CSNbbs

Full Version: Trump Administration
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656
I can tell you one big honking thing that fell way the fk short of any measure of 'bipartisan' --- anything associated in the House with the impeachment.

That is seemingly Pelosi's biggest achievement thus far in passing anything as far as I can see.

As for the 'no evidence' in terms of the Grand Bargain, even your Hill story makes out that Obama very much moved the goalposts on Boehner. It very much makes that case that Obama retraded an existing agreement -- to the extent that Boehner walked.

Quote:“I can’t be to the right of Lamar Alexander,” Obama said, referring to the Tennessee Senate Republican who had backed the Gang of Six accord, according to an aide.

followed by:

Quote:On July 20, Obama came out with a new deficit-reduction figure that was about $400 billion more than he had previously agreed to, though it was far less than the Gang of Six figure.

Note the term 'more than HE HAD PREVIOUSLY AGREED TO'.

In short, Obama retraded Boehner. Boehner responded by telling him to pound sand.

As for the 'bipartisan support' I went to the democrats.senate.gov site that lists all the examples that crow about 'bipartisan support'. Bluntly, when I got the 10th or 12th one in the first 10 or 12 that was 231 aye with 3 Republicans in support (or other one digit support numbers), that doesnt strike me as too 'bipartisan'..... Seriously, is anything with one Republican vote now heralded as 'bipartisan' by this? Lordy.....
(02-03-2020 03:55 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2020 11:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I can agree with your last sentence, but I find the actions of Democrats and their leaders to be orders of magnitude worse. When you can point o investigations and impeachments, false dossiers and lying to FISA courts, call me back. But the frustrating thing is the blind insistence by your side that the problems with Democrat actions are orders of magnitude less.

I'll just reiterate the same point I made in response to 69/70/75. This one is very subjective. You think Pelosi and Schumer are worse. I think McConnell is worse. Hard to find objective evidence. At one point (maybe a month ago) I provided a list of bipartisan legislation that passed the house and McConnell refused to bring up for a vote (because he knew it was highly likely to pass). I believe at the time I asked if any of the conservatives could provide a similar list of bipartisan legislation that Pelosi or Reid/Schumer killed and I don't think any of the conservatives got back to me on that.

I find it equal parts amusing and confusing that some of the conservatives here go out of their way to proclaim that they are not Republicans, but then proceed to parrot the Fox News talking points on impeachment and investigations. I think Trump should be impeached over his conduct regarding Ukraine. I also think that if Democrat did something similar, he/she should be impeached. If Buttigieg asked China for dirt on the Trump family and offered future trade benefits if he gets elected in return, I would be horrified and support his immediate impeachment if he was elected. So I guess at least I'm not a hypocrite.

As for your other Fox News talking points, the FISA stuff isn't really a partisan issue. Law enforcement overreach is not an issue that I believe favors one party or ideology over the other. That doesn't mean it isn't a problem. Remember, part of the reason Comey announced the re-opening of the Clinton email investigation 1 week before the election is because there were rumors that DOJ employees in SDNY were going to leak the story. Rudy Giuliani basically admitted as much just before the Comey announcement:
Quote:On Oct. 25, 2016, three days before Mr. Comey’s stunning announcement, Mr. Giuliani appeared on a Fox morning television show.

“We got a couple of surprises left,” Mr. Giuliani said.

He chortled, and when asked to expand on the subject, replied, “And I think it’ll be enormously effective.”

On Thursday, Oct. 27, Mr. Giuliani appeared on another Fox show and said he was talking about “pretty big surprises.” He added, “We’ve got a couple of things up our sleeve that should turn this thing around.”

The news of the reactivated email inspection arrived the following day and may have helped propel Mr. Trump closer to the presidency.

I find this very insulting. Odd coming from the guy who complained about civility. Well, not really, considering the Democratic Double Standard.

Yes, I try to set the record straight. I am not a Republican, a word that when you use it, sounds a lot like leper or nazi. I am a conservative, and support issues i believe in and when called upon to vote, vote for the lesser evil. I have, over nearly seven decades, and through my experiences in business, experiences which you do not share, and through my experiences with Mexico and the Border, experiences which you do not share, come to certain conclusions about certain things. That is what I believe: therefore it is what I am. Over the course of my life, I have moved left to right. I still hold a lot of my old liberal viewpoints - like equal rights for all sorts of people. Lots of things that people in other parties support that I don't like, including the Republican and Libertarian parties. I am not a party animal, certainly not to the extent you are. I wish the Libertarians were mainstream - they would get a lot more of my support. But in most cases, I think throwing my vote to a minority party just helps the greater evil party. Twice since Carter have I not voted for the Republican for President - once I voted for a Democrat, once I voted for nobody. How diverse have your presidential votes been?

I have also, many times, told everybody here of the several diverse sources of news and commentary I listen to. Sorry you only heard the one.

A few questions:

On what basis do you think a thoughtful conservative could not come to certain conclusions without listening to Fox News? Many of my ideas were formed long before Fox News existed. Maybe they are parroting me. I do change, when presented with a thoughtful case that changes my thinking.

On what basis do you link Fox News to the Republican party?

I think your very use of the phrase "Fox News Talking Points" shows that you are brainwashed beyond redemption.


Might as well debate religion with a street corner Bible thumper. Mind set in concrete.

Well, thanks for an entertaining few months.

Sorry, Big, I thought you could be somebody I could talk with. My mistake.

Good luck to you and your family. Hope your daughter sells all of her Girl Scout cookies.
(02-03-2020 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I find this very insulting. Odd coming from the guy who complained about civility. Well, not really, considering the Democratic Double Standard.

Yes, I try to set the record straight. I am not a Republican, a word that when you use it, sounds a lot like leper or nazi. I am a conservative, and support issues i believe in and when called upon to vote, vote for the lesser evil. I have, over nearly seven decades, and through my experiences in business, experiences which you do not share, and through my experiences with Mexico and the Border, experiences which you do not share, come to certain conclusions about certain things. That is what I believe: therefore it is what I am. Over the course of my life, I have moved left to right. I still hold a lot of my old liberal viewpoints - like equal rights for all sorts of people. Lots of things that people in other parties support that I don't like, including the Republican and Libertarian parties. I am not a party animal, certainly not to the extent you are. I wish the Libertarians were mainstream - they would get a lot more of my support. But in most cases, I think throwing my vote to a minority party just helps the greater evil party. Twice since Carter have I not voted for the Republican for President - once I voted for a Democrat, once I voted for nobody. How diverse have your presidential votes been?

I have also, many times, told everybody here of the several diverse sources of news and commentary I listen to. Sorry you only heard the one.

A few questions:

On what basis do you think a thoughtful conservative could not come to certain conclusions without listening to Fox News? Many of my ideas were formed long before Fox News existed. Maybe they are parroting me. I do change, when presented with a thoughtful case that changes my thinking.

On what basis do you link Fox News to the Republican party?

I think your very use of the phrase "Fox News Talking Points" shows that you are brainwashed beyond redemption.


Might as well debate religion with a street corner Bible thumper. Mind set in concrete.

Well, thanks for an entertaining few months.

Sorry, Big, I thought you could be somebody I could talk with. My mistake.

Good luck to you and your family. Hope your daughter sells all of her Girl Scout cookies.

Claims to be here to learn about/debate opposing viewpoints.
Loses it at the slightest indirect implication that he might be hypocritical and repeating fox talking points.
Mutes the most articulate, least judgmental poster from their opposition again (I presume OOwl has done this, since he just took big off mute recently).
(02-03-2020 03:44 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2020 11:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]But the point that I think Tanq and OO are making, and with which I agree, is that democrats are quick to criticize McConnell, but seem unwilling to criticize their own leaders for similar or worse conduct. And frankly, I think the behavior of Pelosi and Schumer has been far worse than anything McConnell ever did. I really don't think he played hardball enough. Certainly there were never movements to impeach Obama based upon grounds that were sketchy at best.

But that's the rub. You think Pelosi and Schumer have worse conduct, we think McConnell has worse conduct. I don't see any reason to believe that one of us will ever convince the other.

The idea that McConnell didn't play enough hardball is pretty mesmerizing though. He held open a Supreme Court seat for 11 months (Scalia's death until Trump's inauguration).

You mean the 'Biden Rule', right?

Quote:He got rid of blue slips on judicial nominees.

No, not really. He ixnayed blue slips on Court of Appeals nominees when the nominee came from the state trying to blue-slip. The State level blue slip is completely intact.

And when you look at the difference between an Court of Appeals jurisdiction versus that of a District Court, his removing it kind of makes sense. I mean, for example taking the 5th Circuit, why should a LA Senator be able to ixnay the composition of Court that has LA, Texas, and Mississippi in it?

The blue slip for Texas District courts y a Texas Senator makes absolute sense, and it is still in effect.

Grandiose points foul there.

Quote:He severely limited questioning of judicial nominees.

Yep, when the Senate (Reid) blew up the filibuster on court nominees, the Democrats quickly reacted to patch over *their* action with the endless invocation of the stalling of nominees through the hour push out method. Yep, Mitch blew up that quasi-filibuster as well; too bad the Democrats decided to use the hour rule in the obstruction practice. But, you overlook *that* lil ol' issue in your rush to castigate, doncha?

Quote:He pushed through numerous judicial nominees deemed not qualified by the ABA.

Have you noted the political activism the ABA has gone on in the last 20 years? I have. I mean, good god they are promulgating a judicial rule that would outlaw membership of judges in the Federalist Society, mind you. They are doing it with the finesse of keeping their own little political bent out of the mix of restriction --- albeit the ABA has run amici after amici after amici to more than just a few political cases.

Their hands in the attempt to restrict judges from being members of the Federalist Society is hamhanded at best; grotesque at its worst.

There is a reason I dumped the ABA membership, mind you. And, there have been more than a handful of judicial nominees who are utterly qualified that didnt get an ABA 'pat on the back', ostensibly due to their political stance.

Quote:He repeatedly sits on bipartisan legislation. I don't see what more he could have done.

Riddle me this, what bipartisan legislation has the Senate passed that Pelosi blocked?

Riddle me this: do you put in the 231 ayes with 3 Republicans as 'bipartisan' as much as the democrat senate webpage does?
(02-03-2020 07:02 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2020 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I find this very insulting. Odd coming from the guy who complained about civility. Well, not really, considering the Democratic Double Standard.

Yes, I try to set the record straight. I am not a Republican, a word that when you use it, sounds a lot like leper or nazi. I am a conservative, and support issues i believe in and when called upon to vote, vote for the lesser evil. I have, over nearly seven decades, and through my experiences in business, experiences which you do not share, and through my experiences with Mexico and the Border, experiences which you do not share, come to certain conclusions about certain things. That is what I believe: therefore it is what I am. Over the course of my life, I have moved left to right. I still hold a lot of my old liberal viewpoints - like equal rights for all sorts of people. Lots of things that people in other parties support that I don't like, including the Republican and Libertarian parties. I am not a party animal, certainly not to the extent you are. I wish the Libertarians were mainstream - they would get a lot more of my support. But in most cases, I think throwing my vote to a minority party just helps the greater evil party. Twice since Carter have I not voted for the Republican for President - once I voted for a Democrat, once I voted for nobody. How diverse have your presidential votes been?

I have also, many times, told everybody here of the several diverse sources of news and commentary I listen to. Sorry you only heard the one.

A few questions:

On what basis do you think a thoughtful conservative could not come to certain conclusions without listening to Fox News? Many of my ideas were formed long before Fox News existed. Maybe they are parroting me. I do change, when presented with a thoughtful case that changes my thinking.

On what basis do you link Fox News to the Republican party?

I think your very use of the phrase "Fox News Talking Points" shows that you are brainwashed beyond redemption.


Might as well debate religion with a street corner Bible thumper. Mind set in concrete.

Well, thanks for an entertaining few months.

Sorry, Big, I thought you could be somebody I could talk with. My mistake.

Good luck to you and your family. Hope your daughter sells all of her Girl Scout cookies.

Claims to be here to learn about/debate opposing viewpoints.
Loses it at the slightest indirect implication that he might be hypocritical and repeating fox talking points.
Mutes the most articulate, least judgmental poster from their opposition again (I presume OOwl has done this, since he just took big off mute recently).

You call this indirect?

"I find it equal parts amusing and confusing that some of the conservatives here go out of their way to proclaim that they are not Republicans, but then proceed to parrot the Fox News talking points on impeachment ..." I had just explained why i do not consider myself a Republican.

"As for your other Fox News talking points," (he was responding to me.) I wonder what your definition of indirect is?

yes, after all I have done and said to explain my viewpoints, it is frustrating for him to assume that all I do is sit gape-mouthed in from a TV for somebody to tell me what to think. I arrive at my opinions without being told, thank you, but his use of the supposedly damning "Fox news talking points' sounds like maybe he gets his opinions from a TV set. That is very much the talk of somebody who is dismissive of what I think.

I don't dismiss his opinions as MSNBC talking points.



I have not put Big on Ignore. But perhaps I should put Fountains on Ignore.

Who asked you to butt in, anyway?
(02-03-2020 03:44 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2020 11:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]But the point that I think Tanq and OO are making, and with which I agree, is that democrats are quick to criticize McConnell, but seem unwilling to criticize their own leaders for similar or worse conduct. And frankly, I think the behavior of Pelosi and Schumer has been far worse than anything McConnell ever did. I really don't think he played hardball enough. Certainly there were never movements to impeach Obama based upon grounds that were sketchy at best.
But that's the rub. You think Pelosi and Schumer have worse conduct, we think McConnell has worse conduct. I don't see any reason to believe that one of us will ever convince the other.

Probably not. But you seem to be fine with, for example, the constitutional games that were played to get Obamacare passed, but any time Mitch takes a partisan stance, it's like, OMG what is he doing. Personally, I don't like the hardball that Schumer and Pelosi play, but I admire their tenacity. I wish Mitch were more the leader that Pelosi and Schumer (and Reid before him) were.

Quote:The idea that McConnell didn't play enough hardball is pretty mesmerizing though. He held open a Supreme Court seat for 11 months (Scalia's death until Trump's inauguration). He got rid of blue slips on judicial nominees. He severely limited questioning of judicial nominees. He pushed through numerous judicial nominees deemed not qualified by the ABA. He repeatedly sits on bipartisan legislation. I don't see what more he could have done.

That is probably the one area where McConnell has played hardball. And that only since he became majority leader. Senate democrats have played hardball on that issue--whether in the majority or the minority--for decades. Just look at the more partisan nature of the votes on republican nominees than democrats. And no republican has truly played hardball in the house, even when holding the majority. I'm not aware that he ever pushed for lock step partisan opposition to any judicial nominee when in the minority. Schumer (and Reid before him) have played hardball on judicial nominees to the extent that I think it is going to be difficult for any president to get a judicial nominee through without holding a majority in the senate. They and Pelosi have all played hardball on every issue, whether in the majority or minority. A part of that may be that they have had an easier time whipping their members into a united vote, regardless of issue, where McConnell seems to have had more independent thinkers.

The bottom line is that Garland was never going to get confirmed by a republican-majority senate to replace Scalia, as that would have swung the ideological balance of the court far to the left. All McConnell did was to spare some of his members facing close re-election campaigns from having to go on the record--a political calculation with no impact on the result.

As far as the ABA not qualified thing, the ABA has swung hard left--just look at what gets published in the ABA Journal, for example--and seems to have adopted a few ideological litmus tests as a primary factor in determining whether a nominee is "qualified" or not.

The Supreme Court has become the domain for a very narrow range of intellectual diversity, even if the political views differ somewhat. Every one of the justices attended one of two law schools--Harvard or Yale (Ginsburg graduated from Columbia, but transferred from Harvard when her husband's job moved). Four of the justices came to the Court from the DC Circuit, one each from the First, Second, Third Circuits, and one from Solicitor General to a Democrat president. Thus 8 of the 9--all except Gorsuch (10th Circuit)--come from the intellectual echo chamber that is the DC/Northeast establishment. There is only one justice from the vast area between the Appalachians and the Pacific--nobody from the South, nobody (surprisingly) from the West Coast, and nobody from the Midwest. And in a nation where a plurality, if not the majority, are protestant Christians, there are none on the court. To me, that is a rather shocking lack of intellectual diversity, and I think that kind of thinking has clearly influenced a few of the ABA ratings--if you ain't one of us, then you ain't qualified.

Quote:Riddle me this, what bipartisan legislation has the Senate passed that Pelosi blocked?

What bipartisan legislation--I mean truly bipartisan--has either house, with either party in the majority, passed in years? I mean something truly material, not naming post offices. There just isn't a whole lot.

I'm actually fine with that in a way. When I look at the stated agendas of the two parties, I kind of prefer gridlock to either. I don't want what republicans want, I don't want what democrats want, and when the two sides get together on anything, I know that there's been so much under the table horse trading that it scares the bejeezus out of me.
(02-03-2020 07:02 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]Claims to be here to learn about/debate opposing viewpoints.
Loses it at the slightest indirect implication that he might be hypocritical and repeating fox talking points.
Mutes the most articulate, least judgmental poster from their opposition again (I presume OOwl has done this, since he just took big off mute recently).

Are you saying the Big is the most articulate, least judgmental poster on here? I think that's more because he marches pretty much in ideological lockstep with you than any objective determination. I like him as a friend, but I've had to call him out for mischaracterizing my posts before.

I actually think Tanq is probably the most articulate (I certainly find myself admiring his compositions and wishing I had said things that way, more than any other poster, with Hambone second), although I would not call him least judgmental--he has no qualms about calling an idiot an idiot, and explaining why. As I've said before, I think that's the West Texas in him. I actually think OO is probably the least judgmental.
(02-04-2020 06:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2020 07:02 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]Claims to be here to learn about/debate opposing viewpoints.
Loses it at the slightest indirect implication that he might be hypocritical and repeating fox talking points.
Mutes the most articulate, least judgmental poster from their opposition again (I presume OOwl has done this, since he just took big off mute recently).

Are you saying the Big is the most articulate, least judgmental poster on here? I think that's more because he marches pretty much in ideological lockstep with you than any objective determination. I like the as a friend, but I've had to call him out for mischaracterizing my posts before.

I actually think Tanq is probably the most articulate (I certainly find myself admiring his compositions and wishing I had said things that way, more than any other poster, with Hambone second), although I would not call him least judgmental--he has no qualms about calling an idiot an idiot, and explaining why. As I've said before, I think that's the West Texas in him. I actually think OO is probably the least judgmental.

Always nice to have a good laugh in the morning.
(02-04-2020 06:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2020 06:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2020 07:02 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]Claims to be here to learn about/debate opposing viewpoints.
Loses it at the slightest indirect implication that he might be hypocritical and repeating fox talking points.
Mutes the most articulate, least judgmental poster from their opposition again (I presume OOwl has done this, since he just took big off mute recently).
Are you saying the Big is the most articulate, least judgmental poster on here? I think that's more because he marches pretty much in ideological lockstep with you than any objective determination. I like the as a friend, but I've had to call him out for mischaracterizing my posts before.
I actually think Tanq is probably the most articulate (I certainly find myself admiring his compositions and wishing I had said things that way, more than any other poster, with Hambone second), although I would not call him least judgmental--he has no qualms about calling an idiot an idiot, and explaining why. As I've said before, I think that's the West Texas in him. I actually think OO is probably the least judgmental.
Always nice to have a good laugh in the morning.

One thing for sure, the most articulate and least judgmental poster on here certainly ain't you.
(02-04-2020 06:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2020 06:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2020 06:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2020 07:02 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]Claims to be here to learn about/debate opposing viewpoints.
Loses it at the slightest indirect implication that he might be hypocritical and repeating fox talking points.
Mutes the most articulate, least judgmental poster from their opposition again (I presume OOwl has done this, since he just took big off mute recently).
Are you saying the Big is the most articulate, least judgmental poster on here? I think that's more because he marches pretty much in ideological lockstep with you than any objective determination. I like the as a friend, but I've had to call him out for mischaracterizing my posts before.
I actually think Tanq is probably the most articulate (I certainly find myself admiring his compositions and wishing I had said things that way, more than any other poster, with Hambone second), although I would not call him least judgmental--he has no qualms about calling an idiot an idiot, and explaining why. As I've said before, I think that's the West Texas in him. I actually think OO is probably the least judgmental.
Always nice to have a good laugh in the morning.

One thing for sure, the most articulate and least judgmental poster on here certainly ain't you.

You win some, you lose some.

I think I’ll find some way to survive the day without being awarded the title of “Least Judgmental Regular Quad Poster” or “Most Articulate Regular Quad Poster.”
(02-04-2020 06:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2020 07:02 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]Claims to be here to learn about/debate opposing viewpoints.
Loses it at the slightest indirect implication that he might be hypocritical and repeating fox talking points.
Mutes the most articulate, least judgmental poster from their opposition again (I presume OOwl has done this, since he just took big off mute recently).

Are you saying the Big is the most articulate, least judgmental poster on here? I think that's more because he marches pretty much in ideological lockstep with you than any objective determination. I like him as a friend, but I've had to call him out for mischaracterizing my posts before.

I actually think Tanq is probably the most articulate (I certainly find myself admiring his compositions and wishing I had said things that way, more than any other poster, with Hambone second), although I would not call him least judgmental--he has no qualms about calling an idiot an idiot, and explaining why. As I've said before, I think that's the West Texas in him. I actually think OO is probably the least judgmental.
(02-04-2020 08:45 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2020 06:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2020 07:02 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]Claims to be here to learn about/debate opposing viewpoints.
Loses it at the slightest indirect implication that he might be hypocritical and repeating fox talking points.
Mutes the most articulate, least judgmental poster from their opposition again (I presume OOwl has done this, since he just took big off mute recently).

Are you saying the Big is the most articulate, least judgmental poster on here? I think that's more because he marches pretty much in ideological lockstep with you than any objective determination. I like him as a friend, but I've had to call him out for mischaracterizing my posts before.

I actually think Tanq is probably the most articulate (I certainly find myself admiring his compositions and wishing I had said things that way, more than any other poster, with Hambone second), although I would not call him least judgmental--he has no qualms about calling an idiot an idiot, and explaining why. As I've said before, I think that's the West Texas in him. I actually think OO is probably the least judgmental.

Ha, like bolding the text you wrote previously will do any good. I've been down this road before.

Just wait for comments about dancing, jumping, or whatever the word du jour is.
(02-03-2020 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2020 03:55 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2020 11:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]When you can point o investigations and impeachments, false dossiers and lying to FISA courts, call me back.

As for your other Fox News talking points, the FISA stuff isn't really a partisan issue. ...

I find this very insulting. Odd coming from the guy who complained about civility. Well, not really, considering the Democratic Double Standard.
...
On what basis do you think a thoughtful conservative could not come to certain conclusions without listening to Fox News? Many of my ideas were formed long before Fox News existed. Maybe they are parroting me. I do change, when presented with a thoughtful case that changes my thinking.

Perhaps you have blocked me again, but if you read my comment more carefully, you will note that my "Fox News talking points" comment was only about the remaining things you mentioned in that specific post (which I bolded). That comment was not meant at all to be directed at everything you have posted on politics or policy.

I don't think all your policy viewpoints are Fox News talking points. To the contrary, I realize (and you have done a good job pointing out) areas where you do not agree with mainstream conservative orthodoxy. My comment was limited to your discussions of impeachment, false dossiers, and lying to FISA courts (etc.). I find your comments on political discussions (as opposed to policy discussions) to be very similar to the blurbs I see on Fox News and being screamed at me by Lindsey Graham.

(02-03-2020 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I try to set the record straight. I am not a Republican, a word that when you use it, sounds a lot like leper or nazi.

Really? Maybe you are confusing me with someone else? I'm not very fond of most of the current Republicans in Congress, but my antipathy is largely limited to them and Trump.

(02-03-2020 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I am not a party animal, certainly not to the extent you are.

I mean, I like beer, but I live a pretty boring existence and am hardly a party animal.

(02-03-2020 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I wish the Libertarians were mainstream - they would get a lot more of my support.

Me too! Part of the reason I support ranked choice voting!

(02-03-2020 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]How diverse have your presidential votes been?

Gore, Kerry, Obama x2, Clinton. I haven't been thumping my chest about not being a democrat . I will say that my favorite politicians throughout high school and college were Republicans from the northeast like Jim Jeffords, Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snow, and Arlen Specter. I felt my beliefs most closely aligned with them, but there haven't been many people like them on ballots in states where I have lived.

Notably, I liked all 4 of them while they were still Republicans in the late 90's and early 00's. Of course, Jeffords, Chaffee, and Specter later transitioned to independents with Jeffords and Chaffee both ultimately landing in the democratic party.
I find it interesting to see dismissed, as "Fox News talking points," issue positions that I held long before I ever heard anything about them on Fox News, and in some cases long before there even was a Fox News.

Fox took what I find to be a very interesting business concept, and one that I had been quite interested in seeing done for some time. All of the other MSM outlets had a definite left bias, so why not start a niche business based on presenting news with a right-wing slant. They identified a niche, and served it. As a cable network, they are limited in number of TV sets they can reach, although with the coming of satellite and cable, and now the advent of streaming, there are fewer and fewer people relying on on-air TV so that limitation is disappearing.

I'm still a bit surprised that one of the big four--ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN--hasn't seen Fox's success and moved to fill the gap between hard-left and hard-right in mews reporting. That is a fairly wide gap, and I would think could be a lucrative one.
(02-04-2020 06:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ].

I actually think Tanq is probably the most articulate

I put Ham first, you second.
Quote: I actually think OO is probably the least judgmental.

Thank you.
(02-04-2020 11:09 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2020 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2020 03:55 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2020 11:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]When you can point o investigations and impeachments, false dossiers and lying to FISA courts, call me back.

As for your other Fox News talking points, the FISA stuff isn't really a partisan issue. ...

I find this very insulting. Odd coming from the guy who complained about civility. Well, not really, considering the Democratic Double Standard.
...
On what basis do you think a thoughtful conservative could not come to certain conclusions without listening to Fox News? Many of my ideas were formed long before Fox News existed. Maybe they are parroting me. I do change, when presented with a thoughtful case that changes my thinking.

Perhaps you have blocked me again, but if you read my comment more carefully, you will note that my "Fox News talking points" comment was only about the remaining things you mentioned in that specific post (which I bolded). That comment was not meant at all to be directed at everything you have posted on politics or policy.

I don't think all your policy viewpoints are Fox News talking points. To the contrary, I realize (and you have done a good job pointing out) areas where you do not agree with mainstream conservative orthodoxy. My comment was limited to your discussions of impeachment, false dossiers, and lying to FISA courts (etc.). I find your comments on political discussions (as opposed to policy discussions) to be very similar to the blurbs I see on Fox News and being screamed at me by Lindsey Graham.

(02-03-2020 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I try to set the record straight. I am not a Republican, a word that when you use it, sounds a lot like leper or nazi.

Really? Maybe you are confusing me with someone else? I'm not very fond of most of the current Republicans in Congress, but my antipathy is largely limited to them and Trump.

(02-03-2020 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I am not a party animal, certainly not to the extent you are.

I mean, I like beer, but I live a pretty boring existence and am hardly a party animal.

(02-03-2020 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I wish the Libertarians were mainstream - they would get a lot more of my support.

Me too! Part of the reason I support ranked choice voting!

(02-03-2020 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]How diverse have your presidential votes been?

Gore, Kerry, Obama x2, Clinton. I haven't been thumping my chest about not being a democrat . I will say that my favorite politicians throughout high school and college were Republicans from the northeast like Jim Jeffords, Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snow, and Arlen Specter. I felt my beliefs most closely aligned with them, but there haven't been many people like them on ballots in states where I have lived.

Notably, I liked all 4 of them while they were still Republicans in the late 90's and early 00's. Of course, Jeffords, Chaffee, and Specter later transitioned to independents with Jeffords and Chaffee both ultimately landing in the democratic party.

Specter did as well. He ran his last campaign as one. The one that the Democrats said "If you flip on Obamacare, we will accept you as a Democrat, and wont primary you"; then they accepted his vote, and told him to pound sand when he got primaried as a Democrat.

Funny, I have no sympathy for Specter with the Dems doing him like that.

TV show on that should be called 'Quid --- Thanks chump'
(02-04-2020 11:09 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think all your policy viewpoints are Fox News talking points. To the contrary, I realize (and you have done a good job pointing out) areas where you do not agree with mainstream conservative orthodoxy. My comment was limited to your discussions of impeachment, false dossiers, and lying to FISA courts (etc.). I find your comments on political discussions (as opposed to policy discussions) to be very similar to the blurbs I see on Fox News and being screamed at me by Lindsey Graham.
(02-04-2020 11:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I find it interesting to see dismissed, as "Fox News talking points," issue positions that I held long before I ever heard anything about them on Fox News, and in some cases long before there even was a Fox News.

I think Fox had a very interesting business concept. All of the other MSM outlets had a definite left bias, so why not start a niche business based on presenting news with a right-wing slant. As a cable network, they are limited in number of TV sets they can reach, although with the coming of satellite and cable, and now the advent of streaming, there are fewer and fewer people relying on on-air TV so that limitation is disappearing.

I'm still a bit surprised that one of the big four--ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN--hasn't seen Fox's success and moved to fill the gap between hard-left and hard-right in mews reporting. That is a fairly wide gap, and I would think could be a lucrative one.
(02-04-2020 11:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2020 06:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I actually think Tanq is probably the most articulate
I put Ham first, you second.
Quote: I actually think OO is probably the least judgmental.
Thank you.

Thank you.

I realize that I didn't pick up on the word "opposition" in FOWG's original post. Rereading it, and thinking in that context, I wouldn't think of any of the lefty posters as being particularly articulate or non-judgmental. Big may be the most articulate, but I don't think any of them are non-judgmental.
(02-04-2020 06:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2020 06:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2020 06:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2020 07:02 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]Claims to be here to learn about/debate opposing viewpoints.
Loses it at the slightest indirect implication that he might be hypocritical and repeating fox talking points.
Mutes the most articulate, least judgmental poster from their opposition again (I presume OOwl has done this, since he just took big off mute recently).
Are you saying the Big is the most articulate, least judgmental poster on here? I think that's more because he marches pretty much in ideological lockstep with you than any objective determination. I like the as a friend, but I've had to call him out for mischaracterizing my posts before.
I actually think Tanq is probably the most articulate (I certainly find myself admiring his compositions and wishing I had said things that way, more than any other poster, with Hambone second), although I would not call him least judgmental--he has no qualms about calling an idiot an idiot, and explaining why. As I've said before, I think that's the West Texas in him. I actually think OO is probably the least judgmental.
Always nice to have a good laugh in the morning.

One thing for sure, the most articulate and least judgmental poster on here certainly ain't you.

Actually, I think Lad is farther up both those lists than many others here. Alone among the lefties, he will sometimes concede a point or meet one part way. But the "most", no.

We are all pretty set in our thinking. It will take a lot to change somebody over on even one point. The last time I changed my stance on something due to internet debate was on abortion, about five years back.

I come here to explain my views and the reasons for them. I also come here to point out the inconsistencies and inanities in other views. Going back to the abortion thingie mentioned above, what moved me to the right was the insistence on the part of some posters that a fetus was not human. I thought about this, and came to the conclusion that it was human from the point of conception - my opinion - and so moved a little further to the right, though not to the point of the average pro-lifer.



So basically we are all defending positions we already have. Big actually does a good job of explaining that, when he says he cannot be changed. The mistake he makes is attributing my opinions to some imaginary talking points, from a network somebody has designated the enemy. Last night, as I was switching between CNN, Fox, and MSNBC trying to get some clarity on the Iowa caucuses, I idly wondered if I was expected just to listen to one of them.

Big is not on Ignore. Fountains is not on Ignore. I would not be dismayed if either or both put me on Ignore - they ignore what I say already.

But if you must respond to my opinions, at least do me the courtesy of saying something like "Oh, so THAT is what you think", instead of telling me I am parroting some imaginary talking points. I say what I think.
(02-04-2020 07:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2020 06:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2020 06:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2020 06:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2020 07:02 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]Claims to be here to learn about/debate opposing viewpoints.
Loses it at the slightest indirect implication that he might be hypocritical and repeating fox talking points.
Mutes the most articulate, least judgmental poster from their opposition again (I presume OOwl has done this, since he just took big off mute recently).
Are you saying the Big is the most articulate, least judgmental poster on here? I think that's more because he marches pretty much in ideological lockstep with you than any objective determination. I like the as a friend, but I've had to call him out for mischaracterizing my posts before.
I actually think Tanq is probably the most articulate (I certainly find myself admiring his compositions and wishing I had said things that way, more than any other poster, with Hambone second), although I would not call him least judgmental--he has no qualms about calling an idiot an idiot, and explaining why. As I've said before, I think that's the West Texas in him. I actually think OO is probably the least judgmental.
Always nice to have a good laugh in the morning.

One thing for sure, the most articulate and least judgmental poster on here certainly ain't you.

You win some, you lose some.

I think I’ll find some way to survive the day without being awarded the title of “Least Judgmental Regular Quad Poster” or “Most Articulate Regular Quad Poster.”

very articulately put
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656
Reference URL's