(10-26-2018 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 10:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 10:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 09:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why did you ask me that question? Did I say that calling for legal action within the justice system amounts to a call for violence?
Why would I answer a question that is not germane to my posts?

Since I wasn't asking you, or responding to your post, I don't see the relevance of whether or not you specifically said that. I've certainly heard from the MSM ad nauseam about how Trump incited the bomb attacks. My question was addressed to anyone who could answer it. I don't know why you would answer. That would seem to be a question for you, not me. I don't actually think you did answer, but if you'd care to then I would appreciate it.
No i don't think Trump has remained civil. But I don't think anyone else has either. Certainly not Nancy Pelosi or Kamala Harris or Cory Booker or Chuck Schumer. Nor unfortunately do I expect any of them to return to civility any time soon. I don't see any JFKs or Reagans out there. Do you?

Wait, what? You weren't asking me? Then why did you literally write (look for the bold):

Quote:I'm failing to understand how "lock him/her up," which is a call for our legal system to take action, translates into a call for illegal acts of violence. Lad, perhaps you can fill in some blanks there.

That seems to pretty clearly be responding to my post (which was immediately posted above your comment/question) and asking me to respond to your question by filling in the blanks.
And I agree that I don't see anyone outside of Beto incessantly beating the drum of bipartisanship and civility right now on the Dem side (I've brought this up before). That's why I said this to Tanq:

Quote:edit: and to touch on the Dem response, I'd feel a heck of a lot better if they didn't respond in the way they did. I agree with what they say about Trump's words ringing hollow (see example posted above), but to be honest, I'd rather they be the adults in the room and just ignore Trump at this point.

People are sick and tired of the absolute partisan bickering, name-calling, blame-laying, etc. from everyone involved. Both sides just want to score points with their base and it pretty much sucks. I'm hoping we see a lot more positively focused campaigns in the future like Beto's, and far less mud-slinging like the Desantos-Gillam disaster in Florida.

As you noted, my question wasn't responding to anything you posted. I didn't quote anything you wrote. I merely asked a generic question. The part you bolded was just because you were the person who seemed active at the time.

If you want to answer my question, answer it. If you don't don't. But for the love of all that is holy, do we have to keep going through all this? You seemed to pick up that my question was not related to the discussion you were having with, IIRC, tanq and/or OO. It wasn't. It was an independent effort to find someone who could explain something. If you can't or don't want to, then don't.

As far as Robert O'Rourke, somebody who voted with Nancy Pelosi over 90% of the time is not going to be bipartisan, and he is lying to make such a claim. He's running an identity politics campaign because his issue positions don't set well with a majority of Texans, including me. Cruz has run a godawful campaign by not making it about issues, almost Claytie Williams bad. If a toothy grin with no substance is what you consider to be a positive campaign, then I suppose that's your right. But I'd really like for you to give me one good reason why I should have voted for O'Rourke.

We were focusing on civility, which is why I brought up Beto. A hallmark of his campaign has been trying to be civil and encourage others to do so (you'd be a rich man if you had a nickle every time he said something along the lines of "reasonable people can disagree with that"). I'm not trying to convince you to vote for Beto - as you said his political beliefs do not align with yours. But it's clear that he's been much more genuine about practicing what he preaches with regards to civility and respecting those with differing view points.

And to the first, admittedly trivial point, I find it shocking that you, out of the blue, and with no intention to ask me or respond to my post, happened to ask a generic question for anyone to answer. Yet your comment not only directly addressed me, but also directly referenced the post I made that was immediately above yours (I do not see any recent posts where anyone brought up the "Lock XXXX Up" chants).

To indulge in your comment, I don't think it equates to a call for violence. That's why I didn't suggest it did, and why I said it was an example of Trump not practicing what he was preaching.

(10-26-2018 11:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We were focusing on civility, which is why I brought up Beto. A hallmark of his campaign has been trying to be civil and encourage others to do so (you'd be a rich man if you had a nickle every time he said something along the lines of "reasonable people can disagree with that"). I'm not trying to convince you to vote for Beto - as you said his political beliefs do not align with yours. But it's clear that he's been much more genuine about practicing what he preaches with regards to civility and respecting those with differing view points.
And to the first, admittedly trivial point, I find it shocking that you, out of the blue, and with no intention to ask me or respond to my post, happened to ask a generic question for anyone to answer. Yet your comment not only directly addressed me, but also directly referenced the post I made that was immediately above yours (I do not see any recent posts where anyone brought up the "Lock XXXX Up" chants).
To indulge in your comment, I don't think it equates to a call for violence. That's why I didn't suggest it did, and why I said it was an example of Trump not practicing what he was preaching.

OK, first, I view elections for representative bodies as hiring a proxy to vote for me. All I really care about is whether the person is going to vote the way I want him/her to vote. If it's an executive position, the other things matter. But for a senator or representative, how he/she will vote is about 99 and 44/100 percent of my decision. Am I confident that Ted Cruz will vote the way I want him to? Absolutely not, in fact I'm quite sure there are issues where he will vote the opposite of what I want. But that's maybe 5-10% of the time. With O'Rourke, I'm guessing more like 90-95%. I'm not going to hire someone who is going to do what I don't want done 95% of the time.

So you find out shocking that I would ask a generic question? Really? It's certainly not my first time to do it, and I'm pretty sure it won't be the last. So you've been warned, try not to be shocked next time.

As far as civility, I don't find lying to be civil, particular lying about something like being bipartisan when the record reflects otherwise. I think O'Rourke has run a campaign based on fluff and dishonesty.

As for your comment that Trump's uncivil comments do not amount to a call for violence, thank you. That's all I was looking for with my question. See how easy that was? I agree with you, but there seem to be a lot of talking heads who don't. That was the point of my question.

(10-26-2018 11:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 11:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We were focusing on civility, which is why I brought up Beto. A hallmark of his campaign has been trying to be civil and encourage others to do so (you'd be a rich man if you had a nickle every time he said something along the lines of "reasonable people can disagree with that"). I'm not trying to convince you to vote for Beto - as you said his political beliefs do not align with yours. But it's clear that he's been much more genuine about practicing what he preaches with regards to civility and respecting those with differing view points.
And to the first, admittedly trivial point, I find it shocking that you, out of the blue, and with no intention to ask me or respond to my post, happened to ask a generic question for anyone to answer. Yet your comment not only directly addressed me, but also directly referenced the post I made that was immediately above yours (I do not see any recent posts where anyone brought up the "Lock XXXX Up" chants).
To indulge in your comment, I don't think it equates to a call for violence. That's why I didn't suggest it did, and why I said it was an example of Trump not practicing what he was preaching.

OK, first, I view elections for representative bodies as hiring a proxy to vote for me. All I really care about is whether the person is going to vote the way I want him/her to vote. If it's an executive position, the other things matter. But for a senator or representative, how he/she will vote is about 99 and 44/100 percent of my decision. Am I confident that Ted Cruz will vote the way I want him to? Absolutely not, in fact I'm quite sure there are issues where he will vote the opposite of what I want. But that's maybe 5-10% of the time. With O'Rourke, I'm guessing more like 90-95%. I'm not going to hire someone who is going to do what I don't want done 95% of the time.

So you find out shocking that I would ask a generic question? Really? It's certainly not my first time to do it, and I'm pretty sure it won't be the last. So you've been warned, try not to be shocked next time.

As far as civility, I don't find lying to be civil, particular lying about something like being bipartisan when the record reflects otherwise. I think O'Rourke has run a campaign based on fluff and dishonesty.

As for your comment that Trump's uncivil comments do not amount to a call for violence, thank you. That's all I was looking for with my question. See how easy that was? I agree with you, but there seem to be a lot of talking heads who don't. That was the point of my question.

I understand why you wouldn't vote for Beto, I'm not trying to pitch you to him as a candidate that you would vote for. I'm trying to pitch that he has the temperament that we seem to be missing these days. You asked where were the politicians that acted civil, and I provided a good example. Beto regularly talks to his audiences about the need to listen to the other side of an argument and those on the other side of the political spectrum. I find that commendable, do you?

And there is certainly a huge gap in civility between your claim that Beto is lying and that's uncivil and my claim that Trump encouraging people to cheer for the jailing of a political opponent for no reason is uncivil. Suggesting those are in the same category is like suggesting telling your friend the new piece of art they bought is nice and telling the police your friend was at your home when you knew he was out committing a crime are lies that are in the same category.

(10-26-2018 11:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I understand why you wouldn't vote for Beto, I'm not trying to pitch you to him as a candidate that you would vote for. I'm trying to pitch that he has the temperament that we seem to be missing these days. You asked where were the politicians that acted civil, and I provided a good example. Beto regularly talks to his audiences about the need to listen to the other side of an argument and those on the other side of the political spectrum. I find that commendable, do you?
And there is certainly a huge gap in civility between your claim that Beto is lying and that's uncivil and my claim that Trump encouraging people to cheer for the jailing of a political opponent for no reason is uncivil. Suggesting those are in the same category is like suggesting telling your friend the new piece of art they bought is nice and telling the police your friend was at your home when you knew he was out committing a crime are lies that are in the same category.

Stop putting words in my mouth. Where have I been "(s)suggesting that those are in the same category"? Oh yeah, that's right, I haven't. I'm merely pointing out that Robert O'Rourke is not exactly pure as the driven snow.

And lying about the size of the crowd at an event versus lying about "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan," are pretty much light years apart too.

Look, nowhere am I suggesting that lying about policy positions is the same on the civility scale as encouraging that your political opponents be jailed. So don't go putting those words in my mouth. Come to think of it, when it comes to recommending legal action against political opponents, O'Rourke has already stated that he is willing to vote for impeachment, when no factual basis for so doing presently exists. So he has pretty much already crossed that line.

I guess that's kind of my point about the "lock him/her up" thing. Democrats have pretty much been saying that, in unison, about Trump since election day 2016. Why is that not regarded as a call for criminal violence against Trump and republicans, like for example Steve Scalise or the risin attacks, when the same thing going the other way somehow is?

As far as the temperament thing, my point is that to me O'Rourke comes across as a fraud. He has certainly exhibited not just uncivil, but criminal, behavior in his past. He claims to be bipartisan when it is pretty clear from his history that we can expect him to be Chuck Schumer's lapdog, just as he has been Nancy Pelosi's lapdog.

The O'Rourkes are about the most political family I have ever known. To paraphrase RADM Painter (the Fred Thompson character in Red October), they don't take a dump without a political plan. I can very easily see the photos of young Robert in his t-shirt with "Beto" on it coming about because they thought, "Hey we want him to go into politics, and in El Paso it will be an advantage to have some Hispanic touch." Young Robert is running a perfectly scripted political plan. Please forgive me if I don't believe a word of it. If I were trying to get elected in Texas with his political views, you can bet your butt I would do everything I could to come across as this civil, polite bipartisan. IMO it's all crap. That's not who he is, or who he has been, or who he would be as our senator. I sincerely hope we don't get to find out.

AS for 'lying' in a campaign -- I dont regard that as 'uncivil'. That *is* what candidates do. Even the supposedly most pure.

I will agree with Lad -- O'Rourke for the most part *has* run a civil campaign; but for the most part so has Cruz.

I do see an incredible hypocrisy on Lad's complaints about 'lock x up'. Lad had the *same* exact comments when they were directed at Hills -- even though there was specific and tangible reasons for basis for that. There is a lesser basis for Soros. But Soros has made quite the name for himself being a political provocateur and for massive funding of actual street protests. Some connections are hazy and a bit dodgy. But this is the exact story that David and Charles Koch have built as well. And yes, I have heard those chants and signs calling for their incarceration for their activism.

Uncivil? Yep, you betcha. Uncalled for? Maybe, maybe night. But the absolute fact remains that the 'call for legal action' runs both ways.

Owl #s made a point I was going to make last night --- the massive calls for legal action against Trump. Potayto, potahto. Uncivil? Again, yep, you betcha. But, par for the course.

The amazing thing I am seeing is the equivocation of uncivility as a basis for justification for violence or calls for violence. In the last 5 days, CNN (and many of the major media outlets) have gone all out to tag Trump rudeness to violence. Kind of nonsense.

First, when you take a look at the rhetoric and resulting action of the 1850's to today -- it is a scary parallel. Especially so when you take into account the numbers of government officials being targeted for violence. I mean it hasnt made nearly the splash of the current weeks issues, but from the other side 4 Republican candidates or campaign aides were physically assaulted in the last 6 weeks in incidents that were explicitly politically motivated. 30 more Republican members of Congress have been assaulted or threatened to such a manner that required the intervention of law enforcement between May and August.

Further, when the President calls for a step down, then is told to go get a sock stuffed by the opposition, one has to ask themself where the hell are we headed? Trump is a rude, crass individual. I can name scores of rude, crass individuals who are/were major politicians -- LBJ, Franken, Ted Kennedy, Nixon, Roy Moore.

So to hear all the above in the context of 'the rude guy's followers called for a major political provocateur to be locked up' as a 'reason' to discount the call to step down, to me it boggles the mind.

(10-26-2018 11:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 11:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 11:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We were focusing on civility, which is why I brought up Beto. A hallmark of his campaign has been trying to be civil and encourage others to do so (you'd be a rich man if you had a nickle every time he said something along the lines of "reasonable people can disagree with that"). I'm not trying to convince you to vote for Beto - as you said his political beliefs do not align with yours. But it's clear that he's been much more genuine about practicing what he preaches with regards to civility and respecting those with differing view points.
And to the first, admittedly trivial point, I find it shocking that you, out of the blue, and with no intention to ask me or respond to my post, happened to ask a generic question for anyone to answer. Yet your comment not only directly addressed me, but also directly referenced the post I made that was immediately above yours (I do not see any recent posts where anyone brought up the "Lock XXXX Up" chants).
To indulge in your comment, I don't think it equates to a call for violence. That's why I didn't suggest it did, and why I said it was an example of Trump not practicing what he was preaching.

OK, first, I view elections for representative bodies as hiring a proxy to vote for me. All I really care about is whether the person is going to vote the way I want him/her to vote. If it's an executive position, the other things matter. But for a senator or representative, how he/she will vote is about 99 and 44/100 percent of my decision. Am I confident that Ted Cruz will vote the way I want him to? Absolutely not, in fact I'm quite sure there are issues where he will vote the opposite of what I want. But that's maybe 5-10% of the time. With O'Rourke, I'm guessing more like 90-95%. I'm not going to hire someone who is going to do what I don't want done 95% of the time.

So you find out shocking that I would ask a generic question? Really? It's certainly not my first time to do it, and I'm pretty sure it won't be the last. So you've been warned, try not to be shocked next time.

As far as civility, I don't find lying to be civil, particular lying about something like being bipartisan when the record reflects otherwise. I think O'Rourke has run a campaign based on fluff and dishonesty.

As for your comment that Trump's uncivil comments do not amount to a call for violence, thank you. That's all I was looking for with my question. See how easy that was? I agree with you, but there seem to be a lot of talking heads who don't. That was the point of my question.

I understand why you wouldn't vote for Beto, I'm not trying to pitch you to him as a candidate that you would vote for. I'm trying to pitch that he has the temperament that we seem to be missing these days. You asked where were the politicians that acted civil, and I provided a good example. Beto regularly talks to his audiences about the need to listen to the other side of an argument and those on the other side of the political spectrum. I find that commendable, do you?

And there is certainly a huge gap in civility between your claim that Beto is lying and that's uncivil and my claim that Trump encouraging people to cheer for the jailing of a political opponent for no reason is uncivil. Suggesting those are in the same category is like suggesting telling your friend the new piece of art they bought is nice and telling the police your friend was at your home when you knew he was out committing a crime are lies that are in the same category.

So the current whine is encouraging people to cheer for the jailing of a political opponent for no reason. Got it.

Look Soros isnt 'dirty', but by no means is he pure as the driven snow. I suggest you try to scold *your* side about the the omnipresent calls related to the Kochs in the same manner.

And to be blunt, you got bent out of all serious shape when those calls were directed at Hillary -- someone who truly *should* have been charged with a crime. But you got seriously bent out of shape over those calls.

And, you seriously defend the same types of calls on impeachment of Trump.

Color me a cynic but your viewpoint here doesnt seem very objective on this matter. In the slightest.

If “Lock her up” is uncivil, then what is “impeach him”?

on CNN this morning (yes, kids, I watch CNN as well as Fox and ABC), Matt Dowd was calling for tighter limits on hate speech, by which he meant things like President Trump says about the press.

The left is trying to drive for the suppression of conservative speech, and they are succeeding.

Impeach him (Trump) - OK
Impeach him (Obama) - hate speech

(10-27-2018 08:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If “Lock her up” is uncivil, then what is “impeach him”?

This.

I would like for someone to explain to me how "lock him/her up" led to pipe bombs, but "impeach him (and lock him up)" did not lead to the shooting of Steve Scalise or the ricin attacks.

I would also be interested in an explanation how a constant refrain of "impeach" and "collusion" and "Russia" and "emoluments" cannot be expected to draw "lock him/her up" in return.

(10-27-2018 10:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 08:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If “Lock her up” is uncivil, then what is “impeach him”?

This.

I would like for someone to explain to me how "lock him/her up" led to pipe bombs, but "impeach him (and lock him up)" did not lead to the shooting of Steve Scalise or the ricin attacks.

I would also be interested in an explanation how a constant refrain of "impeach" and "collusion" and "Russia" and "emoluments" cannot be expected to draw "lock him/her up" in return.

As to the second paragraph, not to mention the amazingly overt (and rather shallow, evidence-wise) campaign to sink Kavanaugh. I guess the chant of 'serial rapist' is benign when having no other corroboration.....

(10-27-2018 10:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 10:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 08:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If “Lock her up” is uncivil, then what is “impeach him”?

This.

I would like for someone to explain to me how "lock him/her up" led to pipe bombs, but "impeach him (and lock him up)" did not lead to the shooting of Steve Scalise or the ricin attacks.

I would also be interested in an explanation how a constant refrain of "impeach" and "collusion" and "Russia" and "emoluments" cannot be expected to draw "lock him/her up" in return.

As to the second paragraph, not to mention the amazingly overt (and rather shallow, evidence-wise) campaign to sink Kavanaugh. I guess the chant of 'serial rapist' is benign when having no other corroboration.....

You mean the campaign against Kavanaugh based on anecdotal evidence?

(10-27-2018 08:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 11:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 11:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 11:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We were focusing on civility, which is why I brought up Beto. A hallmark of his campaign has been trying to be civil and encourage others to do so (you'd be a rich man if you had a nickle every time he said something along the lines of "reasonable people can disagree with that"). I'm not trying to convince you to vote for Beto - as you said his political beliefs do not align with yours. But it's clear that he's been much more genuine about practicing what he preaches with regards to civility and respecting those with differing view points.
And to the first, admittedly trivial point, I find it shocking that you, out of the blue, and with no intention to ask me or respond to my post, happened to ask a generic question for anyone to answer. Yet your comment not only directly addressed me, but also directly referenced the post I made that was immediately above yours (I do not see any recent posts where anyone brought up the "Lock XXXX Up" chants).
To indulge in your comment, I don't think it equates to a call for violence. That's why I didn't suggest it did, and why I said it was an example of Trump not practicing what he was preaching.

OK, first, I view elections for representative bodies as hiring a proxy to vote for me. All I really care about is whether the person is going to vote the way I want him/her to vote. If it's an executive position, the other things matter. But for a senator or representative, how he/she will vote is about 99 and 44/100 percent of my decision. Am I confident that Ted Cruz will vote the way I want him to? Absolutely not, in fact I'm quite sure there are issues where he will vote the opposite of what I want. But that's maybe 5-10% of the time. With O'Rourke, I'm guessing more like 90-95%. I'm not going to hire someone who is going to do what I don't want done 95% of the time.

So you find out shocking that I would ask a generic question? Really? It's certainly not my first time to do it, and I'm pretty sure it won't be the last. So you've been warned, try not to be shocked next time.

As far as civility, I don't find lying to be civil, particular lying about something like being bipartisan when the record reflects otherwise. I think O'Rourke has run a campaign based on fluff and dishonesty.

As for your comment that Trump's uncivil comments do not amount to a call for violence, thank you. That's all I was looking for with my question. See how easy that was? I agree with you, but there seem to be a lot of talking heads who don't. That was the point of my question.

I understand why you wouldn't vote for Beto, I'm not trying to pitch you to him as a candidate that you would vote for. I'm trying to pitch that he has the temperament that we seem to be missing these days. You asked where were the politicians that acted civil, and I provided a good example. Beto regularly talks to his audiences about the need to listen to the other side of an argument and those on the other side of the political spectrum. I find that commendable, do you?

And there is certainly a huge gap in civility between your claim that Beto is lying and that's uncivil and my claim that Trump encouraging people to cheer for the jailing of a political opponent for no reason is uncivil. Suggesting those are in the same category is like suggesting telling your friend the new piece of art they bought is nice and telling the police your friend was at your home when you knew he was out committing a crime are lies that are in the same category.

So the current whine is encouraging people to cheer for the jailing of a political opponent for no reason. Got it.

Look Soros isnt 'dirty', but by no means is he pure as the driven snow. I suggest you try to scold *your* side about the the omnipresent calls related to the Kochs in the same manner.

And to be blunt, you got bent out of all serious shape when those calls were directed at Hillary -- someone who truly *should* have been charged with a crime. But you got seriously bent out of shape over those calls.

And, you seriously defend the same types of calls on impeachment of Trump.

Color me a cynic but your viewpoint here doesnt seem very objective on this matter. In the slightest.

Did I miss the news story about a Democratic politician leading a lock them up chant about the Koch brothers?

(10-27-2018 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 08:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 11:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 11:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 11:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We were focusing on civility, which is why I brought up Beto. A hallmark of his campaign has been trying to be civil and encourage others to do so (you'd be a rich man if you had a nickle every time he said something along the lines of "reasonable people can disagree with that"). I'm not trying to convince you to vote for Beto - as you said his political beliefs do not align with yours. But it's clear that he's been much more genuine about practicing what he preaches with regards to civility and respecting those with differing view points.
And to the first, admittedly trivial point, I find it shocking that you, out of the blue, and with no intention to ask me or respond to my post, happened to ask a generic question for anyone to answer. Yet your comment not only directly addressed me, but also directly referenced the post I made that was immediately above yours (I do not see any recent posts where anyone brought up the "Lock XXXX Up" chants).
To indulge in your comment, I don't think it equates to a call for violence. That's why I didn't suggest it did, and why I said it was an example of Trump not practicing what he was preaching.

OK, first, I view elections for representative bodies as hiring a proxy to vote for me. All I really care about is whether the person is going to vote the way I want him/her to vote. If it's an executive position, the other things matter. But for a senator or representative, how he/she will vote is about 99 and 44/100 percent of my decision. Am I confident that Ted Cruz will vote the way I want him to? Absolutely not, in fact I'm quite sure there are issues where he will vote the opposite of what I want. But that's maybe 5-10% of the time. With O'Rourke, I'm guessing more like 90-95%. I'm not going to hire someone who is going to do what I don't want done 95% of the time.

So you find out shocking that I would ask a generic question? Really? It's certainly not my first time to do it, and I'm pretty sure it won't be the last. So you've been warned, try not to be shocked next time.

As far as civility, I don't find lying to be civil, particular lying about something like being bipartisan when the record reflects otherwise. I think O'Rourke has run a campaign based on fluff and dishonesty.

As for your comment that Trump's uncivil comments do not amount to a call for violence, thank you. That's all I was looking for with my question. See how easy that was? I agree with you, but there seem to be a lot of talking heads who don't. That was the point of my question.

I understand why you wouldn't vote for Beto, I'm not trying to pitch you to him as a candidate that you would vote for. I'm trying to pitch that he has the temperament that we seem to be missing these days. You asked where were the politicians that acted civil, and I provided a good example. Beto regularly talks to his audiences about the need to listen to the other side of an argument and those on the other side of the political spectrum. I find that commendable, do you?

And there is certainly a huge gap in civility between your claim that Beto is lying and that's uncivil and my claim that Trump encouraging people to cheer for the jailing of a political opponent for no reason is uncivil. Suggesting those are in the same category is like suggesting telling your friend the new piece of art they bought is nice and telling the police your friend was at your home when you knew he was out committing a crime are lies that are in the same category.

So the current whine is encouraging people to cheer for the jailing of a political opponent for no reason. Got it.

Look Soros isnt 'dirty', but by no means is he pure as the driven snow. I suggest you try to scold *your* side about the the omnipresent calls related to the Kochs in the same manner.

And to be blunt, you got bent out of all serious shape when those calls were directed at Hillary -- someone who truly *should* have been charged with a crime. But you got seriously bent out of shape over those calls.

And, you seriously defend the same types of calls on impeachment of Trump.

Color me a cynic but your viewpoint here doesnt seem very objective on this matter. In the slightest.

Did I miss the news story about a Democratic politician leading a lock them up chant about the Koch brothers?

Just open up any liberal bent media and you are sure to find any number of stories of using legal process (both of jailing and suing) against the Kochs.

I see you are still stuck on Trump doing this. Tell us when you find the marrow in that bone.

(10-27-2018 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 08:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 11:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 11:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  OK, first, I view elections for representative bodies as hiring a proxy to vote for me. All I really care about is whether the person is going to vote the way I want him/her to vote. If it's an executive position, the other things matter. But for a senator or representative, how he/she will vote is about 99 and 44/100 percent of my decision. Am I confident that Ted Cruz will vote the way I want him to? Absolutely not, in fact I'm quite sure there are issues where he will vote the opposite of what I want. But that's maybe 5-10% of the time. With O'Rourke, I'm guessing more like 90-95%. I'm not going to hire someone who is going to do what I don't want done 95% of the time.

So you find out shocking that I would ask a generic question? Really? It's certainly not my first time to do it, and I'm pretty sure it won't be the last. So you've been warned, try not to be shocked next time.

As far as civility, I don't find lying to be civil, particular lying about something like being bipartisan when the record reflects otherwise. I think O'Rourke has run a campaign based on fluff and dishonesty.

As for your comment that Trump's uncivil comments do not amount to a call for violence, thank you. That's all I was looking for with my question. See how easy that was? I agree with you, but there seem to be a lot of talking heads who don't. That was the point of my question.

I understand why you wouldn't vote for Beto, I'm not trying to pitch you to him as a candidate that you would vote for. I'm trying to pitch that he has the temperament that we seem to be missing these days. You asked where were the politicians that acted civil, and I provided a good example. Beto regularly talks to his audiences about the need to listen to the other side of an argument and those on the other side of the political spectrum. I find that commendable, do you?

And there is certainly a huge gap in civility between your claim that Beto is lying and that's uncivil and my claim that Trump encouraging people to cheer for the jailing of a political opponent for no reason is uncivil. Suggesting those are in the same category is like suggesting telling your friend the new piece of art they bought is nice and telling the police your friend was at your home when you knew he was out committing a crime are lies that are in the same category.

So the current whine is encouraging people to cheer for the jailing of a political opponent for no reason. Got it.

Look Soros isnt 'dirty', but by no means is he pure as the driven snow. I suggest you try to scold *your* side about the the omnipresent calls related to the Kochs in the same manner.

And to be blunt, you got bent out of all serious shape when those calls were directed at Hillary -- someone who truly *should* have been charged with a crime. But you got seriously bent out of shape over those calls.

And, you seriously defend the same types of calls on impeachment of Trump.

Color me a cynic but your viewpoint here doesnt seem very objective on this matter. In the slightest.

Did I miss the news story about a Democratic politician leading a lock them up chant about the Koch brothers?

Just open up any liberal bent media and you are sure to find any number of stories of using legal process (both of jailing and suing) against the Kochs.

I see you are still stuck on Trump doing this. Tell us when you find the marrow in that bone.

He's just repeating what he has been told. Give him a break.

(10-27-2018 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 08:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 11:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 11:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  OK, first, I view elections for representative bodies as hiring a proxy to vote for me. All I really care about is whether the person is going to vote the way I want him/her to vote. If it's an executive position, the other things matter. But for a senator or representative, how he/she will vote is about 99 and 44/100 percent of my decision. Am I confident that Ted Cruz will vote the way I want him to? Absolutely not, in fact I'm quite sure there are issues where he will vote the opposite of what I want. But that's maybe 5-10% of the time. With O'Rourke, I'm guessing more like 90-95%. I'm not going to hire someone who is going to do what I don't want done 95% of the time.

So you find out shocking that I would ask a generic question? Really? It's certainly not my first time to do it, and I'm pretty sure it won't be the last. So you've been warned, try not to be shocked next time.

As far as civility, I don't find lying to be civil, particular lying about something like being bipartisan when the record reflects otherwise. I think O'Rourke has run a campaign based on fluff and dishonesty.

As for your comment that Trump's uncivil comments do not amount to a call for violence, thank you. That's all I was looking for with my question. See how easy that was? I agree with you, but there seem to be a lot of talking heads who don't. That was the point of my question.

I understand why you wouldn't vote for Beto, I'm not trying to pitch you to him as a candidate that you would vote for. I'm trying to pitch that he has the temperament that we seem to be missing these days. You asked where were the politicians that acted civil, and I provided a good example. Beto regularly talks to his audiences about the need to listen to the other side of an argument and those on the other side of the political spectrum. I find that commendable, do you?

And there is certainly a huge gap in civility between your claim that Beto is lying and that's uncivil and my claim that Trump encouraging people to cheer for the jailing of a political opponent for no reason is uncivil. Suggesting those are in the same category is like suggesting telling your friend the new piece of art they bought is nice and telling the police your friend was at your home when you knew he was out committing a crime are lies that are in the same category.

So the current whine is encouraging people to cheer for the jailing of a political opponent for no reason. Got it.

Look Soros isnt 'dirty', but by no means is he pure as the driven snow. I suggest you try to scold *your* side about the the omnipresent calls related to the Kochs in the same manner.

And to be blunt, you got bent out of all serious shape when those calls were directed at Hillary -- someone who truly *should* have been charged with a crime. But you got seriously bent out of shape over those calls.

And, you seriously defend the same types of calls on impeachment of Trump.

Color me a cynic but your viewpoint here doesnt seem very objective on this matter. In the slightest.

Did I miss the news story about a Democratic politician leading a lock them up chant about the Koch brothers?

Just open up any liberal bent media and you are sure to find any number of stories of using legal process (both of jailing and suing) against the Kochs.

I see you are still stuck on Trump doing this. Tell us when you find the marrow in that bone.

Nice deflection.

(10-27-2018 12:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 08:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 11:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I understand why you wouldn't vote for Beto, I'm not trying to pitch you to him as a candidate that you would vote for. I'm trying to pitch that he has the temperament that we seem to be missing these days. You asked where were the politicians that acted civil, and I provided a good example. Beto regularly talks to his audiences about the need to listen to the other side of an argument and those on the other side of the political spectrum. I find that commendable, do you?

And there is certainly a huge gap in civility between your claim that Beto is lying and that's uncivil and my claim that Trump encouraging people to cheer for the jailing of a political opponent for no reason is uncivil. Suggesting those are in the same category is like suggesting telling your friend the new piece of art they bought is nice and telling the police your friend was at your home when you knew he was out committing a crime are lies that are in the same category.

So the current whine is encouraging people to cheer for the jailing of a political opponent for no reason. Got it.

Look Soros isnt 'dirty', but by no means is he pure as the driven snow. I suggest you try to scold *your* side about the the omnipresent calls related to the Kochs in the same manner.

And to be blunt, you got bent out of all serious shape when those calls were directed at Hillary -- someone who truly *should* have been charged with a crime. But you got seriously bent out of shape over those calls.

And, you seriously defend the same types of calls on impeachment of Trump.

Color me a cynic but your viewpoint here doesnt seem very objective on this matter. In the slightest.

Did I miss the news story about a Democratic politician leading a lock them up chant about the Koch brothers?

Just open up any liberal bent media and you are sure to find any number of stories of using legal process (both of jailing and suing) against the Kochs.

I see you are still stuck on Trump doing this. Tell us when you find the marrow in that bone.

Nice deflection.

Says the guy who thinks that 'lock them up' is so far out on the transgression scale that it has to be called out. Got it.

I mean you screamed about it with Hillary, and now this seems to be your main cudgel again. I sense a pattern here.

(10-27-2018 12:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 08:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-26-2018 11:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I understand why you wouldn't vote for Beto, I'm not trying to pitch you to him as a candidate that you would vote for. I'm trying to pitch that he has the temperament that we seem to be missing these days. You asked where were the politicians that acted civil, and I provided a good example. Beto regularly talks to his audiences about the need to listen to the other side of an argument and those on the other side of the political spectrum. I find that commendable, do you?

And there is certainly a huge gap in civility between your claim that Beto is lying and that's uncivil and my claim that Trump encouraging people to cheer for the jailing of a political opponent for no reason is uncivil. Suggesting those are in the same category is like suggesting telling your friend the new piece of art they bought is nice and telling the police your friend was at your home when you knew he was out committing a crime are lies that are in the same category.

So the current whine is encouraging people to cheer for the jailing of a political opponent for no reason. Got it.

Look Soros isnt 'dirty', but by no means is he pure as the driven snow. I suggest you try to scold *your* side about the the omnipresent calls related to the Kochs in the same manner.

And to be blunt, you got bent out of all serious shape when those calls were directed at Hillary -- someone who truly *should* have been charged with a crime. But you got seriously bent out of shape over those calls.

And, you seriously defend the same types of calls on impeachment of Trump.

Color me a cynic but your viewpoint here doesnt seem very objective on this matter. In the slightest.

Did I miss the news story about a Democratic politician leading a lock them up chant about the Koch brothers?

Just open up any liberal bent media and you are sure to find any number of stories of using legal process (both of jailing and suing) against the Kochs.

I see you are still stuck on Trump doing this. Tell us when you find the marrow in that bone.

He's just repeating what he has been told. Give him a break.

I've seen this trope repeated ad infinitum on CNN and MSNPC in the last couple of days.

Oooooohhhh...... orange man bad..... orange man be scolded..... there are a lot of things that are easier to point to, but the 'lock xxxx up' seems to be the trope du jour now.

Thank god I dont have a toothache right now. Would have to find a way to blame orange man.....

(10-27-2018 01:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 12:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 08:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So the current whine is encouraging people to cheer for the jailing of a political opponent for no reason. Got it.

Look Soros isnt 'dirty', but by no means is he pure as the driven snow. I suggest you try to scold *your* side about the the omnipresent calls related to the Kochs in the same manner.

And to be blunt, you got bent out of all serious shape when those calls were directed at Hillary -- someone who truly *should* have been charged with a crime. But you got seriously bent out of shape over those calls.

And, you seriously defend the same types of calls on impeachment of Trump.

Color me a cynic but your viewpoint here doesnt seem very objective on this matter. In the slightest.

Did I miss the news story about a Democratic politician leading a lock them up chant about the Koch brothers?

Just open up any liberal bent media and you are sure to find any number of stories of using legal process (both of jailing and suing) against the Kochs.

I see you are still stuck on Trump doing this. Tell us when you find the marrow in that bone.

He's just repeating what he has been told. Give him a break.

I've seen this trope repeated ad infinitum on CNN and MSNPC in the last couple of days.

Oooooohhhh...... orange man bad..... orange man be scolded..... there are a lot of things that are easier to point to, but the 'lock xxxx up' seems to be the trope du jour now.

Thank god I dont have a toothache right now. Would have to find a way to blame orange man.....

All bad things flow from him, Evil personified, the leader of the Republican mob.

If you have any doubts, just turn on "The All-Trump, All the Time channel", AKA CNN.

I watch CNN more hours/week than I watch Fox. No doubt they are out to get him.

(10-27-2018 01:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 12:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 08:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So the current whine is encouraging people to cheer for the jailing of a political opponent for no reason. Got it.

Look Soros isnt 'dirty', but by no means is he pure as the driven snow. I suggest you try to scold *your* side about the the omnipresent calls related to the Kochs in the same manner.

And to be blunt, you got bent out of all serious shape when those calls were directed at Hillary -- someone who truly *should* have been charged with a crime. But you got seriously bent out of shape over those calls.

And, you seriously defend the same types of calls on impeachment of Trump.

Color me a cynic but your viewpoint here doesnt seem very objective on this matter. In the slightest.

Did I miss the news story about a Democratic politician leading a lock them up chant about the Koch brothers?

Just open up any liberal bent media and you are sure to find any number of stories of using legal process (both of jailing and suing) against the Kochs.

I see you are still stuck on Trump doing this. Tell us when you find the marrow in that bone.

Nice deflection.

Says the guy who thinks that 'lock them up' is so far out on the transgression scale that it has to be called out. Got it.

I mean you screamed about it with Hillary, and now this seems to be your main cudgel again. I sense a pattern here.

No idea how me having the opinion that leading crowds to chant “Lock XXXX Up” is an uncivil action by a political leader is a deflection.

I brought it up because it was germane to you asking me how I felt about Trump’s initial response to the bombs and his call for civility to return to politics. Explain to me how that’s a deflection?

(10-27-2018 01:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 01:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 12:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-27-2018 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did I miss the news story about a Democratic politician leading a lock them up chant about the Koch brothers?

Just open up any liberal bent media and you are sure to find any number of stories of using legal process (both of jailing and suing) against the Kochs.

I see you are still stuck on Trump doing this. Tell us when you find the marrow in that bone.

He's just repeating what he has been told. Give him a break.

I've seen this trope repeated ad infinitum on CNN and MSNPC in the last couple of days.

Oooooohhhh...... orange man bad..... orange man be scolded..... there are a lot of things that are easier to point to, but the 'lock xxxx up' seems to be the trope du jour now.

Thank god I dont have a toothache right now. Would have to find a way to blame orange man.....

All bad things flow from him, Evil personified, the leader of the Republican mob.

If you have any doubts, just turn on "The All-Trump, All the Time channel", AKA CNN.

I watch CNN more hours/week than I watch Fox. No doubt they are out to get him.

I specifically said I didn’t like how Schumer and spells I responded, and agreed that it fed directly into the cycle that I’m complaining about. Someone needs to be an adult and their response did not fit that bill.

All bad things don’t flow from Trump, but he does enough bad things that it may seem that way...

And I’ll agree with you that CNN has jumped the shark in Trump coverage and needs to pry themselves back from the precipice if they can. I understand that he is POTUS and thus a news maker, but they really should find some other topics to cover. It gets old (but apparently, they think it gets ratings).