always a matter of serious academic dispute, not a "settled" matter by any means.

Academic Schmacademic, the Supreme Court ruled on the supremacy of Federal Constitutional law vs state law decades before the The Civil War, which blew a hole in the South's excuses for attempted secession.

Quote:

Such questions are answered, in the real world, by one means, i.e., FORCE, not debate.

If you are talking about what is right, you are not talking about force. Although small minds like your own can get confused on the difference as regards the Civil War, since the southern states had neither the Constitutional right to secede nor the military ability to accomplish secession by force.

Quote layman:

Quote:

Of course.

Quote layman:

Quote:

Debate it all you want, and say they had no such "right" if you want to be consistent.

Not true. The colonies had no representation in the body that made the laws which governed them. Ever here of "Taxation Without Representation Is Tyranny" where you went to school?

Quote layman:

Quote:

And they [the colonies] backed it with sufficient force to make it stick.

Force is irrelevant to the question of rights. Both weak and strong can be in the right. Using force to get what you feel you deserve can be either a case of encroaching on the rights of another, or the ability of you to defend your rights despite the opposition of those who would forcibly deny them to you.

In the case of the colonies and allies vs Britain as well as the case of the North against the South, the side which was rightfully defending its rights also had the superior force.

You got that straight now?

3 Replies

@layman,

Why is layman ttrying so desparately to exoneraate a Hitler lover that eyewitnesses saw tvhit at leAst 20 people with his car?

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

Academic Schmacademic, the Supreme Court ruled on the supremacy of Federal Constitutional law vs state law decades before the The Civil War, which blew a hole in the South's excuses for attempted secession.

It's all still irrelevant, but I will point out that, once again, you just make **** up as you go along. The Supreme Court did eventually rule on the issue of secession, but only AFTER the war ended, not before it ever started. If you think the supremacy clause deals with (let alone "settles") that issue, you're sadly mistaken.

1 Reply

@snood,

Quote:

The words matter. The timing matters. It's not 'all the same' no matter how it's said, or when it's said. Do you think we have the right to want better from the president and attorney general?

You are right, words matter. However, I gave up on this administration before they even took office. I'll take any sliver of hope.

I miss the likes of Obama and Clinton as much as you do. I don't expect more from this administration.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

izzythepush wrote:
The slavery issue was used later to justify it.

Well, Dizzy, I'll give you credit for being right at least once in your life, eh?

Maybe you should tell some of your fellow-travelling cheese-eaters about this, eh?:

InfraBlue wrote:

Robert E. Lee and the war to preserve the slavery of blacks that he fought for is a symbol of the white supremacy that the Charlottesville marchers espouse.

Slavery was the issue that prompted the Confederate states to visit violence on the Union in their effort to secede from it prompting the American Civil War.

"Economics" along with "states rights" and "power" are generalizations used to rationalize the cause of that war.

That boat don't float, victim.

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

As the states' "right" to secede was the reason for the bloodiest war in US history, and you argued for it, the issue is hardly beside the point.

This is the kinda thing that shows that you can't follow an argument.

1. I said it was possible, and actually typical, for southerners to regard the confederate as "standing for" something other than (and certainly more than) slavery.

2. You denied this, and cited as your proof, the argument S.C. made in support if it's right to secede.

3. I pointed out that the argument for secession was irrelevant to the "symbol" issue, that's all. In passing I also said it was not the "settled" issue you (irrelevantly) claimed it to be.

This argument is NOT about the right to secede, despite you now thinking it is.

I asked you a question, based on the facts, about the issue (symbol of what?) and you still haven't even addressed it. In fairness, I did say that I didn't expect a reasonable response from you, however.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Learn some history, fool. Lincoln himself expressly denied that it was a war to "end slavery."

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Can you not quote that creature please, I have it on ignore.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

As the states' "right" to secede was the reason for the bloodiest war in US history, and you argued for it, the issue is hardly beside the point.

I meant to point out that you subvert your own claims here. If the "right to secede" was the reason for the war, then it wasn't slavery, was it?

If that's the case, then you might claim that the stars and bars symbolized a desire for independence, or something like that, but that has nothing to do with slavery, per se.

But, again, that's all irrelevant. The issue is not what people thought or said over 150 years ago. It is about how people percieve the confederate flag, and what they think it "stand for," TODAY.

1 Reply

@layman,

Lincoln didn't start the war. The Confederate states started the war, commencing with their violence against the Union in their effort to secede from it to preserve slavery. Lincoln sought to arrest their designs, wickless tealight.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Impressionable young men start out venting their frustrations, and they think the whole thing is a big joke, they make memes and sit around laughing with each other(...)

I looked at the pictures of the rally attendees in the NYT and it hit me that these are just boys. Grown men don't dress up like GI Joe. Yeah, so the local steel mill closed thirty years ago so let's dress up like it's Halloween and brag about how superior we are to everyone else. No wonder they want to turn the clock back — they're still in virtual high school.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote Blickers:

Quote:

It is conceivable that there might be some well-meaning southerners who buy the hype that the flag stands for the South's contribution to the country as a whole, without relating it to a put down of civil rights for all, but they are being deluded.

Quote layman:

Quote:

They are "deluded," eh? How omniscient of you, eh?

As evidenced by the state of Georgia adding a Confederate flag patch to the Georgia state flag only in 1956. Georgia felt it unnecessary to do this until the civilrights marches began with increasing frequency. Clearly a sign that the Georgia legislature wanted to put blacks "in their place". And your failure to address the issue is clearly a sign that you realize this, so you make sure not to deal with it.

The fact that there might indeed be some Southerners who buy the Southern Heritage schtick and who don't make the connection to the Civil War and slavery does not change the fact that those who are pushing the Confederate flag the hardest do so because it does stand for wishing the Confederacy had won the Civil War and slavery had not been abolished. That is indeed the only purpose of flying the flag-it came into existence to represent the South during the Civil War.

1 Reply

@layman,

Once again, you sir are no roman candle.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Lincoln didn't start the war. The Confederate states started the war, commencing with their violence against the Union in their effort to secede from it to preserve slavery. Lincoln sought to arrest their designs, wickless tealight.

There were some loud-mouthed abolitionists up north (a small minority of about 10%, max), but the South was still constitutionally guaranteed the right to maintain slavery. That right was not being seriously threatened. Certainly not by Lincoln, or his stated policies, congress, or anyone else in power. Try again.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
Impressionable young men start out venting their frustrations, and they think the whole thing is a big joke, they make memes and sit around laughing with each other(...)

I looked at the pictures of the rally attendees in the NYT and it hit me that these are just boys. Grown men don't dress up like GI Joe. Yeah, so the local steel mill closed thirty years ago so let's dress up like it's Halloween and brag about how superior we are to everyone else. No wonder they want to turn the clock back — they're still in virtual high school.

Hi,

Yes, I had the exact same thought. What kind of person sits at home and paints an image on a shield, with the intention of using that shield to go and actually fight someone on the street?

It's like Cosplaying mixed with a bunch of resentment and sexual frustration.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Quote:

As evidenced by the state of Georgia adding a Confederate flag patch to the Georgia state flag only in 1956. Georgia felt it unnecessary to do this until the civilrights marches began with increasing frequency.

Newflash, Blicky. The confederate flag has been displayed on houses, courthouses, cars (later), and virtually every other venue for display all over the south since the war ended. Proudly so. The reverence for that flag did not suddenly appear when civil rights issues became prominent.

1 Reply

@layman,

How does this negate what I've written, wickless tealight?

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know