Oldbear83 said:

---

Get professional help.

You genuinely need it.

---

nah, he is spot on. You are the one who needs help.

BUDOS said:

---

No argument here.
It's just part of being a narcissistic, megalomaniac, habitual liar, who happens to be a convicted sexual predator and felon who doesn't give a d@&# about you or just about anyone else not named Donald Trump. (Never forget January 6th nor what he did and didn't do).

---

That's an amalgam of Bill Clinton (notorious sexual predator how many times did he go to Epstein's island?), Hillary & Obama (extreme narcissism & megalomania), & all of the above plus Biden & Kamala (liars). None of them care about anyone not directly helping them get power or money. Arguably that describes politicians in general.

Do you mean "fist"?

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Voice of Reality:

The colonial citizens are patriotic revolutionaries because they defeated Britain.
The Southerners are traitors because they lost to the North.

It is that simple. Reasons, initiating incidents, etc. do not matter.
Only outcome determines how the victors and losers are categorized.

---

The Khmer Rouge were patriots fighting for their cause against imperialists. The Bolsheviks were patriotic Russians breaking the grip of monarchy.

Don't think it's that simple. Cause and purpose does matter.

---

The Khmer Rouge were "patriots" until the Vietnamese destroyed them.
It is "that simple". Winners dictate categorization.
When they were winners they dictated status. When they lost they didn't.

The Bolsheviks were patriots for decades until the economic pressure of the West caused the Soviet state to implode. As they left power they stopped being patriots.
When they were winners they dictated status. As subsequent losers they didn't.

Your examples do not support but rather undermine your point.

And it works both ways. Iran's democracy advocates were patriots for a few months until Khomeini and the Islamic fundamentalists destroyed them. Russian democracy advocates were patriots until Putin, the other Former KGB agents, and the sympathetic oligarchs destroyed them.

The French Revolution…..the Nazis…..,Peronistas……the list goes on and on. Everyone is a patriot until they lose power. They then join the ever growing list of state enemies.

---

That makes absolutely no sense. It would be like me taking your examples and saying the British were the patriots until the colonialists won (they fought the French and Indian War for the colonies), or the Union and not the Confederacy were traitors, until they weren't.

We can still view Iranian democracy advocates as the right cause over the Islamist tyranny that is still in place today regardless of their success. Again, cause and purpose DO matter and victory does NOT always determine how one is viewed historically. In fact history is full of victors whose triumph was a scourge on the people and regions of the world.

---

You are boasting morality. I am talking label application. The victor gets to apply the labels.

"We" aren't applying labels in Iran. We can judge from afar but I guarantee you that all labeling within Iran is done by their leadership.

---

You seem to be confusing propaganda with history.

---

And you seem to forget that people disagreeing with you doesn't rob them of having a perspective.

You are equating your perceived correctness with what you assume to be their lack of viewpoint existence.
Even stipulating that you are right on every single value judgment [no one is], that doesn't eliminate the viewpoints of other people. Right or wrong, they have opinions and assign labels.

Humankind is not required to line up in the shadow of your opinions. They are allowed to think for themselves.
And generally the victors in every scenario assume the correctness of their personal viewpoints.

There might be a moral center to the universe.
I am certain that neither you nor anyone else occupies that space.
But even if you did, that doesn't negate everyone else.

---

God is the moral center of the universe, if there is such a thing.

GrowlTowel said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

No argument here.
It's just part of being a narcissistic, megalomaniac, habitual liar, who happens to be a convicted sexual predator and felon who doesn't give a d@&# about you or just about anyone else not named Donald Trump. (Never forget January 6th nor what he did and didn't do).

---

Wow. What color is the sky in your world? None of what you wrote is even based in fact.

---

Now wait just a damn minute. What did he write that is not based on facts. Narcissist -check, habitual liar-check, convicted felon- check, sexual abuser-check. Megalomanic-check. He never says "we". He says "I" How in the name that is holy can you possible dispute that? Do tell. Need fact to refucate. Oh, did I mention he lost the Presidency, Senate, and House. Yeah, he good! Come on Bro, let's deal in facts and not what Foxy News tells to to think. He may be one of the worst humans, ever. Just can't believe you whack jobs buy the hype. Sad and shallow. Again, I'm not voting for Fat Cheeto or Harris.

boognish_bear said:

---

I'm suspecting he's going to launch some kind of TrumpCoin or MAGACoin or something.

JUST IN: Donald Trump teases crypto project and says "for too long, the average American has been squeezed by the big banks and financial elites.

It's time we take a stand together." pic.twitter.com/MQhz7WiHMI

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) August 22, 2024

---

He liked the big banks and financial elites when he cash out refi'ed his properties after losing the election.

J.R. said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

No argument here.
It's just part of being a narcissistic, megalomaniac, habitual liar, who happens to be a convicted sexual predator and felon who doesn't give a d@&# about you or just about anyone else not named Donald Trump. (Never forget January 6th nor what he did and didn't do).

---

Wow. What color is the sky in your world? None of what you wrote is even based in fact.

---

Now wait just a damn minute. What did he write that is not based on facts. Narcissist -check, habitual liar-check, convicted felon- check, sexual abuser-check. Megalomanic-check. He never says "we". He says "I" How in the name that is holy can you possible dispute that? Do tell. Need fact to refucate. Oh, did I mention he lost the Presidency, Senate, and House. Yeah, he good! Come on Bro, let's deal in facts and not what Foxy News tells to to think. He may be one of the worst humans, ever. Just can't believe you whack jobs buy the hype. Sad and shallow. Again, I'm not voting for Fat Cheeto or Harris.

---

I do not care who you vote for. If you dropped dead tomorrow, I will not care either.

Do not respond to me again.

J.R. said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Get professional help.

You genuinely need it.

---

nah, he is spot on. You are the one who needs help.

---

Thanks for your opinion, Kamala.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Voice of Reality:

The colonial citizens are patriotic revolutionaries because they defeated Britain.
The Southerners are traitors because they lost to the North.

It is that simple. Reasons, initiating incidents, etc. do not matter.
Only outcome determines how the victors and losers are categorized.

---

The Khmer Rouge were patriots fighting for their cause against imperialists. The Bolsheviks were patriotic Russians breaking the grip of monarchy.

Don't think it's that simple. Cause and purpose does matter.

---

The Khmer Rouge were "patriots" until the Vietnamese destroyed them.
It is "that simple". Winners dictate categorization.
When they were winners they dictated status. When they lost they didn't.

The Bolsheviks were patriots for decades until the economic pressure of the West caused the Soviet state to implode. As they left power they stopped being patriots.
When they were winners they dictated status. As subsequent losers they didn't.

Your examples do not support but rather undermine your point.

And it works both ways. Iran's democracy advocates were patriots for a few months until Khomeini and the Islamic fundamentalists destroyed them. Russian democracy advocates were patriots until Putin, the other Former KGB agents, and the sympathetic oligarchs destroyed them.

The French Revolution…..the Nazis…..,Peronistas……the list goes on and on. Everyone is a patriot until they lose power. They then join the ever growing list of state enemies.

---

That makes absolutely no sense. It would be like me taking your examples and saying the British were the patriots until the colonialists won (they fought the French and Indian War for the colonies), or the Union and not the Confederacy were traitors, until they weren't.

We can still view Iranian democracy advocates as the right cause over the Islamist tyranny that is still in place today regardless of their success. Again, cause and purpose DO matter and victory does NOT always determine how one is viewed historically. In fact history is full of victors whose triumph was a scourge on the people and regions of the world.

---

You are boasting morality. I am talking label application. The victor gets to apply the labels.

"We" aren't applying labels in Iran. We can judge from afar but I guarantee you that all labeling within Iran is done by their leadership.

---

You seem to be confusing propaganda with history.

---

And you seem to forget that people disagreeing with you doesn't rob them of having a perspective.

You are equating your perceived correctness with what you assume to be their lack of viewpoint existence.
Even stipulating that you are right on every single value judgment [no one is], that doesn't eliminate the viewpoints of other people. Right or wrong, they have opinions and assign labels.

Humankind is not required to line up in the shadow of your opinions. They are allowed to think for themselves.
And generally the victors in every scenario assume the correctness of their personal viewpoints.

There might be a moral center to the universe.
I am certain that neither you nor anyone else occupies that space.
But even if you did, that doesn't negate everyone else.

---

Or maybe (for example) historical facts can show movements and autocrats that slaughtered hundreds of thousands and imprisoned millions more. And from those facts an assessment of the positive or negative value against a multi tiered scale of criteria allows us to arrive at a categorization of the person, movement, etc. What truths do we know that allow that? Unless one is a nihilist, most would agree freedom is preferable to slavery, and that justice is preferable to injustice as a couple of examples. There are many more.

There's a difference between revisionist history and the ability to comprehend history under a modern understanding of humanity, science, economics, religion, institutions, warfare, etc. for the purposes of avoiding our past failings. That ultimately is the value of history itself. And it also gives us a measured understanding of that which has occurred, both good and bad. But you seem to be arguing there is no good and bad, only victors.

And your take on opinion or viewpoint being somehow suppressed is outright absurdity. You are free to hold or express whatever opinion you choose. It doesn't make the opinion correct, or an opinion counter to it wrong. The alignment of facts and realities ultimately determine that, including as it supports a value judgement.

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Voice of Reality:

The colonial citizens are patriotic revolutionaries because they defeated Britain.
The Southerners are traitors because they lost to the North.

It is that simple. Reasons, initiating incidents, etc. do not matter.
Only outcome determines how the victors and losers are categorized.

---

The Khmer Rouge were patriots fighting for their cause against imperialists. The Bolsheviks were patriotic Russians breaking the grip of monarchy.

Don't think it's that simple. Cause and purpose does matter.

---

The Khmer Rouge were "patriots" until the Vietnamese destroyed them.
It is "that simple". Winners dictate categorization.
When they were winners they dictated status. When they lost they didn't.

The Bolsheviks were patriots for decades until the economic pressure of the West caused the Soviet state to implode. As they left power they stopped being patriots.
When they were winners they dictated status. As subsequent losers they didn't.

Your examples do not support but rather undermine your point.

And it works both ways. Iran's democracy advocates were patriots for a few months until Khomeini and the Islamic fundamentalists destroyed them. Russian democracy advocates were patriots until Putin, the other Former KGB agents, and the sympathetic oligarchs destroyed them.

The French Revolution…..the Nazis…..,Peronistas……the list goes on and on. Everyone is a patriot until they lose power. They then join the ever growing list of state enemies.

---

That makes absolutely no sense. It would be like me taking your examples and saying the British were the patriots until the colonialists won (they fought the French and Indian War for the colonies), or the Union and not the Confederacy were traitors, until they weren't.

We can still view Iranian democracy advocates as the right cause over the Islamist tyranny that is still in place today regardless of their success. Again, cause and purpose DO matter and victory does NOT always determine how one is viewed historically. In fact history is full of victors whose triumph was a scourge on the people and regions of the world.

---

You are boasting morality. I am talking label application. The victor gets to apply the labels.

"We" aren't applying labels in Iran. We can judge from afar but I guarantee you that all labeling within Iran is done by their leadership.

---

You seem to be confusing propaganda with history.

---

And you seem to forget that people disagreeing with you doesn't rob them of having a perspective.

You are equating your perceived correctness with what you assume to be their lack of viewpoint existence.
Even stipulating that you are right on every single value judgment [no one is], that doesn't eliminate the viewpoints of other people. Right or wrong, they have opinions and assign labels.

Humankind is not required to line up in the shadow of your opinions. They are allowed to think for themselves.
And generally the victors in every scenario assume the correctness of their personal viewpoints.

There might be a moral center to the universe.
I am certain that neither you nor anyone else occupies that space.
But even if you did, that doesn't negate everyone else.

---

Or maybe (for example) historical facts can show movements and autocrats that slaughtered hundreds of thousands and imprisoned millions more. And from those facts an assessment of the positive or negative value against a multi tiered scale of criteria allows us to arrive at a categorization of the person, movement, etc. What truths do we know that allow that? Unless one is a nihilist, most would agree freedom is preferable to slavery, and that justice is preferable to injustice as a couple of examples. There are many more.

There's a difference between revisionist history and the ability to comprehend history under a modern understanding of humanity, science, economics, religion, institutions, warfare, etc. for the purposes of avoiding our past failings. That ultimately is the value of history itself. And it also gives us a measured understanding of that which has occurred, both good and bad. But you seem to be arguing there is no good and bad, only victors.

And your take on opinion or viewpoint being somehow suppressed is outright absurdity. You are free to hold or express whatever opinion you choose. It doesn't make the opinion correct, or an opinion counter to it wrong. The alignment of facts and realities ultimately determine that, including as it supports a value judgement.

---

Which loops us back again to the simple item that you don't understand the original argument.
Value assessment [yours] doesn't equate to label making.

One man's revolutionary/patriot is another man's rebel. The question is who is applying the label.

Your chest beating of absolute rightness will never eliminate other people's application of their own labels.

Do you really not understand a discussion of actions based on varying perspectives?
Not everything in life is assessed through a morality perspective.
Time. Speed. Weight. Volume. Numerous items are measured without moral judgments.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Voice of Reality:

The colonial citizens are patriotic revolutionaries because they defeated Britain.
The Southerners are traitors because they lost to the North.

It is that simple. Reasons, initiating incidents, etc. do not matter.
Only outcome determines how the victors and losers are categorized.

---

The Khmer Rouge were patriots fighting for their cause against imperialists. The Bolsheviks were patriotic Russians breaking the grip of monarchy.

Don't think it's that simple. Cause and purpose does matter.

---

The Khmer Rouge were "patriots" until the Vietnamese destroyed them.
It is "that simple". Winners dictate categorization.
When they were winners they dictated status. When they lost they didn't.

The Bolsheviks were patriots for decades until the economic pressure of the West caused the Soviet state to implode. As they left power they stopped being patriots.
When they were winners they dictated status. As subsequent losers they didn't.

Your examples do not support but rather undermine your point.

And it works both ways. Iran's democracy advocates were patriots for a few months until Khomeini and the Islamic fundamentalists destroyed them. Russian democracy advocates were patriots until Putin, the other Former KGB agents, and the sympathetic oligarchs destroyed them.

The French Revolution…..the Nazis…..,Peronistas……the list goes on and on. Everyone is a patriot until they lose power. They then join the ever growing list of state enemies.

---

That makes absolutely no sense. It would be like me taking your examples and saying the British were the patriots until the colonialists won (they fought the French and Indian War for the colonies), or the Union and not the Confederacy were traitors, until they weren't.

We can still view Iranian democracy advocates as the right cause over the Islamist tyranny that is still in place today regardless of their success. Again, cause and purpose DO matter and victory does NOT always determine how one is viewed historically. In fact history is full of victors whose triumph was a scourge on the people and regions of the world.

---

You are boasting morality. I am talking label application. The victor gets to apply the labels.

"We" aren't applying labels in Iran. We can judge from afar but I guarantee you that all labeling within Iran is done by their leadership.

---

You seem to be confusing propaganda with history.

---

And you seem to forget that people disagreeing with you doesn't rob them of having a perspective.

You are equating your perceived correctness with what you assume to be their lack of viewpoint existence.
Even stipulating that you are right on every single value judgment [no one is], that doesn't eliminate the viewpoints of other people. Right or wrong, they have opinions and assign labels.

Humankind is not required to line up in the shadow of your opinions. They are allowed to think for themselves.
And generally the victors in every scenario assume the correctness of their personal viewpoints.

There might be a moral center to the universe.
I am certain that neither you nor anyone else occupies that space.
But even if you did, that doesn't negate everyone else.

---

Ha! You sure like telling people what to do...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Voice of Reality:

The colonial citizens are patriotic revolutionaries because they defeated Britain.
The Southerners are traitors because they lost to the North.

It is that simple. Reasons, initiating incidents, etc. do not matter.
Only outcome determines how the victors and losers are categorized.

---

The Khmer Rouge were patriots fighting for their cause against imperialists. The Bolsheviks were patriotic Russians breaking the grip of monarchy.

Don't think it's that simple. Cause and purpose does matter.

---

The Khmer Rouge were "patriots" until the Vietnamese destroyed them.
It is "that simple". Winners dictate categorization.
When they were winners they dictated status. When they lost they didn't.

The Bolsheviks were patriots for decades until the economic pressure of the West caused the Soviet state to implode. As they left power they stopped being patriots.
When they were winners they dictated status. As subsequent losers they didn't.

Your examples do not support but rather undermine your point.

And it works both ways. Iran's democracy advocates were patriots for a few months until Khomeini and the Islamic fundamentalists destroyed them. Russian democracy advocates were patriots until Putin, the other Former KGB agents, and the sympathetic oligarchs destroyed them.

The French Revolution…..the Nazis…..,Peronistas……the list goes on and on. Everyone is a patriot until they lose power. They then join the ever growing list of state enemies.

---

That makes absolutely no sense. It would be like me taking your examples and saying the British were the patriots until the colonialists won (they fought the French and Indian War for the colonies), or the Union and not the Confederacy were traitors, until they weren't.

We can still view Iranian democracy advocates as the right cause over the Islamist tyranny that is still in place today regardless of their success. Again, cause and purpose DO matter and victory does NOT always determine how one is viewed historically. In fact history is full of victors whose triumph was a scourge on the people and regions of the world.

---

You are boasting morality. I am talking label application. The victor gets to apply the labels.

"We" aren't applying labels in Iran. We can judge from afar but I guarantee you that all labeling within Iran is done by their leadership.

---

You seem to be confusing propaganda with history.

---

And you seem to forget that people disagreeing with you doesn't rob them of having a perspective.

You are equating your perceived correctness with what you assume to be their lack of viewpoint existence.
Even stipulating that you are right on every single value judgment [no one is], that doesn't eliminate the viewpoints of other people. Right or wrong, they have opinions and assign labels.

Humankind is not required to line up in the shadow of your opinions. They are allowed to think for themselves.
And generally the victors in every scenario assume the correctness of their personal viewpoints.

There might be a moral center to the universe.
I am certain that neither you nor anyone else occupies that space.
But even if you did, that doesn't negate everyone else.

---

Ha! You sure like telling people what to do...

---

Typical.

Can't reason your way out of a paper bag on a rainy day so the personal attacks begin.

Hmmm, I don't think I am the "basement dweller" who drinks the kool aid.

Wow! You are a basement dweller addicted to the kool aid.

Hey man that does sound a bit crazy!
I bet there's a few more things coming around the corner.

Harris is not looking so rosy after all:

https://twitchy.com/brettt/2024/08/21/newsweek-new-poll-shows-harris-leading-zero-battleground-states-n2399942

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Voice of Reality:

The colonial citizens are patriotic revolutionaries because they defeated Britain.
The Southerners are traitors because they lost to the North.

It is that simple. Reasons, initiating incidents, etc. do not matter.
Only outcome determines how the victors and losers are categorized.

---

The Khmer Rouge were patriots fighting for their cause against imperialists. The Bolsheviks were patriotic Russians breaking the grip of monarchy.

Don't think it's that simple. Cause and purpose does matter.

---

The Khmer Rouge were "patriots" until the Vietnamese destroyed them.
It is "that simple". Winners dictate categorization.
When they were winners they dictated status. When they lost they didn't.

The Bolsheviks were patriots for decades until the economic pressure of the West caused the Soviet state to implode. As they left power they stopped being patriots.
When they were winners they dictated status. As subsequent losers they didn't.

Your examples do not support but rather undermine your point.

And it works both ways. Iran's democracy advocates were patriots for a few months until Khomeini and the Islamic fundamentalists destroyed them. Russian democracy advocates were patriots until Putin, the other Former KGB agents, and the sympathetic oligarchs destroyed them.

The French Revolution…..the Nazis…..,Peronistas……the list goes on and on. Everyone is a patriot until they lose power. They then join the ever growing list of state enemies.

---

That makes absolutely no sense. It would be like me taking your examples and saying the British were the patriots until the colonialists won (they fought the French and Indian War for the colonies), or the Union and not the Confederacy were traitors, until they weren't.

We can still view Iranian democracy advocates as the right cause over the Islamist tyranny that is still in place today regardless of their success. Again, cause and purpose DO matter and victory does NOT always determine how one is viewed historically. In fact history is full of victors whose triumph was a scourge on the people and regions of the world.

---

You are boasting morality. I am talking label application. The victor gets to apply the labels.

"We" aren't applying labels in Iran. We can judge from afar but I guarantee you that all labeling within Iran is done by their leadership.

---

You seem to be confusing propaganda with history.

---

And you seem to forget that people disagreeing with you doesn't rob them of having a perspective.

You are equating your perceived correctness with what you assume to be their lack of viewpoint existence.
Even stipulating that you are right on every single value judgment [no one is], that doesn't eliminate the viewpoints of other people. Right or wrong, they have opinions and assign labels.

Humankind is not required to line up in the shadow of your opinions. They are allowed to think for themselves.
And generally the victors in every scenario assume the correctness of their personal viewpoints.

There might be a moral center to the universe.
I am certain that neither you nor anyone else occupies that space.
But even if you did, that doesn't negate everyone else.

---

Or maybe (for example) historical facts can show movements and autocrats that slaughtered hundreds of thousands and imprisoned millions more. And from those facts an assessment of the positive or negative value against a multi tiered scale of criteria allows us to arrive at a categorization of the person, movement, etc. What truths do we know that allow that? Unless one is a nihilist, most would agree freedom is preferable to slavery, and that justice is preferable to injustice as a couple of examples. There are many more.

There's a difference between revisionist history and the ability to comprehend history under a modern understanding of humanity, science, economics, religion, institutions, warfare, etc. for the purposes of avoiding our past failings. That ultimately is the value of history itself. And it also gives us a measured understanding of that which has occurred, both good and bad. But you seem to be arguing there is no good and bad, only victors.

And your take on opinion or viewpoint being somehow suppressed is outright absurdity. You are free to hold or express whatever opinion you choose. It doesn't make the opinion correct, or an opinion counter to it wrong. The alignment of facts and realities ultimately determine that, including as it supports a value judgement.

---

Which loops us back again to the simple item that you don't understand the original argument.
Value assessment [yours] doesn't equate to label making.

One man's revolutionary/patriot is another man's rebel. The question is who is applying the label.

Your chest beating of absolute rightness will never eliminate other people's application of their own labels.

Do you really not understand a discussion of actions based on varying perspectives?
Not everything in life is assessed through a morality perspective.
Time. Speed. Weight. Volume. Numerous items are measured without moral judgments.

---

Just because a perspective is varied doesn't absolve it from some very basic tenets of right and wrong. Otherwise, make the affirmative argument for Pol Pot's method of patriotic rebellion and we'll evaluate the merit.

And stop making dumb statements like "chest beating". Nothing of the sort is occurring here.

And did you really just parallel inanimate physical properties with cognitive dynamic actions?

BUDOS said:

---

Hey man that does sound a bit crazy!
I bet there's a few more things coming around the corner.

---

The question remains , in a perfect scenario, exactly which of Biden'sHarris's policies do you wish to see expanded or continued and why ?

It is a forgone conclusion Harris will greatly increase taxs and continue to allow additional millions of illegals into the country every year.

Will the implementation of such plans positively impact the quality of your life ?

historian said:

---

Harris is not looking so rosy after all:

https://twitchy.com/brettt/2024/08/21/newsweek-new-poll-shows-harris-leading-zero-battleground-states-n2399942

---

Last couple days of polling have been good for Harris, and her speech polled well.

Likely will be a rough few days for Trump, then the campaign really kicks in.

Trump finally promising his staff and family to stay on message. That's the key to this election.

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Voice of Reality:

The colonial citizens are patriotic revolutionaries because they defeated Britain.
The Southerners are traitors because they lost to the North.

It is that simple. Reasons, initiating incidents, etc. do not matter.
Only outcome determines how the victors and losers are categorized.

---

The Khmer Rouge were patriots fighting for their cause against imperialists. The Bolsheviks were patriotic Russians breaking the grip of monarchy.

Don't think it's that simple. Cause and purpose does matter.

---

The Khmer Rouge were "patriots" until the Vietnamese destroyed them.
It is "that simple". Winners dictate categorization.
When they were winners they dictated status. When they lost they didn't.

The Bolsheviks were patriots for decades until the economic pressure of the West caused the Soviet state to implode. As they left power they stopped being patriots.
When they were winners they dictated status. As subsequent losers they didn't.

Your examples do not support but rather undermine your point.

And it works both ways. Iran's democracy advocates were patriots for a few months until Khomeini and the Islamic fundamentalists destroyed them. Russian democracy advocates were patriots until Putin, the other Former KGB agents, and the sympathetic oligarchs destroyed them.

The French Revolution…..the Nazis…..,Peronistas……the list goes on and on. Everyone is a patriot until they lose power. They then join the ever growing list of state enemies.

---

That makes absolutely no sense. It would be like me taking your examples and saying the British were the patriots until the colonialists won (they fought the French and Indian War for the colonies), or the Union and not the Confederacy were traitors, until they weren't.

We can still view Iranian democracy advocates as the right cause over the Islamist tyranny that is still in place today regardless of their success. Again, cause and purpose DO matter and victory does NOT always determine how one is viewed historically. In fact history is full of victors whose triumph was a scourge on the people and regions of the world.

---

You are boasting morality. I am talking label application. The victor gets to apply the labels.

"We" aren't applying labels in Iran. We can judge from afar but I guarantee you that all labeling within Iran is done by their leadership.

---

You seem to be confusing propaganda with history.

---

And you seem to forget that people disagreeing with you doesn't rob them of having a perspective.

You are equating your perceived correctness with what you assume to be their lack of viewpoint existence.
Even stipulating that you are right on every single value judgment [no one is], that doesn't eliminate the viewpoints of other people. Right or wrong, they have opinions and assign labels.

Humankind is not required to line up in the shadow of your opinions. They are allowed to think for themselves.
And generally the victors in every scenario assume the correctness of their personal viewpoints.

There might be a moral center to the universe.
I am certain that neither you nor anyone else occupies that space.
But even if you did, that doesn't negate everyone else.

---

Or maybe (for example) historical facts can show movements and autocrats that slaughtered hundreds of thousands and imprisoned millions more. And from those facts an assessment of the positive or negative value against a multi tiered scale of criteria allows us to arrive at a categorization of the person, movement, etc. What truths do we know that allow that? Unless one is a nihilist, most would agree freedom is preferable to slavery, and that justice is preferable to injustice as a couple of examples. There are many more.

There's a difference between revisionist history and the ability to comprehend history under a modern understanding of humanity, science, economics, religion, institutions, warfare, etc. for the purposes of avoiding our past failings. That ultimately is the value of history itself. And it also gives us a measured understanding of that which has occurred, both good and bad. But you seem to be arguing there is no good and bad, only victors.

And your take on opinion or viewpoint being somehow suppressed is outright absurdity. You are free to hold or express whatever opinion you choose. It doesn't make the opinion correct, or an opinion counter to it wrong. The alignment of facts and realities ultimately determine that, including as it supports a value judgement.

---

Which loops us back again to the simple item that you don't understand the original argument.
Value assessment [yours] doesn't equate to label making.

One man's revolutionary/patriot is another man's rebel. The question is who is applying the label.

Your chest beating of absolute rightness will never eliminate other people's application of their own labels.

Do you really not understand a discussion of actions based on varying perspectives?
Not everything in life is assessed through a morality perspective.
Time. Speed. Weight. Volume. Numerous items are measured without moral judgments.

---

Just because a perspective is varied doesn't absolve it from some very basic tenets of right and wrong. Otherwise, make the affirmative argument for Pol Pot's method of patriotic rebellion and we'll evaluate the merit.

And stop making dumb statements like "chest beating". Nothing of the sort is occurring here.

And did you really just parallel inanimate physical properties with cognitive dynamic actions?

---

Again……not everything in life is viewed through a morality lens.

You continue to insist that the label of "patriot" [or similar] has solely a moral context.
To many current Russians, Putin is a patriot. You may [and likely do] disagree.
That disagreement neither removes the label nor changes its applicability to those giving the label.



Look at that label. You can disagree that it tastes like butter. You can find it a lie and morally reprehensible.
But your disagreement doesn't remove the label. It remains on the container until actually removed.

Do you not understand that moral outrage & disagreement has zero real world implication without some corresponding action.

Oldbear83 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Get professional help.

You genuinely need it.

---

nah, he is spot on. You are the one who needs help.

---

Thanks for your opinion, Kamala.

---

eff off, you little man.

GrowlTowel said:

---

J.R. said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

No argument here.
It's just part of being a narcissistic, megalomaniac, habitual liar, who happens to be a convicted sexual predator and felon who doesn't give a d@&# about you or just about anyone else not named Donald Trump. (Never forget January 6th nor what he did and didn't do).

---

Wow. What color is the sky in your world? None of what you wrote is even based in fact.

---

Now wait just a damn minute. What did he write that is not based on facts. Narcissist -check, habitual liar-check, convicted felon- check, sexual abuser-check. Megalomanic-check. He never says "we". He says "I" How in the name that is holy can you possible dispute that? Do tell. Need fact to refucate. Oh, did I mention he lost the Presidency, Senate, and House. Yeah, he good! Come on Bro, let's deal in facts and not what Foxy News tells to to think. He may be one of the worst humans, ever. Just can't believe you whack jobs buy the hype. Sad and shallow. Again, I'm not voting for Fat Cheeto or Harris.

---

I do not care who you vote for. If you dropped dead tomorrow, I will not care either.

Do not respond to me again.

---

you are a moron and deserve push back. I will respond to anyone I choose. your post was beyond absurd

We have come a long way… pic.twitter.com/OeWXda9UiA

— Lucas Tomlinson (@LucasFoxNews) August 23, 2024

To greatest acceptance speech ever..

Gas lighting the whole dang country

sombear said:

---

historian said:

---

Harris is not looking so rosy after all:

https://twitchy.com/brettt/2024/08/21/newsweek-new-poll-shows-harris-leading-zero-battleground-states-n2399942

---

Last couple days of polling have been good for Harris, and her speech polled well.

Likely will be a rough few days for Trump, then the campaign really kicks in.

Trump finally promising his staff and family to stay on message. That's the key to this election.

---

check the dates of some of them. There are polls dropping that were held.

Polling has improved slightly but mostly flat. Will see what her speech did for polling

4th and Inches said:

---

We have come a long way… pic.twitter.com/OeWXda9UiA

— Lucas Tomlinson (@LucasFoxNews) August 23, 2024

To greatest acceptance speech ever..

Gas lighting the whole dang country

---

Vox 2024 (probably) - "Why you are a white supremacist if you don't support Kamala Harrs (and if you deny you are a white supremacist, that means 10x more that you are)"

4th and Inches said:

---

sombear said:

---

historian said:

---

Harris is not looking so rosy after all:

https://twitchy.com/brettt/2024/08/21/newsweek-new-poll-shows-harris-leading-zero-battleground-states-n2399942

---

Last couple days of polling have been good for Harris, and her speech polled well.

Likely will be a rough few days for Trump, then the campaign really kicks in.

Trump finally promising his staff and family to stay on message. That's the key to this election.

---

check the dates of some of them. There are polls dropping that were held.

Polling has improved slightly but mostly flat. Will see what her speech did for polling

---

Three national polls during the convention, two of which polled through yesterday: Harris extended lead in both. One, RMG, a very pro-Trump pollster, had Harris gain almost +4 from prior week.

Republican/Trump internals: Slight Harris movement this week, and high approval #s for her speech.

I didn't get any state numbers.

Bottom-line. It was a fairly successful convention, but Harris by no means running away with it.

I'll call foul on the ALGOP when they're to blame, but from the outset, it has been Alabama Republicans doing Alabama Democrats' jobs for them to get their candidate on the ballot. 2.

— Kyle Whitmire (@WarOnDumb) August 23, 2024

FACT FOCUS: A look back at false and misleading claims made during the the Democratic convention https://t.co/OrDao6XSzo

— The Associated Press (@AP) August 23, 2024

Looks like Trump has found a new appreciation for Kemp

Donald Trump’s comments on Brian Kemp at an August 3rd rally in Atlanta:

“He’s a bad guy. He’s a disloyal guy. And he’s a very average governor. Little Brian, little Brian Kemp. Bad guy.”

👉🏻 https://t.co/VuStJqIJjs https://t.co/auD7En43JI

— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) August 23, 2024

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Voice of Reality:

The colonial citizens are patriotic revolutionaries because they defeated Britain.
The Southerners are traitors because they lost to the North.

It is that simple. Reasons, initiating incidents, etc. do not matter.
Only outcome determines how the victors and losers are categorized.

---

The Khmer Rouge were patriots fighting for their cause against imperialists. The Bolsheviks were patriotic Russians breaking the grip of monarchy.

Don't think it's that simple. Cause and purpose does matter.

---

The Khmer Rouge were "patriots" until the Vietnamese destroyed them.
It is "that simple". Winners dictate categorization.
When they were winners they dictated status. When they lost they didn't.

The Bolsheviks were patriots for decades until the economic pressure of the West caused the Soviet state to implode. As they left power they stopped being patriots.
When they were winners they dictated status. As subsequent losers they didn't.

Your examples do not support but rather undermine your point.

And it works both ways. Iran's democracy advocates were patriots for a few months until Khomeini and the Islamic fundamentalists destroyed them. Russian democracy advocates were patriots until Putin, the other Former KGB agents, and the sympathetic oligarchs destroyed them.

The French Revolution…..the Nazis…..,Peronistas……the list goes on and on. Everyone is a patriot until they lose power. They then join the ever growing list of state enemies.

---

That makes absolutely no sense. It would be like me taking your examples and saying the British were the patriots until the colonialists won (they fought the French and Indian War for the colonies), or the Union and not the Confederacy were traitors, until they weren't.

We can still view Iranian democracy advocates as the right cause over the Islamist tyranny that is still in place today regardless of their success. Again, cause and purpose DO matter and victory does NOT always determine how one is viewed historically. In fact history is full of victors whose triumph was a scourge on the people and regions of the world.

---

You are boasting morality. I am talking label application. The victor gets to apply the labels.

"We" aren't applying labels in Iran. We can judge from afar but I guarantee you that all labeling within Iran is done by their leadership.

---

You seem to be confusing propaganda with history.

---

And you seem to forget that people disagreeing with you doesn't rob them of having a perspective.

You are equating your perceived correctness with what you assume to be their lack of viewpoint existence.
Even stipulating that you are right on every single value judgment [no one is], that doesn't eliminate the viewpoints of other people. Right or wrong, they have opinions and assign labels.

Humankind is not required to line up in the shadow of your opinions. They are allowed to think for themselves.
And generally the victors in every scenario assume the correctness of their personal viewpoints.

There might be a moral center to the universe.
I am certain that neither you nor anyone else occupies that space.
But even if you did, that doesn't negate everyone else.

---

Or maybe (for example) historical facts can show movements and autocrats that slaughtered hundreds of thousands and imprisoned millions more. And from those facts an assessment of the positive or negative value against a multi tiered scale of criteria allows us to arrive at a categorization of the person, movement, etc. What truths do we know that allow that? Unless one is a nihilist, most would agree freedom is preferable to slavery, and that justice is preferable to injustice as a couple of examples. There are many more.

There's a difference between revisionist history and the ability to comprehend history under a modern understanding of humanity, science, economics, religion, institutions, warfare, etc. for the purposes of avoiding our past failings. That ultimately is the value of history itself. And it also gives us a measured understanding of that which has occurred, both good and bad. But you seem to be arguing there is no good and bad, only victors.

And your take on opinion or viewpoint being somehow suppressed is outright absurdity. You are free to hold or express whatever opinion you choose. It doesn't make the opinion correct, or an opinion counter to it wrong. The alignment of facts and realities ultimately determine that, including as it supports a value judgement.

---

Which loops us back again to the simple item that you don't understand the original argument.
Value assessment [yours] doesn't equate to label making.

One man's revolutionary/patriot is another man's rebel. The question is who is applying the label.

Your chest beating of absolute rightness will never eliminate other people's application of their own labels.

Do you really not understand a discussion of actions based on varying perspectives?
Not everything in life is assessed through a morality perspective.
Time. Speed. Weight. Volume. Numerous items are measured without moral judgments.

---

Just because a perspective is varied doesn't absolve it from some very basic tenets of right and wrong. Otherwise, make the affirmative argument for Pol Pot's method of patriotic rebellion and we'll evaluate the merit.

And stop making dumb statements like "chest beating". Nothing of the sort is occurring here.

And did you really just parallel inanimate physical properties with cognitive dynamic actions?

---

Again……not everything in life is viewed through a morality lens.

You continue to insist that the label of "patriot" [or similar] has solely a moral context.
To many current Russians, Putin is a patriot. You may [and likely do] disagree.
That disagreement neither removes the label nor changes its applicability to those giving the label.



Look at that label. You can disagree that it tastes like butter. You can find it a lie and morally reprehensible.
But your disagreement doesn't remove the label. It remains on the container until actually removed.

Do you not understand that moral outrage & disagreement has zero real world implication without some corresponding action.

---

Your replies are becoming incredibly random and less germane. Let's spin up the way back machine.

Your statements: It is that simple. Reasons, initiating incidents, etc. do not matter.
Only outcome determines how the victors and losers are categorized

You've gone into a tangent about morality, when it is you that made the simplistic assessment that victory is all that matters as to how something is categorized. I've repeatedly shown there is more to that categorization than victory, and they're based upon some pretty objective principles of evaluation. Your only counter is that there are people who have/do support very bad categories of leaders/movements/etc., and that somehow the fact they have a viewpoint on it requires some change in categorization. I'm sure many Nazis supported Hitler and the final solution. Doesn't change the categorization of the final solution, even if Germany had won WWII. And it doesn't change the "real world actions" that have been and are taken to prevent such current and future genocidal efforts.

And if you need an analogy with your photo, you think I'm arguing about the morality of the marketing people's statement about their product, when in fact I'm saying I can objectively categorize it as not being butter.

boognish_bear said:

---

Looks like Trump has found a new appreciation for Kemp

Donald Trump’s comments on Brian Kemp at an August 3rd rally in Atlanta:

“He’s a bad guy. He’s a disloyal guy. And he’s a very average governor. Little Brian, little Brian Kemp. Bad guy.”

👉🏻 https://t.co/VuStJqIJjs https://t.co/auD7En43JI

— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) August 23, 2024

---

i bet it's part of his stay on message that his staff and campaign managers want him to do

BUDOS said:

---

Hmmm, I don't think I am the "basement dweller" who drinks the kool aid.

---

Check again, Tovarisch.

Look closer. Especially that glass you just swigged from.

J.R. said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Get professional help.

You genuinely need it.

---

nah, he is spot on. You are the one who needs help.

---

Thanks for your opinion, Kamala.

---

eff off, you little man.

---

Just because you hear that said to you so often, J.R., doesn't mean it works if you use it attacking someone else.

Seems to me that the recent arguments viz a viz the American Civil War establish, more than anything else, that the Secession issue was never really resolved. Yes, the US Supreme Court has ruled that secession is not constitutional, but that decision depends on future courts not changing their opinion. While likely for political reasons, the logic is circular and will not convince any doubters.

Regarding Trump's choice of posts, it appears he is a bit more disciplined in his attention to the issues, but not perfectly so, If Trump were running against a competent opponent like Barack Obama, especially someone with actual work accomplishments, he'd be well behind with no serious hope of winning, but somehow the Democrats have yet again found a candidate so bad that no sane person with an IQ north of 70 would vote for her.

And of course, pretty much everyone on this board has posted according to their usual mood and manner, which is to say no opinions were changed.

The good news is Baylor Football is about to play their first real game of the season, and we can focus on whether the team will be a pleasant surprise or not.