jakee

Uh, you mean the context of a guy who’s still pissed at Joe Biden for marrying his ex making up a story about a first year Democrat Senator using (again) Richard Nixon’s IRS to prosecute him for tax fraud he does not deny committing? I don’t think you have really considered that context.

Lol, OK. You agree that first term junior Senator Joe Biden directed Richard Nixon's IRS to charge his lover's ex with tax fraud? I mean, the guy doesn't appear to dispute that he owed the tax and it is the IRS's job to go after tax cheats - but the only logical explanation to you that a tax cheat was indicted on tax charges is that Richard Nixon's administration did a first term Democrat Senator a favour?

Trump in court on Thursday: "I promise not to intimidate any witnesses" Trump on Truth Social on Friday: "IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” I don't suppose we could have expected anything different.

It’s been a great week for the Russian Navy then. A few days ago the Russians proudly announced they’d foiled a drone boat attack on one of the main Crimean dockyards. Today Ukraine released footage of one of those boats sneaking right up to a large Russian warship before exploding, and later spy footage of said warship listing extremely heavily with a tug attached.

So what happened to this? People should compete in whatever sports - and with whatever rules - that THEY choose to accept. No one else. If a woman wants to compete in a sport with only biological women? That's fine; she can choose that.

There are plenty of Olympic sports that trans people cannot compete in - either inside or outside the Olympics themselves. And that’s totally fine and has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, it’s just a sporting decision that you’re absolutely ok with because it doesn’t concern you, right?

Can you even say that without feeling dirty?

So Bill equally supports the choices of leagues which do or don’t allow trans participation?

Oooooh yeah that’s right. Anyway, how quick are they planning to take this to trial? I mean, the guy tried to use the power of the government to overthrow the government, and now he wants to be in government again. He has to be convicted before then.

Yep, Hedley Lamarr. (Which apparently was also a very funny joke in those days!)

Errr, so if someone wants to have a sex change and lose the opportunity to compete in professional sport that’s also fine and they can choose that too. You don’t get a say. The difference in the logic being…?

Elon's latest win - being forced to remove a giant, flashing, insanely bright 'X' sign from the roof of HQ that was put up without permission. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-66296419

We've got plenty of parking warriors over here... but I struggle to believe that one's real. She seems a bit too calm and coherent for someone having a completey irrational argument, and why on earth would she have thought it was idling in the first place?

Meanwhile in real law, after it emerges that Trump ordered his underlings to try and erase security camera footage showing the movement of his boxes, one of Trump’s former lawyers says the case against him ‘really tight’ and the evidence ‘rock solid’.

No, remember he’s not blaming the victim. He’d blame the victim’s mother for not teaching her to dress more modestly. Because, err, that’s better somehow.

It seems undisputed that Tuberville's dad served with honour in what would have been truly horrendous conditions, in the midst of some of the fiercest German resistance of the war. If Tuberville doesn't think that's enough to be really proud of without significant embellishment, that's very sad. Also, if he sits on armed forces and especially veteran's affairs committees without knowing the difference between a Bronze Star and a campaign star then is he taking his job particularly seriously?

Any particular things you’re apologising for?

Well there’s a thought that raises a few questions. If he does know it, why is he saying something different? If he doesn’t know it, why hasn’t he found out? (It’s really not hard) And regardless of the above why, at the mere mention of Emmett Till, does he feel the need to point out that ‘if he’d just kept his head down and shut up he’d have been fine, it’s not as simplistic as y’all are making out’?

He was made acutely aware that he would not be afforded basic human rights. My source for that assertion? You, repeatedly. It is incredibly disingenuous of you to accuse others of projecting meaning onto your statements while you continue to pretend to be completely unaware of what you have actually said.

This is a lie. That was absolutely definitively not your point. “By all accounts Emmett Till was told in no uncertain terms that flirting with white women in Mississippi was a Bad Career Move. Emmett, however, made light of it, claimed to have dated white girls back home, and made a point to demonstrate to his cousins that it was no big deal. That did not end well.“ “His mother had warned him to be very careful what he said and did when he went down South, since things were different there, and he assured her that he'd be fine. His cousins said that while in Mississippi he claimed to have dated a white girl back home (Chicago?), and was cavalier about it. The overall picture that was painted was that of a brash, very naïve and generally typical adolescent, out of his element, who had no idea how dangerous was his environment.” The most charitable interpretation of what is happening here is that you have changed your mind after your initial posts, and are now blaming everyone else for not knowing that you were going to change your mind when they replied to you. I’m not inclined to believe that this is what’s happening.

Which is irrelevant, because that is not what people were calling victim blaming. You said Till was warned “in no uncertain terms”. You repeated the assertion that Till’s mother had strongly warned him to be very careful because of how different things were down there. You said he ignored those warnings because he was brash, naive, cavalier and boastful. That’s what people are thinking is victim blaming. Y’know, the stuff you actually said, not what you’re now pretending you said.

That’s weird. Because what you actually said in your first post was this “By all accounts Emmett Till was told in no uncertain terms that flirting with white women in Mississippi was a Bad Career Move.” Does that sound like the bottom line is that he was insufficiently warned? Does that sound like it was the responsibility of the people who should have warned him? Saying something “louder and slower” and saying something completely different are not the same thing. It is pathetic and laughable that you are blaming other people for misunderstanding what you meant, when you are now explicitly claiming to have meant something that is clearly, obviously and objectively the opposite of what you originally wrote. Not that we should expect anything more from someone who boasts about refusing to listen to people who disagree with him.

That’s rich, given that you appear to have a massive problem with people who read what he writes without assuming that he doesn’t actually mean it.

No one took it that way. You're just imagining things as an excuse to get worked up. I don't think Winsor takes pleasure in thinking about Till being murdered. I do think there's a good chance he simply doesn't care. He said he committed suicide. It takes some serious sophistry to get around that. In doing so, he also takes as gospel the claims that Till acted in a way that brought it on himself. The sources for that are 1) Claims from one of Till's relatives (in an interview with a journalist who paid for stories) who later recanted and apologised, and 2) The racist murderers themselves. So.... yeah. Not quite as simplistic as he makes out, in his insistence that Till's murder was Till's fault.

Coming from the undisputed king of the petty grudge I’ll take that with a pinch of salt. I also flatly did not say that he saluted the outcome, so maybe give your own fevered imagination a break before you trigger yourself again. However, Winsor has a long history of racist statements and attitudes on this site. Heck, given that he claims only racists focus on race, pretty much the only thing he ever posts about is race relations. And everything in my post stands. He did say Till was responsible for his own death. He did say it was simplistic to view it otherwise. He did say that the response should have been for the black community to forswear racist violence. Since you failed to specify, which bit of that do you think I got wrong? And personally, given his history, I absolutely do believe the message of that first post far more than the ‘woe is me I’m so misunderstood’ denials of what he very clearly did say.