(03-29-2020 11:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-29-2020 09:17 PM)At Ease Wrote:  An amazing interview, notwithstanding familiarity with the mannerisms and mistakes from the wizened/pompous/libertarian/lawyer combo.

And thanks to you for allowing us the familiarity with the mannerisms of the smug-fk whack a mole prog types. Quite the public service you engender.

I hope I am the wizened one, at 242 pounds. But it s nice to know the lefties continue to speak with authority on topics they know nothing about.

(01-10-2020 06:30 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 06:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Despite your quibbles, you and I both know that democrats are pushing to get them into the country, get them on welfare, and get them the vote (as citizens or otherwise). That is totally consistent with my comment.
You can say whatever you want, but I'm not buying it.

I don't believe Democrats are doing what you say here. I haven't heard any Presidential candidate advocating such a thing. I certainly don't support it. Believe what you want, it is a free country. But unless you present me with actual facts supporting this, then I think this specific concern of yours amounts to a fever dream.

Get them into the country - opposition to the wall which clearly increases the difficulty for illegal immigrants (which I support in part and oppose in part, but on different grounds), calls to disestablish ICE, support for catch and release
Get them on welfare - see, inter alia, "Chicago corona virus: Mayor Lightfoot signs order ensuring immigrants can get COVID-19 benefits" https://abc7chicago.com/health/lightfoot...-/6083518/
Get them the vote - see, inter alia, "SF gave undocumented immigrants voting rights. Now it’s worried about ICE" https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/mati...726237.php

There are many other instances that I could have cited, I have just cited a few. I'm sorry, but you are simply ignoring facts if you persist in your belief that democrats are not trying to do these things. And as far as no democrat presidential candidate espousing those positions, well Joe Biden's website pretty much says them, albeit in euphemistic language. So what you are saying comes across to me as, "I don't support these things, but I am going to vote for candidates who do." I don't like it when people misquote me, so if you think that I am mischaracterizing you, please explain.

(04-10-2020 06:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 06:30 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 06:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Despite your quibbles, you and I both know that democrats are pushing to get them into the country, get them on welfare, and get them the vote (as citizens or otherwise). That is totally consistent with my comment.
You can say whatever you want, but I'm not buying it.

I don't believe Democrats are doing what you say here. I haven't heard any Presidential candidate advocating such a thing. I certainly don't support it. Believe what you want, it is a free country. But unless you present me with actual facts supporting this, then I think this specific concern of yours amounts to a fever dream.

Get them into the country - opposition to the wall which clearly increases the difficulty for illegal immigrants (which I support in part and oppose in part, but on different grounds), calls to disestablish ICE, support for catch and release
Get them on welfare - see, inter alia, "Chicago corona virus: Mayor Lightfoot signs order ensuring immigrants can get COVID-19 benefits" https://abc7chicago.com/health/lightfoot...-/6083518/
Get them the vote - see, inter alia, "SF gave undocumented immigrants voting rights. Now it’s worried about ICE" https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/mati...726237.php

There are many other instances that I could have cited, I have just cited a few. I'm sorry, but you are simply ignoring facts if you persist in your belief that democrats are not trying to do these things. And as far as no democrat presidential candidate espousing those positions, well Joe Biden's website pretty much says them, albeit in euphemistic language. So what you are saying comes across to me as, "I don't support these things, but I am going to vote for candidates who do." I don't like it when people misquote me, so if you think that I am mischaracterizing you, please explain.

I guess until a politician comes out and flatly, baldly says "We need to get as many illegals here as we can so we can start making them into reliable straight ticket Democrats", some people will not believe it. Mostly those vested in not believing it.

Funny how they can discern a voter suppression motive in certain GOP actions, but they cannot see any hidden motives in their own party.

I guess, to balance it out, we should demand quotes from republicans saying clearly that the only reason to have voter ID is to suppress minority votes, and in the absence of same, declare the charge specious and the belief in it a fever dream.

DDS.

Quote:When President Trump was asked during Monday’s news briefing what authority he has to reopen the country, he didn’t hesitate to answer. “I have the ultimate authority,” the president responded, cutting off the reporter who was speaking.

Trump later clarified his position further, telling reporters, “When somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total and that’s the way it’s got to be. … It’s total. The governors know that.”

Quote:“You won’t find that written in the Federalist Papers anywhere,” Robert Chesney, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, told The Washington Post.

Credit to Trump for helping red flag the faux-libertarians amongst us.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/20...ronavirus/

Hate to burst your bubble whack a mole -- I noted much much much earlier that the President (no matter whom they might be) has almost zero power to institute a quarantine or any sort of 'lockdown' (socially or economically). The only actions he can take in that regard are in the Insurrection Act, and he *may* have some power via the Commerce Clause. He is wrong in that statement.

The same in reverse.

But, note that you seemingly take a victory lap even when that was stated three weeks ago. Good grief. Nothing gets in the way of trying to shimmy in an ad hom at every instance. Pretty fing pathetic.

Perhaps learn to retain information instead of leaping in at that instance.

But also, for the record, there are certain powers he *can* exercise when interstate commerce is implicated. Of course it is you progressive fktards that have pushed to the power of the Commerce Clause to seemingly denote 'intrastate commerce' as being part and parcel of 'interstate commerce', so it is you progressive fktards that can answer to that issue in the long run. Funny that.

Trump just told the WHO to **** off

I love Twitter.

Quote: I’ve had great “ratings” my whole life, there’s nothing unusual about that for me. The White House News Conference ratings are “through the roof”(Monday Night Football, Bachelor Finale , @nytimes) but I don’t care about that. I care about going around the Fake News to the PEOPLE!

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/stat...49088?s=21

It’s the gift that keeps on giving.

Quote: I’m grateful to President Trump for sending us a list of federal labs and generously offering Maryland use of them for #COVID19 testing. Accessing these federal labs will be critical for utilizing the 500,000 tests we have acquired from South Korea.

https://twitter.com/govlarryhogan/status...88640?s=21

I am sure that anything with an anti-Trump stance is one that gives you the thrills akin to a 14-year old reading Penthouse.

(04-21-2020 09:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I am sure that anything with an anti-Trump stance is one that gives you the thrills akin to a 14-year old reading Penthouse.

C'mon, even you should be able to appreciate the two tweets.

In #1, we have someone "humble bragging" about ratings, and then trying to say that they don't care about them in the same breath.

In #2, we have a Republican governor crafting a rather exquisite back-handed compliment; it's picture perfect!

Also, can we all laugh a bit that a tweet from Trump himself is categorized as having an "anti-Trump stance?"

(04-21-2020 09:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I am sure that anything with an anti-Trump stance is one that gives you the thrills akin to a 14-year old reading Penthouse.

The same thrill you get for unnecessarily and repeatedly being jerky to fellow Rice alums? Also, 14-year-olds these days don't need penthouse, they go straight to pornhub.

(04-21-2020 11:18 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(04-21-2020 09:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I am sure that anything with an anti-Trump stance is one that gives you the thrills akin to a 14-year old reading Penthouse.

The same thrill you get for unnecessarily and repeatedly being jerky to fellow Rice alums? Also, 14-year-olds these days don't need penthouse, they go straight to pornhub.

Naw, I am just a jerk to the dudes that say that anyone they dont agree with is actively fighting science. All the while they are preaching about how terrible ignorance is. Sorry that distinction (or that irony, for that matter) wasnt clear to you, counselor.

What was it that Lad said about the right hating scientists, or science, or something like that? I cannot remember the detail. We discussed it not long ago.

Anyway, I have made my views on climate change/global warming clear here, many times.

Step one is "yes, we are warming."

(you want the rest repeated, ask)

But I continually get called a science denier, so I can empathize with Tanq. I think all of us on the right are used to this.

I think there are anti-science people on both sides (see anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers). But I also believe the current iteration of the Republican party takes stances that are misaligned with science and less supportive of scientific endeavor than the Democratic party. I think there are many individuals on the right who are not in lock-step with the Republican party on those party platforms, but they tend to be less important to voters in general (throughout the political spectrum) so get overlooked.

Tanq - in fairness, you have been a jerk quite a few times to quite a few progressives, not just in discussions about who is or isn't "actively fighting science". Maybe we can say "abrasive" instead of "jerk", though I doubt you take that much offense to "jerk" in the context of how strong and negative you come off toward progressives. As I have been participating less but still reading every post, it has really struck me how frequently you are abrasive. Its really impressive (in a not good way). Funny that you never treat OO or 69/70/75 or any of the others that way, even if you have disagreements.

(04-21-2020 03:59 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I think there are anti-science people on both sides (see anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers). But I also believe the current iteration of the Republican party takes stances that are misaligned with science and less supportive of scientific endeavor than the Democratic party. I think there are many individuals on the right who are not in lock-step with the Republican party on those party platforms, but they tend to be less important to voters in general (throughout the political spectrum) so get overlooked.

Tanq - in fairness, you have been a jerk quite a few times to quite a few progressives, not just in discussions about who is or isn't "actively fighting science". Maybe we can say "abrasive" instead of "jerk", though I doubt you take that much offense to "jerk" in the context of how strong and negative you come off toward progressives. As I have been participating less but still reading every post, it has really struck me how frequently you are abrasive. Its really impressive (in a not good way). Funny that you never treat OO or 69/70/75 or any of the others that way, even if you have disagreements.

In fairness, I never tell Tanq he is a jerk. If I did, I would expect him to return fire.

As for your first statement, what specific "party platforms" are you referring to?

I don't agree with a lot of things the GOP says, but they are usually things far down my list of importance. I am anti-death penalty and neutral on abortion. But on the issues that I deem important, I am solidly on the right. I cannot even imagine what you might be calling "party platforms" that are anti-science.

(04-21-2020 03:59 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I think there are anti-science people on both sides (see anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers). But I also believe the current iteration of the Republican party takes stances that are misaligned with science and less supportive of scientific endeavor than the Democratic party. I think there are many individuals on the right who are not in lock-step with the Republican party on those party platforms, but they tend to be less important to voters in general (throughout the political spectrum) so get overlooked.
Tanq - in fairness, you have been a jerk quite a few times to quite a few progressives, not just in discussions about who is or isn't "actively fighting science". Maybe we can say "abrasive" instead of "jerk", though I doubt you take that much offense to "jerk" in the context of how strong and negative you come off toward progressives. As I have been participating less but still reading every post, it has really struck me how frequently you are abrasive. Its really impressive (in a not good way). Funny that you never treat OO or 69/70/75 or any of the others that way, even if you have disagreements.

I would be hard pressed to name a single post of yours that I didn't find abrasive. Including this one, for the record.

(04-21-2020 03:59 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Tanq - in fairness, you have been a jerk quite a few times to quite a few progressives, not just in discussions about who is or isn't "actively fighting science". Maybe we can say "abrasive" instead of "jerk", though I doubt you take that much offense to "jerk" in the context of how strong and negative you come off toward progressives. As I have been participating less but still reading every post, it has really struck me how frequently you are abrasive. Its really impressive (in a not good way). Funny that you never treat OO or 69/70/75 or any of the others that way, even if you have disagreements.

No doubt. Perhaps you should look at some of the preceding posts in the series; for example, with you we have never really descended into the ad hom realm. In that manner, when there isnt an 'incoming' salvo there is no need for an outgoing one.

Perhaps you should note which progressives I am 'abrasive' with and which I am not. I would hazard a guess that there is an underlying thread or thread(s) there.

(04-21-2020 07:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-21-2020 03:59 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I think there are anti-science people on both sides (see anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers). But I also believe the current iteration of the Republican party takes stances that are misaligned with science and less supportive of scientific endeavor than the Democratic party. I think there are many individuals on the right who are not in lock-step with the Republican party on those party platforms, but they tend to be less important to voters in general (throughout the political spectrum) so get overlooked.
Tanq - in fairness, you have been a jerk quite a few times to quite a few progressives, not just in discussions about who is or isn't "actively fighting science". Maybe we can say "abrasive" instead of "jerk", though I doubt you take that much offense to "jerk" in the context of how strong and negative you come off toward progressives. As I have been participating less but still reading every post, it has really struck me how frequently you are abrasive. Its really impressive (in a not good way). Funny that you never treat OO or 69/70/75 or any of the others that way, even if you have disagreements.

I would be hard pressed to name a single post of yours that I didn't find abrasive. Including this one, for the record.

You wouldn't be hard pressed to do that, same as you wouldn't be hard pressed to do the same for Tanq - despite his West Texas roughness.

(04-21-2020 09:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-21-2020 07:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-21-2020 03:59 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I think there are anti-science people on both sides (see anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers). But I also believe the current iteration of the Republican party takes stances that are misaligned with science and less supportive of scientific endeavor than the Democratic party. I think there are many individuals on the right who are not in lock-step with the Republican party on those party platforms, but they tend to be less important to voters in general (throughout the political spectrum) so get overlooked.
Tanq - in fairness, you have been a jerk quite a few times to quite a few progressives, not just in discussions about who is or isn't "actively fighting science". Maybe we can say "abrasive" instead of "jerk", though I doubt you take that much offense to "jerk" in the context of how strong and negative you come off toward progressives. As I have been participating less but still reading every post, it has really struck me how frequently you are abrasive. Its really impressive (in a not good way). Funny that you never treat OO or 69/70/75 or any of the others that way, even if you have disagreements.

I would be hard pressed to name a single post of yours that I didn't find abrasive. Including this one, for the record.

You wouldn't be hard pressed to do that, same as you wouldn't be hard pressed to do the same for Tanq - despite his West Texas roughness.

I'd actually be pretty hard pressed on either one.

(04-21-2020 09:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-21-2020 07:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-21-2020 03:59 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I think there are anti-science people on both sides (see anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers). But I also believe the current iteration of the Republican party takes stances that are misaligned with science and less supportive of scientific endeavor than the Democratic party. I think there are many individuals on the right who are not in lock-step with the Republican party on those party platforms, but they tend to be less important to voters in general (throughout the political spectrum) so get overlooked.
Tanq - in fairness, you have been a jerk quite a few times to quite a few progressives, not just in discussions about who is or isn't "actively fighting science". Maybe we can say "abrasive" instead of "jerk", though I doubt you take that much offense to "jerk" in the context of how strong and negative you come off toward progressives. As I have been participating less but still reading every post, it has really struck me how frequently you are abrasive. Its really impressive (in a not good way). Funny that you never treat OO or 69/70/75 or any of the others that way, even if you have disagreements.

I would be hard pressed to name a single post of yours that I didn't find abrasive. Including this one, for the record.

You wouldn't be hard pressed to do that, same as you wouldn't be hard pressed to do the same for Tanq - despite his West Texas roughness.

I'd actually be pretty hard pressed on either one. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, in either case.