CSNbbs

Full Version: Cancel culture question
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(03-17-2021 01:22 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-17-2021 01:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-17-2021 12:48 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-17-2021 10:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-17-2021 10:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]I prefer the attitude of "there is a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping, cannibalistic pedophiles who is running a global child sex-trafficking ring and plotted against former U.S. president Donald Trump while he was in office." That is a ::chef's kiss:: attitude (thanks, Lad). Whatevs... keep doing your morning links to sucky people on the left. Totally your prerogative.


Don't bother you with facts that undermine your moral high ground? Sorry, not when they are so common and so evident.

Hilarious to hear this from the guy who spends each morning posting about just how terrible the other side is.

Quote:As for the opening sentence of your rant, who says that?

Wasn't ranting. Lad was right... looks like you are incorporating Tanq's techniques.

QAnon people say that.

Quote: Sounds like you are listening to made-up propaganda. Are you accusing me of that? But lots of your fellow leftists have the attitude that supporting Trump - or the right wing - or the GOP - or anything but the Democrats - is a moral failing, not just a choice they do not agree with. Just harken back to the Kavanaugh hearings, or the Russia witch hunt, or any Antifa action.

I post this because none of use have inferred that you right-wingers have moral failings due to your beliefs. But despite that you continue to hammer that idea home on this forum where it's only us who sees it.

As usual... my point was that there is a ton of crazy on both sides.

Both siderism? I hear there is somebody here that thinks that is wrong.

First, we need to differentiate between the few here and the overall parties we tend to support. I don't think any of the three 93/Lad/Big think that the right wingers here are morally corrupt. But on the national stage, lots of leaders of the party y'all favor don't mind saying the party we favor are racists who are in favor of voter suppression, who don't care if children have to drink from toilets, and who just care about money. We want Supreme Court Justices who are rapists, rather than kindly and wise people who will support RVW. We don't care - we push Grandma off the cliff, remember. We hate the brown skinned people who just want a better life for their families, because we support legal immigration over illegal immigration. We are the bad people who support cops murdering black people, because we don't kneel.

Kinda tired of it all, 93.

The people who work in the Border Patrol are tired of being called Nazis by AOC et al. The people who support the Border Patrol are tired of it too.

I understand that. It seems that you are just screaming into the void over the issue which is your right. Because none of us here hold that position that offends you I guess I was wondering why you are so relentless in continually making that point on this forum.

I see...you think the only reason to make a point here is if a specific person here has already made an opposite point.

I think it is OK to make points about larger groups of people, without having to go at a specific person. For example, I can make points about BLM riots or Antifa without having to wait for for a specific person here to make a specific point about them that is opposite my thoughts. I can make my opinions known about witch hunts or tax increases or Middle Eastern foreign policy or bills in Congress or voter suppression, as the Democrats are attempting in Iowa right now, without requiring that Lad or you first support or oppose it.

As I said before, apparently shouting into a vacuum, we need to distinguish between the individuals here and the larger associations we tend to group with. So I can make statements about, say, rioters without waiting for somebody here to riot.

I oppose the death penalty, even though nobody here has advocated it.

But since none of you hold the position(s) that I disagree with, a little support would be nice. Just say, True, OO, that is so true. I agree. You have it right.

Silence is compliance, I have heard.
(03-17-2021 05:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-17-2021 01:22 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-17-2021 01:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-17-2021 12:48 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-17-2021 10:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Don't bother you with facts that undermine your moral high ground? Sorry, not when they are so common and so evident.

Hilarious to hear this from the guy who spends each morning posting about just how terrible the other side is.

Quote:As for the opening sentence of your rant, who says that?

Wasn't ranting. Lad was right... looks like you are incorporating Tanq's techniques.

QAnon people say that.

Quote: Sounds like you are listening to made-up propaganda. Are you accusing me of that? But lots of your fellow leftists have the attitude that supporting Trump - or the right wing - or the GOP - or anything but the Democrats - is a moral failing, not just a choice they do not agree with. Just harken back to the Kavanaugh hearings, or the Russia witch hunt, or any Antifa action.

I post this because none of use have inferred that you right-wingers have moral failings due to your beliefs. But despite that you continue to hammer that idea home on this forum where it's only us who sees it.

As usual... my point was that there is a ton of crazy on both sides.

Both siderism? I hear there is somebody here that thinks that is wrong.

First, we need to differentiate between the few here and the overall parties we tend to support. I don't think any of the three 93/Lad/Big think that the right wingers here are morally corrupt. But on the national stage, lots of leaders of the party y'all favor don't mind saying the party we favor are racists who are in favor of voter suppression, who don't care if children have to drink from toilets, and who just care about money. We want Supreme Court Justices who are rapists, rather than kindly and wise people who will support RVW. We don't care - we push Grandma off the cliff, remember. We hate the brown skinned people who just want a better life for their families, because we support legal immigration over illegal immigration. We are the bad people who support cops murdering black people, because we don't kneel.

Kinda tired of it all, 93.

The people who work in the Border Patrol are tired of being called Nazis by AOC et al. The people who support the Border Patrol are tired of it too.

I understand that. It seems that you are just screaming into the void over the issue which is your right. Because none of us here hold that position that offends you I guess I was wondering why you are so relentless in continually making that point on this forum.

I see...you think the only reason to make a point here is if a specific person here has already made an opposite point.

I think it is OK to make points about larger groups of people, without having to go at a specific person. For example, I can make points about BLM riots or Antifa without having to wait for for a specific person here to make a specific point about them that is opposite my thoughts. I can make my opinions known about witch hunts or tax increases or Middle Eastern foreign policy or bills in Congress or voter suppression, as the Democrats are attempting in Iowa right now, without requiring that Lad or you first support or oppose it.

As I said before, apparently shouting into a vacuum, we need to distinguish between the individuals here and the larger associations we tend to group with. So I can make statements about, say, rioters without waiting for somebody here to riot.

I oppose the death penalty, even though nobody here has advocated it.

But you don't comment in support of the death penalty and provide links about how people who support the death penalty are ridiculous on a daily basis. You do that for rioting leftists and leftists who are otherwise advocating violence.

It would be like me posting daily references to racist Republicans or to QAnon republicans. I'm sure you would get tired of that. At some point I would get accused of painting all Republicans as being being racists or being dumbasses.

Quote:[quote]

But since none of you hold the position(s) that I disagree with, a little support would be nice. Just say, True, OO, that is so true. I agree. You have it right.

Silence is compliance, I have heard.

If we say "That is so true, I agree. You have it right. That person is wrong and terrible" will you continue to hammer the same point home over and over again or move on to other topics?
(03-17-2021 08:21 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]But you don't comment in support of the death penalty and provide links about how people who support the death penalty are ridiculous on a daily basis. You do that for rioting leftists and leftists who are otherwise advocating violence.

I have commented on my DP position numerous times.

Since you don't seem to understand what I think is ridiculous, I will tell you, again. I don't think people who support the DP are ridiculous. You made that up. I understand that many people would logically think that greater penalties are greater deterrents. Maybe if you were defending the DP by claiming that only a small percentage of executed people were innocent, we could have a more spirited discussion.

Who do I think are ridiculous? People who think all police department coast to coast are racist and out to murder black people. People who think the Border Patrol are nazis who enjoy tearing small children from their mothers and forcing them to live in cages. People who think Putin and Trump conspired to steal an election by publishing Hillary's yoga appointments. People who think asking for ID is meant to suppress legal voters.

But still, you are trying to confuse my condemnation of ridiculous things with me arguing that you personally said them.

I think the message I am getting from you is STFU. Do I have that wrong?
(03-17-2021 11:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-17-2021 08:21 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]But you don't comment in support of the death penalty and provide links about how people who support the death penalty are ridiculous on a daily basis. You do that for rioting leftists and leftists who are otherwise advocating violence.

I have commented on my DP position numerous times.

Since you don't seem to understand what I think is ridiculous, I will tell you, again. I don't think people who support the DP are ridiculous. You made that up. I understand that many people would logically think that greater penalties are greater deterrents. Maybe if you were defending the DP by claiming that only a small percentage of executed people were innocent, we could have a more spirited discussion.

Who do I think are ridiculous? People who think all police department coast to coast are racist and out to murder black people. People who think the Border Patrol are nazis who enjoy tearing small children from their mothers and forcing them to live in cages. People who think Putin and Trump conspired to steal an election by publishing Hillary's yoga appointments. People who think asking for ID is meant to suppress legal voters.

But still, you are trying to confuse my condemnation of ridiculous things with me arguing that you personally said them.

I think the message I am getting from you is STFU. Do I have that wrong?

I enjoy reading your posts for the most part despite my differences in opinion a great deal of the time.

The message I'm getting from your links is that you think a segment of leftists use violence in an attempt to achieve their goals and you are decidely against that approach. Everybody on this forum is also decidely against that approach so I'm not sure why you so frequently post the same song/different verse. A segment of right-wingers also use violence to achieve their goals BTW but you never seem to post those links.

Let's say that I decided to post on the reg instances where right-wingers said or did something racist. Like multiple times per week. Because I'm sure that I could. How would you feel about my posting those links? Would you wonder why I felt the need to do that so frequently when I purportedly have zero notions that any of the right-wingers on this forum put up with racism?
(03-17-2021 11:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-17-2021 11:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-17-2021 08:21 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]But you don't comment in support of the death penalty and provide links about how people who support the death penalty are ridiculous on a daily basis. You do that for rioting leftists and leftists who are otherwise advocating violence.

I have commented on my DP position numerous times.

Since you don't seem to understand what I think is ridiculous, I will tell you, again. I don't think people who support the DP are ridiculous. You made that up. I understand that many people would logically think that greater penalties are greater deterrents. Maybe if you were defending the DP by claiming that only a small percentage of executed people were innocent, we could have a more spirited discussion.

Who do I think are ridiculous? People who think all police department coast to coast are racist and out to murder black people. People who think the Border Patrol are nazis who enjoy tearing small children from their mothers and forcing them to live in cages. People who think Putin and Trump conspired to steal an election by publishing Hillary's yoga appointments. People who think asking for ID is meant to suppress legal voters.

But still, you are trying to confuse my condemnation of ridiculous things with me arguing that you personally said them.

I think the message I am getting from you is STFU. Do I have that wrong?

I enjoy reading your posts for the most part despite my differences in opinion a great deal of the time.

The message I'm getting from your links is that you think a segment of leftists use violence in an attempt to achieve their goals and you are decidely against that approach. Everybody on this forum is also decidely against that approach so I'm not sure why you so frequently post the same song/different verse. A segment of right-wingers also use violence to achieve their goals BTW but you never seem to post those links.

Let's say that I decided to post on the reg instances where right-wingers said or did something racist. Like multiple times per week. Because I'm sure that I could. How would you feel about my posting those links? Would you wonder why I felt the need to do that so frequently when I purportedly have zero notions that any of the right-wingers on this forum put up with racism?

I would think we have grounds for discussion. I would think that your quarrel was not with me, but with right wing in general. I would not tell you to STFU. I would not tell you to be silent unless spoken to.

here is an up to date example: The democrats under the leadership of Pelosi are attempting to cancel the result of a fair, free, and certified election in Iowa. Nobody here has advocated FOR this. Is it allowable for me to bring this up? The Democrats have just finished a five year run aimed at reversing the results of the 2016 election, and more recently a six month run of chastising those who think the 2020 was stolen, or at least hinky, condemning them as trying to overturn the results of a fair and free, decided election. This sounds hypocritical to me. Am I allowed to point out this hypocrisy without waiting for you or somebody else to comment first?

Certainly Democratic hypocrisy is a constant theme. A good example is the current whiplash turnaround on the filibuster, a 180 from their viewpoints as recently as 2019. Can we talk about this, or must I wait until you or lad or somebody posts that the rule must be changed? Why the muzzle?

I agree that a segment of leftists use that violent approach, and i agree a segment of rightists do too. Where we disagree - and have room for discussion - is the relative size and influence of those segments. I think the segment in the left is much larger and influential on a major political party than the corresponding one on the right. I have presented evidence on that. You have disagreed, but without presenting any evidence.
(03-18-2021 07:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-17-2021 11:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-17-2021 11:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-17-2021 08:21 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]But you don't comment in support of the death penalty and provide links about how people who support the death penalty are ridiculous on a daily basis. You do that for rioting leftists and leftists who are otherwise advocating violence.

I have commented on my DP position numerous times.

Since you don't seem to understand what I think is ridiculous, I will tell you, again. I don't think people who support the DP are ridiculous. You made that up. I understand that many people would logically think that greater penalties are greater deterrents. Maybe if you were defending the DP by claiming that only a small percentage of executed people were innocent, we could have a more spirited discussion.

Who do I think are ridiculous? People who think all police department coast to coast are racist and out to murder black people. People who think the Border Patrol are nazis who enjoy tearing small children from their mothers and forcing them to live in cages. People who think Putin and Trump conspired to steal an election by publishing Hillary's yoga appointments. People who think asking for ID is meant to suppress legal voters.

But still, you are trying to confuse my condemnation of ridiculous things with me arguing that you personally said them.

I think the message I am getting from you is STFU. Do I have that wrong?

I enjoy reading your posts for the most part despite my differences in opinion a great deal of the time.

The message I'm getting from your links is that you think a segment of leftists use violence in an attempt to achieve their goals and you are decidely against that approach. Everybody on this forum is also decidely against that approach so I'm not sure why you so frequently post the same song/different verse. A segment of right-wingers also use violence to achieve their goals BTW but you never seem to post those links.

Let's say that I decided to post on the reg instances where right-wingers said or did something racist. Like multiple times per week. Because I'm sure that I could. How would you feel about my posting those links? Would you wonder why I felt the need to do that so frequently when I purportedly have zero notions that any of the right-wingers on this forum put up with racism?

I would think we have grounds for discussion. I would think that your quarrel was not with me, but with right wing in general. I would not tell you to STFU. I would not tell you to be silent unless spoken to.

here is an up to date example: The democrats under the leadership of Pelosi are attempting to cancel the result of a fair, free, and certified election in Iowa. Nobody here has advocated FOR this. Is it allowable for me to bring this up? The Democrats have just finished a five year run aimed at reversing the results of the 2016 election, and more recently a six month run of chastising those who think the 2020 was stolen, or at least hinky, condemning them as trying to overturn the results of a fair and free, decided election. This sounds hypocritical to me. Am I allowed to point out this hypocrisy without waiting for you or somebody else to comment first?

Certainly Democratic hypocrisy is a constant theme. A good example is the current whiplash turnaround on the filibuster, a 180 from their viewpoints as recently as 2019. Can we talk about this, or must I wait until you or lad or somebody posts that the rule must be changed? Why the muzzle?

Muzzle? You can bring up anything you want. Do you really not see the difference between bringing up a topic versus posting the same topic multiple times per week on a seemingly endless loop? Every article about the shitbirds rioting in Portland gets linked?

Honestly the amount of time we have spent discussing this topic far outweighs the level of importance that it holds for me. I will drop it.

Quote:I agree that a segment of leftists use that violent approach, and i agree a segment of rightists do too. Where we disagree - and have room for discussion - is the relative size and influence of those segments. I think the segment in the left is much larger and influential on a major political party than the corresponding one on the right. I have presented evidence on that. You have disagreed, but without presenting any evidence.

We have discussed on multiple occasions the fact that it's far-right that seems to execute more serious attacks on America than the far-left, OO.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/24/us/do...roups.html
(03-18-2021 08:15 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-18-2021 07:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-17-2021 11:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-17-2021 11:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-17-2021 08:21 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]But you don't comment in support of the death penalty and provide links about how people who support the death penalty are ridiculous on a daily basis. You do that for rioting leftists and leftists who are otherwise advocating violence.

I have commented on my DP position numerous times.

Since you don't seem to understand what I think is ridiculous, I will tell you, again. I don't think people who support the DP are ridiculous. You made that up. I understand that many people would logically think that greater penalties are greater deterrents. Maybe if you were defending the DP by claiming that only a small percentage of executed people were innocent, we could have a more spirited discussion.

Who do I think are ridiculous? People who think all police department coast to coast are racist and out to murder black people. People who think the Border Patrol are nazis who enjoy tearing small children from their mothers and forcing them to live in cages. People who think Putin and Trump conspired to steal an election by publishing Hillary's yoga appointments. People who think asking for ID is meant to suppress legal voters.

But still, you are trying to confuse my condemnation of ridiculous things with me arguing that you personally said them.

I think the message I am getting from you is STFU. Do I have that wrong?

I enjoy reading your posts for the most part despite my differences in opinion a great deal of the time.

The message I'm getting from your links is that you think a segment of leftists use violence in an attempt to achieve their goals and you are decidely against that approach. Everybody on this forum is also decidely against that approach so I'm not sure why you so frequently post the same song/different verse. A segment of right-wingers also use violence to achieve their goals BTW but you never seem to post those links.

Let's say that I decided to post on the reg instances where right-wingers said or did something racist. Like multiple times per week. Because I'm sure that I could. How would you feel about my posting those links? Would you wonder why I felt the need to do that so frequently when I purportedly have zero notions that any of the right-wingers on this forum put up with racism?

I would think we have grounds for discussion. I would think that your quarrel was not with me, but with right wing in general. I would not tell you to STFU. I would not tell you to be silent unless spoken to.

here is an up to date example: The democrats under the leadership of Pelosi are attempting to cancel the result of a fair, free, and certified election in Iowa. Nobody here has advocated FOR this. Is it allowable for me to bring this up? The Democrats have just finished a five year run aimed at reversing the results of the 2016 election, and more recently a six month run of chastising those who think the 2020 was stolen, or at least hinky, condemning them as trying to overturn the results of a fair and free, decided election. This sounds hypocritical to me. Am I allowed to point out this hypocrisy without waiting for you or somebody else to comment first?

Certainly Democratic hypocrisy is a constant theme. A good example is the current whiplash turnaround on the filibuster, a 180 from their viewpoints as recently as 2019. Can we talk about this, or must I wait until you or lad or somebody posts that the rule must be changed? Why the muzzle?

Muzzle? You can bring up anything you want. Do you really not see the difference between bringing up a topic versus posting the same topic multiple times per week on a seemingly endless loop? Every article about the shitbirds rioting in Portland gets linked?

Honestly the amount of time we have spent discussing this topic far outweighs the level of importance that it holds for me. I will drop it.

Quote:I agree that a segment of leftists use that violent approach, and i agree a segment of rightists do too. Where we disagree - and have room for discussion - is the relative size and influence of those segments. I think the segment in the left is much larger and influential on a major political party than the corresponding one on the right. I have presented evidence on that. You have disagreed, but without presenting any evidence.

We have discussed on multiple occasions the fact that it's far-right that seems to execute more serious attacks on America than the far-left, OO.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/24/us/do...roups.html

Well, speaking of Portland (and elsewhere) rioting, those seem not to have made the list in the NYT. So, as it so often does, it depends on the definitions used. Apparently for the NYT list, rioting, arson, burning businesses, and attacking cops does not constitute an "attack on America". But I never said "only attacks on america as defined by some think tank" count. I guess that is now your positiion.

What I have said, and will say, is that violence as promoted by BLM and Antifa is way more prevalent that any supposed threat from some organization I never heard of of until you brought it up. What I have said, and will say, it that those organizations have much more influence on leftist America than the one(s) you bring up have on right wing America.

Where you and I primarily differ is your defense of those organizations via the "tiny minority" claim. I don't see a tiny minority in hundreds of "protests" including varying amount of violence, and thousands of businesses coerced, and lots of Congressional support, all based on claim(s) which do not logically hold water. I see lip service toward condemning violence, wink, wink, nudge, nudge from the people in power in power of the party you support.

Of course, politicians on both sides can be hypocrites - I just see no evidence that it is EQUAL.

Do you really hold to the belief that police departments are hiring racists and then backing them when they commit murders they FEEL entitled to commit because of their uniform? It does not have to be yes or no - feel free to explain.
(03-17-2021 11:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]The message I'm getting from your links is that you think a segment of leftists use violence in an attempt to achieve their goals and you are decidely against that approach. Everybody on this forum is also decidely against that approach so I'm not sure why you so frequently post the same song/different verse. A segment of right-wingers also use violence to achieve their goals BTW but you never seem to post those links.

I can tell you why, because it happened quite clearly just a few months ago.

If you don't want to read the same thing over and over, then start a new thread about something you want to talk about. Coming into a conversation that you apparently don't care about or feel has been talked out to tell people you don't care about it or that it has been talked out only encourages further conversation (like I am doing now) about whether it has been talked out or not. I can tell you this... everyone from the right was sick and tired of the same Russia, Russia, Russia... Trump is a puppet... being against illegal immigration is about race and not nationality... and supporting cops who protect us from thousands of criminals every day means supporting racism and the murdering of black people. None of us on the right supported racism, a President working on behalf of a foreign government or abusive/murdering cops... yet EVERY DAY ALL DAY we heard the same complaints.... MOST of them were at best, a singular political perspective and some of them were outright lies presented as facts, even in legal proceedings.
I guess for me, being from the border and having countless cousins on bith sides of the river, some in law enforcement and the Border patrol, I felt the charges of racism and Nazism in the immigration debate very keenly. The lies were very clear to me.

The left likes to use "undocumented" as a euphemism for illegals. We never hear them defend undocumented drivers or undocumented repo men (AKA carjackers) or undocumented tenants (AKA squatters) or undocumented doctors. But because most of the illegals are hispanic, they try to make this a racial question. The first step is to minimize their transgressions against our law - thus the "undocumented" in stead of "illegal".
(03-17-2021 11:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]The message I'm getting from your links is that you think a segment of leftists use violence in an attempt to achieve their goals and you are decidedly against that approach. Everybody on this forum is also decidedly against that approach so I'm not sure why you so frequently post the same song/different verse. A segment of right-wingers also use violence to achieve their goals BTW but you never seem to post those links.

If you are against that approach, then make that clear with your comments on here.

What I don't understand is that no matter how strongly conservatives decry bad behaviour by the few right-wing extremist nutcases, the left continues to try to attribute that bad behaviour to all conservatives, whereas lefties get to make some sort of equivocal, mealy-mouthed response to left-wing violence, like, "Yes, that's bad, but they have a good point," and that's somehow good enough to get them off the hook.
(03-18-2021 07:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]here is an up to date example: The democrats under the leadership of Pelosi are attempting to cancel the result of a fair, free, and certified election in Iowa. Nobody here has advocated FOR this. [...] The Democrats have just finished a five year run aimed at reversing the results of the 2016 election, and more recently a six month run of chastising those who think the 2020 was stolen, or at least hinky, condemning them as trying to overturn the results of a fair and free, decided election. This sounds hypocritical to me.

The interesting (sarcasm) thing about the Iowa election issue is that the Democrat argument on flipping the election is pretty much exclusively that state law should not matter on the issue.

Is that pretty troubling argument to make?

But again, as I have noted time and time again -- progressivism at its core repudiates any process, law, rule, or more in pursuit of raw power.

We just got out of two years (the first two of Trump) wherein the reins of power were stacked entirely in the Republican corner. Ending the filibuster ('reforming' in progressive talk) as a whole was *never* discussed openly as a viable alternative.

When it was loosened under Republican lead, it was only to fully cover the 'exception' made by the progressives for judicial appointments. They had zero issue in ripping that off for all but the SCOTUS, and the Republicans removed the 'judicial' vestige.

But now, under pure progressive leadership, the meat of the filibuster is now viewed very openly as something that is really no more important than a pimple and should be removed en toto or struck down to a mere roadblock.

But now, it is an impediment to progressive power -- therefore it needs to be vitiated. Which falls hand in hand with the Pelosi viewpoint on the Iowa race. Again, almost the sole rationale for the Iowa race even reaching the House determination (either way) is that state law should be ignored.

The progressive philosophy in that unbending personality trait never ceases to amaze me (slow clap).
(03-18-2021 08:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-18-2021 08:15 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-18-2021 07:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-17-2021 11:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-17-2021 11:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I have commented on my DP position numerous times.

Since you don't seem to understand what I think is ridiculous, I will tell you, again. I don't think people who support the DP are ridiculous. You made that up. I understand that many people would logically think that greater penalties are greater deterrents. Maybe if you were defending the DP by claiming that only a small percentage of executed people were innocent, we could have a more spirited discussion.

Who do I think are ridiculous? People who think all police department coast to coast are racist and out to murder black people. People who think the Border Patrol are nazis who enjoy tearing small children from their mothers and forcing them to live in cages. People who think Putin and Trump conspired to steal an election by publishing Hillary's yoga appointments. People who think asking for ID is meant to suppress legal voters.

But still, you are trying to confuse my condemnation of ridiculous things with me arguing that you personally said them.

I think the message I am getting from you is STFU. Do I have that wrong?

I enjoy reading your posts for the most part despite my differences in opinion a great deal of the time.

The message I'm getting from your links is that you think a segment of leftists use violence in an attempt to achieve their goals and you are decidely against that approach. Everybody on this forum is also decidely against that approach so I'm not sure why you so frequently post the same song/different verse. A segment of right-wingers also use violence to achieve their goals BTW but you never seem to post those links.

Let's say that I decided to post on the reg instances where right-wingers said or did something racist. Like multiple times per week. Because I'm sure that I could. How would you feel about my posting those links? Would you wonder why I felt the need to do that so frequently when I purportedly have zero notions that any of the right-wingers on this forum put up with racism?

I would think we have grounds for discussion. I would think that your quarrel was not with me, but with right wing in general. I would not tell you to STFU. I would not tell you to be silent unless spoken to.

here is an up to date example: The democrats under the leadership of Pelosi are attempting to cancel the result of a fair, free, and certified election in Iowa. Nobody here has advocated FOR this. Is it allowable for me to bring this up? The Democrats have just finished a five year run aimed at reversing the results of the 2016 election, and more recently a six month run of chastising those who think the 2020 was stolen, or at least hinky, condemning them as trying to overturn the results of a fair and free, decided election. This sounds hypocritical to me. Am I allowed to point out this hypocrisy without waiting for you or somebody else to comment first?

Certainly Democratic hypocrisy is a constant theme. A good example is the current whiplash turnaround on the filibuster, a 180 from their viewpoints as recently as 2019. Can we talk about this, or must I wait until you or lad or somebody posts that the rule must be changed? Why the muzzle?

Muzzle? You can bring up anything you want. Do you really not see the difference between bringing up a topic versus posting the same topic multiple times per week on a seemingly endless loop? Every article about the shitbirds rioting in Portland gets linked?

Honestly the amount of time we have spent discussing this topic far outweighs the level of importance that it holds for me. I will drop it.

Quote:I agree that a segment of leftists use that violent approach, and i agree a segment of rightists do too. Where we disagree - and have room for discussion - is the relative size and influence of those segments. I think the segment in the left is much larger and influential on a major political party than the corresponding one on the right. I have presented evidence on that. You have disagreed, but without presenting any evidence.

We have discussed on multiple occasions the fact that it's far-right that seems to execute more serious attacks on America than the far-left, OO.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/24/us/do...roups.html

Well, speaking of Portland (and elsewhere) rioting, those seem not to have made the list in the NYT. So, as it so often does, it depends on the definitions used. Apparently for the NYT list, rioting, arson, burning businesses, and attacking cops does not constitute an "attack on America". But I never said "only attacks on america as defined by some think tank" count. I guess that is now your positiion.

Legit straw man. Nice one.

Quote:What I have said, and will say, is that violence as promoted by BLM and Antifa is way more prevalent that any supposed threat from some organization I never heard of of until you brought it up. What I have said, and will say, it that those organizations have much more influence on leftist America than the one(s) you bring up have on right wing America.

The fact that you had never heard of QAnon makes me think that the news sources that you peruse are not quite as across-the-political-spectrum as you might think.

Quote:

Where you and I primarily differ is your defense of those organizations via the "tiny minority" claim. I don't see a tiny minority in hundreds of "protests" including varying amount of violence, and thousands of businesses coerced, and lots of Congressional support, all based on claim(s) which do not logically hold water. I see lip service toward condemning violence, wink, wink, nudge, nudge from the people in power in power of the party you support.

Congressional support of violence? Can you provide a link?

Quote:Of course, politicians on both sides can be hypocrites - I just see no evidence that it is EQUAL.

Do you really hold to the belief that police departments are hiring racists and then backing them when they commit murders they FEEL entitled to commit because of their uniform? It does not have to be yes or no - feel free to explain.

No.
(03-18-2021 09:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-17-2021 11:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]The message I'm getting from your links is that you think a segment of leftists use violence in an attempt to achieve their goals and you are decidedly against that approach. Everybody on this forum is also decidedly against that approach so I'm not sure why you so frequently post the same song/different verse. A segment of right-wingers also use violence to achieve their goals BTW but you never seem to post those links.

If you are against that approach, then make that clear with your comments on here.

I've made that clear on COUNTLESS occasions.

Quote:What I don't understand is that no matter how strongly conservatives decry bad behaviour by the few right-wing extremist nutcases, the left continues to try to attribute that bad behaviour to all conservatives, whereas lefties get to make some sort of equivocal, mealy-mouthed response to left-wing violence, like, "Yes, that's bad, but they have a good point," and that's somehow good enough to get them off the hook.

As usual I don't see much difference here between the two sides. Both sides are quite guilty of this IMO.
(03-18-2021 10:37 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-18-2021 08:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-18-2021 08:15 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-18-2021 07:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-17-2021 11:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]I enjoy reading your posts for the most part despite my differences in opinion a great deal of the time.

The message I'm getting from your links is that you think a segment of leftists use violence in an attempt to achieve their goals and you are decidely against that approach. Everybody on this forum is also decidely against that approach so I'm not sure why you so frequently post the same song/different verse. A segment of right-wingers also use violence to achieve their goals BTW but you never seem to post those links.

Let's say that I decided to post on the reg instances where right-wingers said or did something racist. Like multiple times per week. Because I'm sure that I could. How would you feel about my posting those links? Would you wonder why I felt the need to do that so frequently when I purportedly have zero notions that any of the right-wingers on this forum put up with racism?

I would think we have grounds for discussion. I would think that your quarrel was not with me, but with right wing in general. I would not tell you to STFU. I would not tell you to be silent unless spoken to.

here is an up to date example: The democrats under the leadership of Pelosi are attempting to cancel the result of a fair, free, and certified election in Iowa. Nobody here has advocated FOR this. Is it allowable for me to bring this up? The Democrats have just finished a five year run aimed at reversing the results of the 2016 election, and more recently a six month run of chastising those who think the 2020 was stolen, or at least hinky, condemning them as trying to overturn the results of a fair and free, decided election. This sounds hypocritical to me. Am I allowed to point out this hypocrisy without waiting for you or somebody else to comment first?

Certainly Democratic hypocrisy is a constant theme. A good example is the current whiplash turnaround on the filibuster, a 180 from their viewpoints as recently as 2019. Can we talk about this, or must I wait until you or lad or somebody posts that the rule must be changed? Why the muzzle?

Muzzle? You can bring up anything you want. Do you really not see the difference between bringing up a topic versus posting the same topic multiple times per week on a seemingly endless loop? Every article about the shitbirds rioting in Portland gets linked?

Honestly the amount of time we have spent discussing this topic far outweighs the level of importance that it holds for me. I will drop it.

Quote:I agree that a segment of leftists use that violent approach, and i agree a segment of rightists do too. Where we disagree - and have room for discussion - is the relative size and influence of those segments. I think the segment in the left is much larger and influential on a major political party than the corresponding one on the right. I have presented evidence on that. You have disagreed, but without presenting any evidence.

We have discussed on multiple occasions the fact that it's far-right that seems to execute more serious attacks on America than the far-left, OO.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/24/us/do...roups.html

Well, speaking of Portland (and elsewhere) rioting, those seem not to have made the list in the NYT. So, as it so often does, it depends on the definitions used. Apparently for the NYT list, rioting, arson, burning businesses, and attacking cops does not constitute an "attack on America". But I never said "only attacks on america as defined by some think tank" count. I guess that is now your positiion.

Legit straw man. Nice one.

I guess it doesnt strike you that the 'tallying' of violence doesnt include literally 1.5 years of Portland, nor any of the, say, devastation of Minneapolis, nor any of the other destructive acts of violence under the rubric of BLM and 'defund the police'?

That seems to be a rather gaping chasm in the evidence you proffer for an ostensible purpose of measuring politically motivated violence.

Quote:
Quote:What I have said, and will say, is that violence as promoted by BLM and Antifa is way more prevalent that any supposed threat from some organization I never heard of of until you brought it up. What I have said, and will say, it that those organizations have much more influence on leftist America than the one(s) you bring up have on right wing America.

The fact that you had never heard of QAnon makes me think that the news sources that you peruse are not quite as across-the-political-spectrum as you might think.

Perhaps it may also mean that you cater to the ones that promote that more extensively?

The fact that *you* fixate rather incessantly on QAnon does not mean 'middle of the road America does.

Bluntly speaking, I live in the deep heart of progressive Texas. You speak about QAnon and use it as an exemplar an order of magnitude more than any other politically minded person I have come across in the last four years..... which.... in my neighborhood and circles is rather surprising.
(03-18-2021 10:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-18-2021 10:37 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-18-2021 08:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-18-2021 08:15 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-18-2021 07:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I would think we have grounds for discussion. I would think that your quarrel was not with me, but with right wing in general. I would not tell you to STFU. I would not tell you to be silent unless spoken to.

here is an up to date example: The democrats under the leadership of Pelosi are attempting to cancel the result of a fair, free, and certified election in Iowa. Nobody here has advocated FOR this. Is it allowable for me to bring this up? The Democrats have just finished a five year run aimed at reversing the results of the 2016 election, and more recently a six month run of chastising those who think the 2020 was stolen, or at least hinky, condemning them as trying to overturn the results of a fair and free, decided election. This sounds hypocritical to me. Am I allowed to point out this hypocrisy without waiting for you or somebody else to comment first?

Certainly Democratic hypocrisy is a constant theme. A good example is the current whiplash turnaround on the filibuster, a 180 from their viewpoints as recently as 2019. Can we talk about this, or must I wait until you or lad or somebody posts that the rule must be changed? Why the muzzle?

Muzzle? You can bring up anything you want. Do you really not see the difference between bringing up a topic versus posting the same topic multiple times per week on a seemingly endless loop? Every article about the shitbirds rioting in Portland gets linked?

Honestly the amount of time we have spent discussing this topic far outweighs the level of importance that it holds for me. I will drop it.

Quote:I agree that a segment of leftists use that violent approach, and i agree a segment of rightists do too. Where we disagree - and have room for discussion - is the relative size and influence of those segments. I think the segment in the left is much larger and influential on a major political party than the corresponding one on the right. I have presented evidence on that. You have disagreed, but without presenting any evidence.

We have discussed on multiple occasions the fact that it's far-right that seems to execute more serious attacks on America than the far-left, OO.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/24/us/do...roups.html

Well, speaking of Portland (and elsewhere) rioting, those seem not to have made the list in the NYT. So, as it so often does, it depends on the definitions used. Apparently for the NYT list, rioting, arson, burning businesses, and attacking cops does not constitute an "attack on America". But I never said "only attacks on america as defined by some think tank" count. I guess that is now your positiion.

Legit straw man. Nice one.

I guess it doesnt strike you that the 'tallying' of violence doesnt include literally 1.5 years of Portland, nor any of the, say, devastation of Minneapolis, nor any of the other destructive acts of violence under the rubric of BLM and 'defund the police'?

That seems to be a rather gaping chasm in the evidence you proffer for an ostensible purpose of measuring politically motivated violence.

Quote:
Quote:What I have said, and will say, is that violence as promoted by BLM and Antifa is way more prevalent that any supposed threat from some organization I never heard of of until you brought it up. What I have said, and will say, it that those organizations have much more influence on leftist America than the one(s) you bring up have on right wing America.

The fact that you had never heard of QAnon makes me think that the news sources that you peruse are not quite as across-the-political-spectrum as you might think.

Perhaps it may also mean that you cater to the ones that promote that more extensively?

The fact that *you* fixate rather incessantly on QAnon does not mean 'middle of the road America does.

Bluntly speaking, I live in the deep heart of progressive Texas. You speak about QAnon and use it as an exemplar an order of magnitude more than any other politically minded person I have come across in the last four years..... which.... in my neighborhood and circles is rather surprising.

To be clear, Tanq... I don't think QAnon supporters make up a significant percentage of right-wingers. I also don't think advocates of violence make up a significant percentage of left-wingers. I bring up QAnon as a reference because my guess is that (# of QAnon believers) > (# of leftists who advocate violence).
(03-18-2021 11:12 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]To be clear, Tanq... I don't think QAnon supporters make up a significant percentage of right-wingers. I also don't think advocates of violence make up a significant percentage of left-wingers. I bring up QAnon as a reference because my guess is that (# of QAnon believers) > (# of leftists who advocate violence).

I don't know about that, but I do believe

(# of conservatives who tolerate violence) is pretty much limited to (# of QAnon believers), whereas (# of leftists who tolerate violence) >>> (# of leftists who advocate violence)

"Yes violence is wrong, but they have a valid point," is the statement of someone who may not advocate violence, but who tolerates it.
(03-18-2021 11:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-18-2021 11:12 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]To be clear, Tanq... I don't think QAnon supporters make up a significant percentage of right-wingers. I also don't think advocates of violence make up a significant percentage of left-wingers. I bring up QAnon as a reference because my guess is that (# of QAnon believers) > (# of leftists who advocate violence).

I don't know about that, but I do believe

(# of conservatives who tolerate violence) is pretty much limited to (# of QAnon believers), whereas (# of leftists who tolerate violence) >>> (# of leftists who advocate violence)

"Yes violence is wrong, but they have a valid point," is the statement of someone who may not advocate violence, but who tolerates it.

Who says that? Please link.
(03-18-2021 11:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-18-2021 11:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-18-2021 11:12 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]To be clear, Tanq... I don't think QAnon supporters make up a significant percentage of right-wingers. I also don't think advocates of violence make up a significant percentage of left-wingers. I bring up QAnon as a reference because my guess is that (# of QAnon believers) > (# of leftists who advocate violence).
I don't know about that, but I do believe
(# of conservatives who tolerate violence) is pretty much limited to (# of QAnon believers), whereas (# of leftists who tolerate violence) >>> (# of leftists who advocate violence)
"Yes violence is wrong, but they have a valid point," is the statement of someone who may not advocate violence, but who tolerates it.
Who says that? Please link.

Good grief.
(03-18-2021 10:37 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-18-2021 08:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-18-2021 08:15 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-18-2021 07:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-17-2021 11:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]I enjoy reading your posts for the most part despite my differences in opinion a great deal of the time.

The message I'm getting from your links is that you think a segment of leftists use violence in an attempt to achieve their goals and you are decidely against that approach. Everybody on this forum is also decidely against that approach so I'm not sure why you so frequently post the same song/different verse. A segment of right-wingers also use violence to achieve their goals BTW but you never seem to post those links.

Let's say that I decided to post on the reg instances where right-wingers said or did something racist. Like multiple times per week. Because I'm sure that I could. How would you feel about my posting those links? Would you wonder why I felt the need to do that so frequently when I purportedly have zero notions that any of the right-wingers on this forum put up with racism?

I would think we have grounds for discussion. I would think that your quarrel was not with me, but with right wing in general. I would not tell you to STFU. I would not tell you to be silent unless spoken to.

here is an up to date example: The democrats under the leadership of Pelosi are attempting to cancel the result of a fair, free, and certified election in Iowa. Nobody here has advocated FOR this. Is it allowable for me to bring this up? The Democrats have just finished a five year run aimed at reversing the results of the 2016 election, and more recently a six month run of chastising those who think the 2020 was stolen, or at least hinky, condemning them as trying to overturn the results of a fair and free, decided election. This sounds hypocritical to me. Am I allowed to point out this hypocrisy without waiting for you or somebody else to comment first?

Certainly Democratic hypocrisy is a constant theme. A good example is the current whiplash turnaround on the filibuster, a 180 from their viewpoints as recently as 2019. Can we talk about this, or must I wait until you or lad or somebody posts that the rule must be changed? Why the muzzle?

Muzzle? You can bring up anything you want. Do you really not see the difference between bringing up a topic versus posting the same topic multiple times per week on a seemingly endless loop? Every article about the shitbirds rioting in Portland gets linked?

Honestly the amount of time we have spent discussing this topic far outweighs the level of importance that it holds for me. I will drop it.

Quote:I agree that a segment of leftists use that violent approach, and i agree a segment of rightists do too. Where we disagree - and have room for discussion - is the relative size and influence of those segments. I think the segment in the left is much larger and influential on a major political party than the corresponding one on the right. I have presented evidence on that. You have disagreed, but without presenting any evidence.

We have discussed on multiple occasions the fact that it's far-right that seems to execute more serious attacks on America than the far-left, OO.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/24/us/do...roups.html

Well, speaking of Portland (and elsewhere) rioting, those seem not to have made the list in the NYT. So, as it so often does, it depends on the definitions used. Apparently for the NYT list, rioting, arson, burning businesses, and attacking cops does not constitute an "attack on America". But I never said "only attacks on america as defined by some think tank" count. I guess that is now your positiion.

Legit straw man. Nice one.

Straw man? I think the straw man accusation is YOUR straw man - a way to derail and redirect the discussion. Absolutely the data you quote depends on definitions - who made that judgement?

Quote:What I have said, and will say, is that violence as promoted by BLM and Antifa is way more prevalent that any supposed threat from some organization I never heard of of until you brought it up. What I have said, and will say, it that those organizations have much more influence on leftist America than the one(s) you bring up have on right wing America.

The fact that you had never heard of QAnon makes me think that the news sources that you peruse are not quite as across-the-political-spectrum as you might think.

CNN, ABC, Fox for 90%, with CNN the heaviest. Qanon, like the modern KKK and the American nazi Party, is way overblown in terms of its influence on the GOP and its impact on everyday americans. BLM, on the other hand, is minimized by the MSM and you.

Quote:

Where you and I primarily differ is your defense of those organizations via the "tiny minority" claim. I don't see a tiny minority in hundreds of "protests" including varying amount of violence, and thousands of businesses coerced, and lots of Congressional support, all based on claim(s) which do not logically hold water. I see lip service toward condemning violence, wink, wink, nudge, nudge from the people in power in power of the party you support.

Congressional support of violence? Can you provide a link?

Sure. You could just use Googe, but here are a couple:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20...d-killing/

"Mentions of “Black lives matter” on social media are highly correlated with party affiliation. A majority (76%) of Democrats in the current Congress have used the phrase “Black lives matter” or the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag on social media dating back to 2015, with roughly half of these members mentioning the phrase for the first time during this three-week period. In contrast, very few currently serving Republicans (10%) have explicitly mentioned “Black lives matter” on social media in the last five years – either before or after George Floyd’s killing."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle...story.html

Pretty much any member of the "Squad" would do.



Quote:Of course, politicians on both sides can be hypocrites - I just see no evidence that it is EQUAL.

Do you really hold to the belief that police departments are hiring racists and then backing them when they commit murders they FEEL entitled to commit because of their uniform? It does not have to be yes or no - feel free to explain.

No.

No, you won't explain, or no, you don't agree with the protesters?

Then what are the protests about? We hear systemic racism - give some examples. We hear they want justice - justice for what? It is always, repeat always, called murder by the BLM. We hear no justice, no peace. Sure have seen what that means.
(03-18-2021 11:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Who says that? Please link.

Be serious, 93. Nobody on here and no successful politician is going to be stupid enough to say that out loud... and if we gave you a random/unpolished person who said it, you'd correctly note that they don't represent everyone... and if we gave you an (what was the word?) 'unartistic' comment by a politician, you'd say that it was a simple mis-statement. We've had these conversations hundreds of times. We know Democrats don't support police because they so frequently paint the whole barrel by the actions of a few cops... their first inclination is often to accept the cops culpability. They aren't going to SAY all cops are bad, but the're certainly going to PASS LAWS that presume that they are.

An example to me of the above on here is the conversation about the Fed's reaction to the Portland riots. We had some platitudes about people 'being brought to justice', but the clear focus from the left during that whole discussion (that went on for weeks) was on the actions both before and in response to the riots by the police/Trump/Feds that JUSTIFIED a response and how it was ultimately THEIR fault...


ETA... 93 I didn't mean to imply that you weren't serious about the issue... or that your perspective had no value... I only meant to imply that your 'ASK' for links to such comments was sort of like me asking you to link to a quote of Trump saying 'I hate brown people'. I seriously doubt you have that... Instead, you'd link me to something that you believe IMPLIED that... but you couldn't point me to anything that explained how building a border wall impacts 'brown' citizens here legally... and thus demonstrates racism as opposed to border enforcement... or how having local authorities who pick up people committing crimes who are here illegally and informing immigration of that is 'racist', as opposed to border enforcement.

Sanctuary cities by definition are an act of defiance of Federal immigration law... but you won't find a lot of smart leftists or Democrat politicians saying that they don't support immigration laws. They will instead say that their actions are JUSTIFIED because of the actions of the Feds
Reference URL's