As a general principle, a universal truism, if your political philosophy often leaves you unwilling to answer simple questions about it . . .

[bripat9643]

I presume you feel we didn't have the right to bomb Japan either? I guess you believe we're a country of war criminals.

Roosevelt and Curtis Lemay certainly were. So was that psycho Arthur Harris.

 

[westwall]

I presume you feel we didn't have the right to bomb Japan either? I guess you believe we're a country of war criminals.

Non sequitur dummy reverts to non sequitur idiocy, yet again.

 

[Seymour Flops]

As I'm sure you will recall, this man was chosen as Don's National Security Adviser. He was also in the Oval on Dec. 18th, 2020 fomenting bullshit about election fraud. Do you want a man who associates with Flynn to be considered as a legit candidate for prez?

If your point is that I should apply my truism about not wanting to answer questions to General Flynn, I think that is a fair point. I'm sure that Flynn's lawyer is telling him to take the 5th on anything to do with Jan 6th, which is a sound legal strategy. But not being able to say, "NO!" to the question, "Do you believe that the violence on January 6th was justified?" indeed shows a flaw in his position.

If they had asked me that one, I would have immediately condemned the violence, starting with the most violent act of all, the murder of Ashli Babbitt.

That said, I don't believe that the fact that General Flynn took the fifth in answer to a question about January 6th - which as far as I know, he had no involvement with - means that the president who appointed him National Security Adviser is forever illegitimate as a presidential candidate. I don't know how much Donald Trump "associates" with General Flynn these days, but if he does, that certainly does not make him unable to be a legitimate candidate.

Don't forget that Trump also appointed Christopher Wray, who has become one of the nation's premier hider of information from the American people. Does that disqualify Trump?

 

[alang1216]

So now you are comparing a deliberately aborted child with WII bombing? Really?

Dead is dead. Maybe you could explain the difference.

 

[alang1216]

Non sequitur dummy reverts to non sequitur idiocy, yet again.

I do so admire posters that insult rather than answer. Ironic in a thread about someone being vilified for their answer.

 

[alang1216]

Roosevelt and Curtis Lemay certainly were. So was that psycho Arthur Harris.

I'm not sure I disagree about Harris and Lemay. Can I assume you're against capital punishment too?

 

[westwall]

I do so admire posters that insult rather than answer. Ironic in a thread about someone being vilified for their answer.

Your non sequitur nonsense responses are insults in and of themselves.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not sure I disagree about Harris and Lemay. Can I assume you're against capital punishment too?

Capital punishments is punishment of a specific person for a specific crime, not mass slaughter.

 

[alang1216]

Capital punishments is punishment of a specific person for a specific crime, not mass slaughter.

One woman's abortion hardly qualifies as 'mass slaughter'.

 

[bripat9643]

One woman's abortion hardly qualifies as 'mass slaughter'.

Who said it was?

 

[alang1216]

Who said it was?

If it wasn't you, maybe you can explain what you meant in Post #128.

 

[bripat9643]

If it wasn't you, maybe you can explain what you meant in Post #128.

I was talking about war.

 

[alang1216]

I was talking about war.

So killing the innocent is ALWAYS immoral or are there instances where it is acceptable?

 

[Seymour Flops]

When I ask a yes or no question on a message board that I believe the person asked will not feel comfortable answering, I often say, "Yes or no, then explain all you like. That way the "it's more than a yes or no, answer" excuse won't fly. I must predict correctly pretty often, because it is extremely rare that I actually get a yes or no answer when I say that.

When a person does not want to answer a question about their political views, it is usually because their honest answer either defies logic or is shocking. For example, Judge Jackson's honest answer to "define the word 'woman?'" would have been, "a person who identifies as a woman." That is the standard that she will use as a justice. When a biological male has a case in which they claim to have been discriminated against "as a woman," Justice Jackson will take it as a given that the person is a woman.

If she had answered honestly, the Dems would have certainly still confirmed her. But then the Red Wave would have grown that much larger and more forceful.