Bison06

So someone throws hot coffee on someone and they retaliate(righteously if you ask me) and you say they are a couple of idiots? I’ll defend this guy all day, you can’t throw hot coffee on someone(actual violence) and not expect retribution. This is America in 2020 though, people(not you) defending the gals right to attack him because he didn’t wear a mask.

Not a defense of Andy Ngo, as I don’t know the specifics here, but isn’t it a journalists job to interview people, which at times means spending a bit of time with them, even if those people are dispicible?

The word violence has meaning, you can’t change it for your own purposes. The connotation of violence allows for the victim of the violence to defend themself. This is why you see people attacking others who have either done something that offends them or said something that offends them. https://www.dailywire.com/news/woman-enraged-at-man-not-wearing-mask-at-outdoor-cafe-allegedly-throws-coffee-in-his-face

This is where my friends in the left lose all credibility in my eyes. People not wearing masks are violent? That’s half a step away from the extreme left wing view that words can be violent and can constitute assault. The left is very adept at what you’ve just done in the above paragraphs and I find it to be a serious threat to our country moving forward. You’ve taken a difference of opinion and turned it into a conversation of violence, which is a word that has meaning as violence can be met with equal violence. So now someone doesn’t wear a mask and it’s ok to be violent against them “in retaliation”. Its a dangerous game you’re playing with that word play.

I have yet to see anything on this board that I would consider “far right wing”. Right of center certainly. On the other hand, we have commenter(s) openly praising left violence in this thread. I enjoy a lively debate, especially among people who disagree fervently, but praising violence and is a bridge too far.

Sooo, doing what we've done for about the last 100 years with respiratory diseases. Interesting.

The problem is people’s interpretation of the words social justice. If it means us coming together and working to provide equal access to opportunities so people can more easily rise, I will literally pick up a sign and stand next to you or anyone else. That’s a beautiful and I think incredibly American project and I fully support it. To many, equality has morphed into equity and equal opportunity has morphed into equal outcomes. Providing equal outcomes requires discrimination against others, which is just taking a sin of the past and directing it at a new group. Eventually that will create more problems than it solves.

Your credibility ticks down every single time you roll out snopes as some sort of objective arbiter of truth.

Weak. Even by your standards.

As with all things like this, I very rarely have a problem with the initial thought, inclusion of all is important to me. However, where does this logic ultimately go? Why are they both men? Why aren't other ethnicities represented etc etc etc. When you follow the logic to it's ultimate conclusion it many times comes back in my brain to the simplest thing is to just leave it alone. I'm sure I'll be accused of being racist or having white privilege for espousing the above thought pattern.

If you're protesting systemic racism, you're a hero and expressing your first amendment right. If you're protesting at the Minnesota state capital to appeal to the governor to allow you to open your business, you're selfish and putting people at risk. Makes sense if you don't think about it.

CNN said it's Trumps fault so that has got to be true.

You wear it everywhere when you’re in public?

We’ll expect a photo of yourself wearing goggles then on this forum soon.

Clinician anecdotes can be just as powerful in driving treatment protocols as research. In fact, that is often how new off label therapies are discovered. People tend to hold up research as the only way medicine moves forward, but anyone in that world will tell you that clinical experiences are just as important.

FDA has no political agenda? You clearly don’t follow the pharmaceutical industry closely. 9 out of the last 10 FDA commissioners have left that position to sit as board members for pharmaceutical companies. The FDA is so deep in bed with the pharma industry, they might as well be the same entity.

Why can’t you condemn far left extremists without whataboutisms? Moderately right leaning people like myself have zero problem condemning the extreme right as terrorists and psychopaths. When extremists break laws and create chaos but they play for your team you are somehow ok with it.

You’re the one that seems to get excited that people are breaking the law and destroying property. You defend Antifa and their actions and don’t seem to think that laws and/or punishment have a useful place in society. You’re literally the definition of an anarchist.

So what does that have to do with how destructive they are? Whether they have central leadership or not, they clearly have intentions to wreak havoc and by staying unorganized are even more dangerous as that makes them less predictable.

Serious question, where do you get your news that you have such outlandish views on these things? You claim that Antifa doesn’t exist, I’m not sure any(even far left) news outlets claim that these people don’t exist. Just that they aren’t a single unified, organized group, which is just semantics if you ask me. So where do you get your news that you think Antifa isn’t a real thing?

You actually are incapable of having a civil conversation. I agreed with you and you still act like a child.

I agree with you on the false equivalency. But to be fair, had the building been empty, he still would have been in jail for the rest of his life.

I don't need to pretend. Why would I defend a news station? I'm of the opinion that all of the mainstream media outlets are horrifically biased and impossible to discern what is actually happening by watching them.

If asking pertinent oppositional questions and not letting him get away with what you call obviously false statement isn't being a fair/tough interviewer then I don't know what is. Without it turning into a debate, which isn't his job, what would you like to have seen more of from Wallace? I thought it was a fair interview verging on some tougher questions at times, I certainly wouldn't have characterized it as a softball interview.

It was literally three posts above that that he was responding to and he quoted it in his post. If you're gonna chime in with a cute little comment, maybe at least read the posts that lead to it.