Paul Pelosi attack

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Accusing someone of being with a prostitute whether gay or heterosexual is an insult. That is the insult the Republicans threw around. If it wasn't meant to be an insult why did the Republicans all use the word gay?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm old enough to remember when homosexuals were called homosexuals. It was a purely, biologically, psychologically, sociologically, descriptive word, but those who are called "gays" now objected then to being called homosexual because it somehow connoted an abnormal, devious, condition. So they chose to call themselves "gay" which used to be a word that denoted happiness, joy, good stuff, even better than just being normal such as heterosexuals supposedly were.

I'll never forget an incident when I was working behind the reference desk in our downtown library, a man asked for information on the subject. This was when "gay" had barely begun to make any headway at all as a term of use. So I gave him the file that was labeled homosexuality as a starter to peruse before finding him various books about it. He blew up in my face, and excoriated the library system for filing information under that title. He took it very personally as a homo--, er, "gay" person, claiming it was a derogatory word that painted a negative image of "gays." And went on and on about what bigots we were. I didn't engage in whatever debate he may have wanted to have or in whatever diatribe he wished to deliver. Just went about my business of getting him some more information. I doubted that any of it would use the label "gay" at that time. Hoped he wouldn't come back and call me out for discrimination and insensitivity for giving him such inflammatory literature--its all we had. The word "gay" in the manner he wanted to use it had not even begun to be the preferred term, (or the seemingly mandated term of today). One hardly ever, if ever, uses the word "gay" now to mean anything other than what used to be called homosexual. Just one of the many changes in the meanings of words that have "helped" to change our culture into becoming inclusive--and "nice."

Apparently, re Paul's post, even "gay" has reverted to being as insulting as "homosexual." Gotta keep changing these key words until we remake society into the "inclusion diversity and equity" model that will make us all happy. Though, if really nice and happy words, like "gay" used to be, still ain't good enough, one wonders even if we keep extending that peculiar sexual section of our vocabulary from homosexual, to gay, to perhaps "nice people," that will still be an insult for some reason or other.

Maybe homosexual is still homosexual, no matter what abuse we put language through. I don't consider homosexual to be derogatory. Why should it be, if its just a harmless matter of sexual choice?

[Pete F.]

Does Jim have sex with goats?
I’m not saying he does!
I’m just asking.
Maybe Jim can give us definitive proof that he’s not a goat f’er who huffs nitrous and shouts “mommy” while he’s f’n goats.
I’m just asking questions, maybe Tucker can look into this or is he also part of the goat cabal?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Does Jim have sex with goats?
I’m not saying he does!
I’m just asking.
Maybe Jim can give us definitive proof that he’s not a goat f’er who huffs nitrous and shouts “mommy” while he’s f’n goats.
I’m just asking questions, maybe Tucker can look into this or is he also part of the goat cabal?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete. That’s a way below the belt and uncalled for you should delete it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Pete. That’s a way below the belt and uncalled for you should delete it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sincerely appreciated, but not necessary. his post doesn’t say anything about me, but says everything about him. and your response says everything about you, and that’s a sincere compliment. because i wasn’t always as courteous to you ( god knows) as i could have been, which makes your response even better.

have a great new year to you and your family wayne!

[wdmso]

I don't consider homosexual to be derogatory. Why should it be, if its just a harmless matter of sexual choice?

See Jim that’s the problem it’s not about what you consider to be derogatory or offensive.

whether it’s derogatory or not, can only be decided by the person it’s being used against or towards

Not the speaker determination, that it’s not derogatory

I’ll give you an example my wife was trying to remember a girl she worked with temporarily on the floor with the oncoming nurse who’s black she couldn’t remember the girls name but she knew the girl was black but my wife referred to her as colored .

And the black nurse who is relieving her tore, her new one for using the term colored, basically telling her refer to her is black it’s offensive the color colored

If my wife’s mistake was unconscious one, and a lesson was learned

but there are people who use terms to incite intimidate, or embarrass others. It happened here a few days ago.

forced to bake queers cakes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Pete. That’s a way below the belt and uncalled for you should delete it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“That may well not be the case, but it’s a logical conclusion.”

“And I don't care if Paul Pelosi is gay, or if he was attacked by a random intruder. But the left chose to make this a political weapon, so we have the right to know the truth. All we need to do, is see the bodycam video. Obviously, those in control, don't want that bodycam video released. If the bodycam video showed the attacker beating Mr Pelosi while yelling "Trump paid me to do it!", obviously we'd have seen it. The logical conclusion is that we haven't seen the video, because those in charge don't like whats on there. That may well not be the case, but And I don't care if Paul Pelosi is gay, or if he was attacked by a random intruder. But the left chose to make this a political weapon, so we have the right to know the truth. All we need to do, is see the bodycam video. Obviously, those in control, don't want that bodycam video released. If the bodycam video showed the attacker beating Mr Pelosi while yelling "Trump paid me to do it!", obviously we'd have seen it. The logical conclusion is that we haven't seen the video, because those in charge don't like whats on there. That may well not be the case, but it's a logical conclusion.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

sincerely appreciated, but not necessary. his post doesn’t say anything about me, but says everything about him. and your response says everything about you, and that’s a sincere compliment. because i wasn’t always as courteous to you ( god knows) as i could have been, which makes your response even better.

have a great new year to you and your family wayne!

It is necessary. Wrong is wrong. I don’t mind having spirited arguments but I really don’t like going down the road of throwing insults like playing tennis.

I’ve never found anyone here not to be courteous it’s just sometimes the meaning of the message gets confused like in a text message Sometimes it’s hard to read peoples intent. Hell even my kids sometimes say I talk like a fortune cookie. And my writing is far worse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by wdmso

It is necessary. Wrong is wrong. I don’t mind having spirited arguments but I really don’t like going down the road of throwing insults like playing tennis.

I’ve never found anyone here not to be courteous it’s just sometimes the meaning of the message gets confused like in a text message Sometimes it’s hard to read peoples intent. Hell even my kids sometimes say I talk like a fortune cookie. And my writing is far worse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I disagree
Jim consistently repeats unfounded accusations, with no basis in fact.

The Pelosi thing has been rebutted by everyone involved, it’s every bit as true as what I posted.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I disagree
Jim consistently repeats unfounded accusations, with no basis in fact.

The Pelosi thing has been rebutted by everyone involved, it’s every bit as true as what I posted.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The NBC affiliate in San Francisco reported that those who saw the bodycam footage, say it really didn't look like Pelosi was acting like these was a home invasion.

That's not from Foxnews, but from the NBC affiliate out there.

Releasing the bodycam footage would put an end to it. Someone obviously doesn't want that to happen.

I'm no conspiracy nut, I said the most likely explanation is a home invasion by a raving lunatic who may well have had political motives that made sense to his insane mind. But the fact is, NBC has reported some contradictory information. More than once. If you don't like that, take it up with NBC.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I don't consider homosexual to be derogatory. Why should it be, if its just a harmless matter of sexual choice?

See Jim that’s the problem it’s not about what you consider to be derogatory or offensive.

whether it’s derogatory or not, can only be decided by the person it’s being used against or towards

Not the speaker determination, that it’s not derogatory

I’ll give you an example my wife was trying to remember a girl she worked with temporarily on the floor with the oncoming nurse who’s black she couldn’t remember the girls name but she knew the girl was black but my wife referred to her as colored .

And the black nurse who is relieving her tore, her new one for using the term colored, basically telling her refer to her is black it’s offensive the color colored

If my wife’s mistake was unconscious one, and a lesson was learned

but there are people who use terms to incite intimidate, or embarrass others. It happened here a few days ago.

forced to bake queers cakes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We know you don't consider homosexuality to be derogatory. I also don't consider homosexual to be derogatory (I was in favor of gay marriage when Obama was against it, Hilary was against it, and when the state of CA of all places voted against it). But the left has also used Lindsay Graham's rumored homosexuality as a club against him repeatedly. I didn't use anyones sexuality against them. In a poorly worded joke, I accused Paul of doing that, even though I also know he didn't mean it that way.

Very funny what you say about "colored". I have a white coworker who found someone else's car keys in our office kitchen, and he knew that a black woman had just been in there. He gave the keys to the secretary, and said "I think that colored girl left these in the break room".

The guy was obviously just trying to help. He's an older guy, in his late 60's, and that was the terminology he grew up with. They made him go to sensitivity training, poor guy.

Not everyone has skin as thick as yours is!

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The NBC affiliate in San Francisco reported that those who saw the bodycam footage, say it really didn't look like Pelosi was acting like these was a home invasion.

That's not from Foxnews, but from the NBC affiliate out there.

Releasing the bodycam footage would put an end to it. Someone obviously doesn't want that to happen.

I'm no conspiracy nut, I said the most likely explanation is a home invasion by a raving lunatic who may well have had political motives that made sense to his insane mind. But the fact is, NBC has reported some contradictory information. More than once. If you don't like that, take it up with NBC.

You’re either lying or willfully blind to the facts.

Those pushing the "gay lover" theory have pointed to a handful of purported pieces of evidence based on falsehoods and twisted storylines. They say that DePape was in his underwear when police arrived at the scene -- but the local TV station that originally reported that has since corrected its story and removed the assertion. Others have suggested that a third person opened the door to Pelosi's house, but police have debunked that.

Many of the theorists have latched on to a recording of a 911 dispatcher saying that Pelosi referred to DePape as "a friend" and "sounded somewhat confused."

But Pelosi seemed to be speaking in coded language on the 911 call to make clear he needed help, a law enforcement source previously told CNN. And the complaint notes that Pelosi told officers he had never seen DePape before.

The complaint also included an interview police did with DePape in which he admitted breaking into the house and said he surprised Pelosi. According to the complaint, DePape said that he wanted to hold Nancy Pelosi hostage because he viewed her as the "'leader of the pack' of lies told by the Democratic Party," and claimed he was "fighting against tyranny without the option of surrender."

Scott, the San Francisco chief, called the conspiracies surrounding the attack "pathetic" and "disturbing."

"We've spent a lot of energy just pushing back, really ridiculous conspiracy theories, to make sure people stay focused on our team," he said. "These things are harmful to society, they're harmful to the victims involved -- it's really sad that we are here in this place, but we are."

So how’s your goat like it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I don't consider homosexual to be derogatory. Why should it be, if its just a harmless matter of sexual choice?

See Jim that’s the problem it’s not about what you consider to be derogatory or offensive.

whether it’s derogatory or not, can only be decided by the person it’s being used against or towards

Not the speaker determination, that it’s not derogatory

I’ll give you an example my wife was trying to remember a girl she worked with temporarily on the floor with the oncoming nurse who’s black she couldn’t remember the girls name but she knew the girl was black but my wife referred to her as colored .

And the black nurse who is relieving her tore, her new one for using the term colored, basically telling her refer to her is black it’s offensive the color colored

If my wife’s mistake was unconscious one, and a lesson was learned

but there are people who use terms to incite intimidate, or embarrass others. It happened here a few days ago.

forced to bake queers cakes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The black nurse didn't have to tear your wife a new one unless she was consumed by a racial grievance that could only be relieved by striking out at someone she considered to be the cause, or part of the cause, of that grievance. The "lesson" I would have learned from such abusive behavior is that the black nurse had unresolved issues and that I would be better off not having many personal conversations with her for fear of inadvertently saying something "wrong." She could have politely told your wife that saying "colored" is offensive to her and please say black, if you don't mind. What any Blacks, Negros, Coloreds, Afro-Americans, personally wish to be called, is not that definitive or constant from time to time. To say that only they can decide what is derogatory is denying anyone else a use of language they don't personally consider derogatory. This is especially true if there is no standardized usage that for everyone is purely descriptive. When people take umbrage at words like "homosexual" or heterosexual or bisexual or asexual which have no inherent derogatory connotations and then decide to replace them with their own words, like "gay," they are insulting not only a language, but all of those who have used, and wish to use, that word to describe their own experiences--language is seized by a select few at the discouragement of anyone else from its appropriate use. That's a form of insult that is probably intended.

I still don't know what is the preferred or "correct" diction, Black or Afro-American. Black seems to be the choice of the day. But "people of color" in certain instances is quite OK--and very "inclusive" and a sort of self-satisfying jab/insult to "whites" who are excluded from the implicitly better group.

BTW, I've noticed that your writing has improved a lot, maybe from your daily back and forth on the forum. Still a ways to go. But keep it up, you'll eventually show your kids that you can do better than "fortune cookie" talk.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The black nurse didn't have to tear your wife a new one unless she was consumed by a racial grievance that could only be relieved by striking out at someone she considered to be the cause, or part of the cause, of that grievance. The "lesson" I would have learned from such abusive behavior is that the black nurse had unresolved issues and that I would be better off not having many personal conversations with her for fear of inadvertently saying something "wrong." She could have politely told your wife that saying "colored" is offensive to her and please say black, if you don't mind. What any Blacks, Negros, Coloreds, Afro-Americans, personally wish to be called, is not that definitive or constant from time to time. To say that only they can decide what is derogatory is denying anyone else a use of language they don't personally consider derogatory. This is especially true if there is no standardized usage that for everyone is purely descriptive. When people take umbrage at words like "homosexual" or heterosexual or bisexual or asexual which have no inherent derogatory connotations and then decide to replace them with their own words, like "gay," they are insulting not only a language, but all of those who have used, and wish to use, that word to describe their own experiences--language is seized by a select few at the discouragement of anyone else from its appropriate use. That's a form of insult that is probably intended.

I still don't know what is the preferred or "correct" diction, Black or Afro-American. Black seems to be the choice of the day. But "people of color" in certain instances is quite OK--and very "inclusive" and a sort of self-satisfying jab/insult to "whites" who are excluded from the implicitly better group.

BTW, I've noticed that your writing has improved a lot, maybe from your daily back and forth on the forum. Still a ways to go. But keep it up, you'll eventually show your kids that you can do better than "fortune cookie" talk.

unless she was consumed by a racial grievance

You act as if they got in a fight, and she wrote my wife up to HR

It’s not my or my wife’s place to criticize her response we’re not Black and no nothing of her past

If she called my wife a cracker and my wife tore her a new one I don’t think it would be because she was consumed by a racial grievance

But their are many who are absolutely driven by and consumed by a racial grievance. Just not this story
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I disagree
Jim consistently repeats unfounded accusations, with no basis in fact.

The Pelosi thing has been rebutted by everyone involved, it’s every bit as true as what I posted.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I Just don’t think the bestiality comments are helpful

I do agree . the rights infatuation with the gay relationship angle with pelosi

Now the drag queens shows or books don’t forget groomers Everything is about sexuality
Or sexualizing

And yes Jim does present many unfounded accusations, with no basis in fact.

I am Just suggesting we all show a little more restraint in our counter points

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I Just don’t think the bestiality comments are helpful

I do agree . the rights infatuation with the gay relationship angle with pelosi

Now the drag queens shows or books don’t forget groomers Everything is about sexuality
Or sexualizing

And yes Jim does present many unfounded accusations, with no basis in fact.

I am Just suggesting we all show a little more restraint in our counter points

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually I chose that because it was so exaggerated that it would not be taken as “true”.
Would it have been within the bounds to accuse him of a more acceptable fetish perhaps grooming, child abuse, sexual predation or any of the other typical Republican claims and/or behaviors?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

unless she was consumed by a racial grievance

You act as if they got in a fight, and she wrote my wife up to HR

Not at all. I never mentioned a fight nor HR. I responded to your " tore, her new one" which The Free Dictionary defines as "To criticize, berate, or upbraid one in an extremely belligerent and angry manner." I don't think that behavior was called for. As I said, she could have politely told your wife that the term she used was offensive to her and would prefer that she used "Black" instead. Her unjustifiably rude behavior indicates, at least to me, she had a grievance about what word your wife spoke, and since it was about a racial term, that the grievance was racial. Simply using an "incorrect" word is not a cause for belligerent anger.

It’s not my or my wife’s place to criticize her response we’re not Black and no nothing of her past

As a third party reading what you describe as criticizing your wife in a belligerent and angry manner, it's not out of the realm of my opinion to criticize the Black Nurse's belligerent criticism of your wife.

If she called my wife a cracker and my wife tore her a new one I don’t think it would be because she was consumed by a racial grievance

Perhaps your wife could have politely asked why she called her a cracker. Or she could be unnecessarily nasty and just tear her a new one . . . because . . . I don't know . . . if "cracker" is merely another word for "white" I can't conceive of any reason for your wife to be belligerent unless she had some kind of anger issue that rises to the surface when being called a cracker.


But their are many who are absolutely driven by and consumed by a racial grievance. Just not this story

If it rises to belligerent anger when being referred to as anything other than "Black" (even though some pigment of "Brown" would be more accurate), to me, something more than diction is going on and it certainly seems to be about race.

If I'm not mistaken, being "Black" is a pride thing. A racial pride. being referred to as vaguely "colored" can be perceived as an attack on racial purity, or as akin to being considered some mongrelized person of no distinct, proud, heritage or lineage. Being referred to as "brown" lumps one into the vast array of brown toned people--like the "People of color" moniker that is used as a somewhat useful and somewhat prideful collective distinction from the also vast array of "white" people.

The "Pride" distinctions are not very useful. On the contrary, they're needlessly divisive. On the other hand, if for various actual practical reasons someone's skin tone needs to be described--OK . . . but pride in skin tone--not so good.

I think your wife's intent in saying "colored" was, on the margins of describing someone in discussion, a practical, though perhaps clumsy, use of diction. It certainly didn't call for her being torn a new one.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

Ok
Answer 1 one points I made.
Where’s the home security video ?
Where’s the body cam video ?
How does a person break into a house and the glass shatters outward, he use a suction cup on the glass 🤔

Well the video is out, there goes another one of your conspiracy theories out the window with the broken glass. Well I guess you could say it’s staged like the moon landing, yeah that might work for you.

[spence]

Queue all the video of republicans making fun of him.

[Pete F.]

We get to see an 80-year-old man get bludgeoned with a hammer (inc. his blood pooling on the floor) because our "politics" are so toxic that a judge (siding with news organizations) determined it was necessary to stop disinformation.

Notice what happened

They weren't "just asking questions."

They were spreading cruel and defamatory falsehoods against an almost fatally wounded man and his grieving family.

Then when the definitive rebuttal appears, they vanish - to repeat the same mean-spirited trick again and again.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Sadly the Truth won’t set the GOPQ horde Free their parasites. Like fleas they’ll just go jump to new conspiracy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

We get to see an 80-year-old man get bludgeoned with a hammer (inc. his blood pooling on the floor) because our "politics" are so toxic that a judge (siding with news organizations) determined it was necessary to stop disinformation.

Notice what happened

They weren't "just asking questions."

They were spreading cruel and defamatory falsehoods against an almost fatally wounded man and his grieving family.

Then when the definitive rebuttal appears, they vanish - to repeat the same mean-spirited trick again and again.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pathetic, But many in the GOP are in the party of trump - a vile, cheap, dishonest bully of a man
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

The “law and order” party or at least a fair number were making fun of the attack and many questioning if it even went down the way it was reported.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

The “law and order” party or at least a fair number were making fun of the attack and many questioning if it even went down the way it was reported.

it was reported multiple ways by NBC Bob. not foxnews, NBC. video and 911 call are strange in ways but looks more like an intruder than a tryst gone bad.

[wdmso]

Yep right wingers still can’t let it go the fleas jumped now it’s

Body-Cam Footage Confirms Paul Pelosi Opened Door for Police, Contradicts DOJ Account

If you watch the body camera film clearly shows Pelosi didn’t open the door

[wdmso]

This from MarjorieTaylorGreene who’s now on the homeland Security Committee?

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.): “… Paul Pelosi’s friend attacking him with a hammer.”

Other GOP elected officials

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.): “That moment you realize the nudist hippie male prostitute LSD guy was the reason your husband didn’t make it to your fundraiser.” (Deleted.)

Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.): Shared a photo of a group of young men holding oversized hammers next to a gay pride flag and added, “LOL.” (Deleted.)







Conservatives media

That the attack was a false flag/didn’t happen
OAN: “This whole thing could be a false flag of sorts, staged if you will. I mean, the midterms are just weeks away and the Dems know they’re going to get hammered.”
OAN: “I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s hidden from public spotlight for a very long time. Just long enough for his injuries — his injuries, purported injuries — to go away.”

Fox News host Jesse Watters: “Now, there was glass broken at the rear door. We’ve seen those photos. But there looks like there’s glass on both sides, inside and out, and FBI sources are telling ‘Primetime’ that’s odd.”

Conservatives darling

Elon Musk, while linking to a website that labeled the attack “a dispute with a male prostitute”: “There is a tiny possibility there might be more to this story than meets the eye.” (Musk deleted the tweet.)

Dinesh D’Souza: “Why was the assailant in his underpants?” (He wasn’t; this notion was based on reporting that was corrected shortly after it was published, two days before D’Souza’s comments.) “My conclusion? This guy, the assailant, is either a sexual partner or a male prostitute, and this is a sexual rendezvous that went sideways.”


Again it’s all in black and white or in audio recordings and the Right wing machine knows their viewers want lies not facts they want name calling and jerry springer outlandish statements and suggestions

Yep both sides do it.. lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

From the Seattle times.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Now do the Jussie Smolette incident
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

it was reported multiple ways by NBC Bob. not foxnews, NBC. video and 911 call are strange in ways but looks more like an intruder than a tryst gone bad.

No they didn’t. It was a local affiliate who promptly retracted the reporting when they realized it didn’t have a credible source. Quit making things up.

I dealt with a home invasion four years ago, trust me it is surreal. I wish I had a recording of that call to the police.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No they didn’t. It was a local affiliate who promptly retracted the reporting when they realized it didn’t have a credible source. Quit making things up.

I dealt with a home invasion four years ago, trust me it is surreal. I wish I had a recording of that call to the police.

a local affiliate of which network? NBC. NBC national disappeared a guy who posted something similar without giving any details, it was strange.

we now know. it’s over. should have released this on day one. hope pelosi recovers and this attacker gets exactly what’s coming to him.

i don’t understand how there’s no security, even when she’s in DC or in the other side of the globe. makes zero sense.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Now do the Jussie Smolette incident
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and kyle rittenhouse, and NicK Sandman, and Duke lacrosse, and darren wilson…throw tawana brawley in there…but only one side does this.