(06-22-2020 03:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Perhaps it would be clearer if I said 'The House never bothered to try and enforce any subpoena in light of the issues of qualified immunity and executive privilege, it simply fired them off and promptly forgot about them.'

I would have taken issue with "forgot about them" but yes, that is a more clear articulation of your argument and I wouldn't have responded in the same way to that articulation.

(06-22-2020 03:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Better now? I mean, the original issue was your hopping up and down and squawking about 'no one testified' --- all the while utterly ignoring the House not bothering to try and enforce any single subpoena, and all the while seemingly utterly ignoring the very cogent issues of executive privilege and any associated qualified immunity at play.

I never squawked about that and I'm not sure who you are quoting. 69/70/75 complained about the lack of "actual direct first-hand evidence" and I merely pointed out that the folks with such evidence refused to testify. If I missed the part of the impeachment inquiry or trial where such folks testified, kindly direct me to it!

(06-22-2020 01:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You think of the MSM as journalists?

Yes, I consider a significant portion of the MSM to be journalists. I'm talking less about the people in the studios (many of whom used to be journalists) and more about the people asking questions at briefings, covering major events, doing investigative work, etc.

(06-22-2020 01:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As for the economy, it might(!) be doing better if the Trump response had been 20 days or 20 hours or 20 minutes faster, but I judge Trump's economy on what it was after three years of his leadership. I do not expect perfection from Trump, nor do I believe you would expect perfection from anybody else but Trump. Specifically, I think you would be making all sorts of excuses for President Hillary if the exact same thing was happening with Covid, but starting with a worse economy. JMHO.

I don't understand this argument. Its like trying to ignore the last 6 months of the W Bush administration's economy. Or ignoring the last year of decelerating growth (but still growth) under Obama. Also, I'm still with George that no POTUS should get nearly as much credit (good or bad) for "the economy" as you seem to want to give.

(06-22-2020 12:32 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 09:34 AM)mrbig Wrote:  You hate hate hate democrats and liberals and progressives so much more than anything else.

I don't think Owl#'s or anyone else here hates liberals. And from what I have seen, many of the folks here who call themselves "progressives" are actually liberals, not "prog-bots". That is why there is at least some cause for hope.

I certainly don't hate "liberals." I consider myself to be a liberal in the classical sense--minimum government, maximum liberty and freedom. This was as opposed to historical conservatives, who wanted to retain the institutions of power. In today's USA, classical liberals are called "libertarians."

I don't hate leftists (or "progressives") in the sense that I don't want them to be killed or destroyed (as I think some leftists would really like to see happen to Donald Trump). I disagree with virtually everything they stand for, and I do not want to see them have power over my life. So I dislike them intensely, and consider them to be my enemies.

(06-22-2020 03:46 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 02:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:26 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I leave it to you to point it out if I did ... son!

Well if you want to start the asshat train, good for you. Son.

If you have stopped talking down to people on this forum by repeatedly referring to them as "son" since I left, then I apologize for my comment. I assumed you were still doing it. My only solace is your apparent admission that referring to others as "son" makes you an asshat (and obviously me as well for doing it a few times)!

I guess in your zeal for particularity, that might have bothered to notice the use of the term 'son' is reserved for one person, and most notably always in response to that person stating something along the lines of 'ignorant' or something like that.

I absolutely use that term in a counter-punch, just as I did with your initial sling of **** there, big. Note the adjective 'initial' in the preceding sentence rather closely.

We used to be rather nice towards one another. Seemingly now, at least twice and recently, you have felt to jump off the ad-hom bridge. And I add the term 'initially' to that very specifically. I suggest you stew on that a tad.

My only 'solace' is your apparent inability to note the temporal issues dealing with my use of the term 'son'.

Quote:

(06-22-2020 02:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:26 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 12:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Your focus on Trump supporters hating without any reference to anything else emanating from the left over the last 20 years is one masterfully awesome job at gaslighting. Good grief.

Many democrats, progressives, and self-described liberals hate Trump. This is so obvious I didn't think I needed to mention it. No gaslighting here bro. Of course, my comment was really made in response to 69/70/75 calling people like me his enemy and saying he hates people with my beliefs.

My comment to you is when you ostensibly denote everyone with whom you might disagree as emanating hate, sometimes that 'preachy ****' looks kind of stupid in context -- both with a political lens and with a historical lens.

I did not "ostensibly denote everyone with whom you might disagree as emanating hate." That is just a steaming pile of and doesn't resemble what I wrote.

My comment was directed to 69/70/75, who literally wrote in this forum today that he hates "the democrats" and considers them his "enemy" and evil, and referred to the major democratic leaders as "grotesque human beings". I, to contrast myself with 69/70/75's volcanic spew of admitted hate, posted a funny Star Wars gif about hate. I further noted that Trump and "[l]ots of the strongest Trump supporters seem to have ... hate". I stand by my comment that 69/70/75 hates since he stated so himself. I stand by my comment that Trump seems to have lots of hate. And I stand by my comment that lots of Trump's strongest supporters do as well. Certainly not all Trump supporters (as my comment was limited to his "strongest supporters") and my comment did not even include a significant number of people that don't consider themselves Trump "supporters" but ultimately either voted for him in 2016 or will vote for him in 2020 even though they don't love him.

I guess you are clueless that you posted that same stupid ass gif as a direct response to me in post 12365 (or somefink like that).

Quote:I am certain that you read legal filings more carefully that you have read my comments today. It is the same with me.

I dont think I misread the noted post above, mind you. Funny that.

(06-22-2020 01:08 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Sure, I accept that you believe Pelosi, Schumer and Biden (and the rest of the gang!) are incredibly horrible. I believe this because I don't think you a liar and you have written it many many times.

Accepting that I believe they are horrible, despicable human beings is different from accepting that they are in fact horrible, despicable human beings. OK, I accept that you believe Donald Trump is an incredibly horrible human being.

Quote:Are we really enemies?

Politically, yes. I would presume that we are not enemies when it comes to supporting Rice athletics, but if you support democrats, then politically we are enemies.

Quote:I don't wear panties, but I always appreciate the little bits of sexism that seep out when you decide to insult someone.

For goodness sake, must you attribute everything with which you disagree to racism or sexism? It's a figure of speech, get over it.

I do not represent anybody else here, but I have some thoughts on the "hate' topic.

I think when most of us right wingers say we hate Democrats, it is a statement in the vein of what many Christians say about hating the sin but loving the sinner.

I cannot think of any individual leftist I truly hate. I guess Nadler and Schiff and Swawell come the closest. all three of those give me the shudders. Heck I like Pelosi and Schumer better. Omar and Tlaib hate other people, and I hate the hating. But even AOC, I think of as just a misguided and naive youngster, full of excitement for an idealistic but bad policy. But as we move away from the centers of power to the grassroots, I find the personal enmity to lessen and disappear.

I hate that so many Democratic policies would hurt me personally. I hate it also that so many of those selfsame policies would hurt the country. I hate the policies.

(06-22-2020 03:52 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 03:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Perhaps it would be clearer if I said 'The House never bothered to try and enforce any subpoena in light of the issues of qualified immunity and executive privilege, it simply fired them off and promptly forgot about them.'

I would have taken issue with "forgot about them" but yes, that is a more clear articulation of your argument and I wouldn't have responded in the same way to that articulation.

(06-22-2020 03:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Better now? I mean, the original issue was your hopping up and down and squawking about 'no one testified' --- all the while utterly ignoring the House not bothering to try and enforce any single subpoena, and all the while seemingly utterly ignoring the very cogent issues of executive privilege and any associated qualified immunity at play.

I never squawked about that and I'm not sure who you are quoting. 69/70/75 complained about the lack of "actual direct first-hand evidence" and I merely pointed out that the folks with such evidence refused to testify. If I missed the part of the impeachment inquiry or trial where such folks testified, kindly direct me to it!

The point is the offhand manner in which you dismiss the issue without bothering to note the other deep issues that back it.

Yes, there is 'no actual direct first-hand evidence'. The ultimate point is that the means to get such evidence, and the methods, and the entity responsible for doing so --- didnt. They tossed out a piece of paper that has been ignored for very good reasons for a very long time --- and what was their response to theat refusal? They ****-canned their efforts.

Please do tell, *whose* choice was it to shitcan that effort? Not just shitcan the effort, they *chose* to not pursue it. That is seemingly a very relevant and cogent point that is (surprisingly) overlooked.

(06-22-2020 04:03 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You think of the MSM as journalists?

Yes, I consider a significant portion of the MSM to be journalists. I'm talking less about the people in the studios (many of whom used to be journalists) and more about the people asking questions at briefings, covering major events, doing investigative work, etc.

(06-22-2020 01:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As for the economy, it might(!) be doing better if the Trump response had been 20 days or 20 hours or 20 minutes faster, but I judge Trump's economy on what it was after three years of his leadership. I do not expect perfection from Trump, nor do I believe you would expect perfection from anybody else but Trump. Specifically, I think you would be making all sorts of excuses for President Hillary if the exact same thing was happening with Covid, but starting with a worse economy. JMHO.

I don't understand this argument. Its like trying to ignore the last 6 months of the W Bush administration's economy. Or ignoring the last year of decelerating growth (but still growth) under Obama. Also, I'm still with George that no POTUS should get nearly as much credit (good or bad) for "the economy" as you seem to want to give.

I am ignoring what is a black swan event. It is as if a farmer was trying some new techniques, and was raising a bumper crop when all of a sudden a wild fire burnt half his crop, and and you want to to say, "See? He is a lousy farmer". Worse yet, you want me to say it.

His tax cuts and reversals of regulations were prime movers of the booming economy up to 2020. An epidemic is no reason to raise taxes and enact regulations, as the Democrats you support promise to do.

Economically, the Trump methods were working, and the Democrat's methods historically have not. I think the last year of growth under Obama would have been a skyrocket had he lowered taxes and cut regulations. Do you think otherwise? If so, why?

(06-22-2020 04:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 03:46 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 02:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:26 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I leave it to you to point it out if I did ... son!

Well if you want to start the asshat train, good for you. Son.

If you have stopped talking down to people on this forum by repeatedly referring to them as "son" since I left, then I apologize for my comment. I assumed you were still doing it. My only solace is your apparent admission that referring to others as "son" makes you an asshat (and obviously me as well for doing it a few times)!

I guess in your zeal for particularity, that might have bothered to notice the use of the term 'son' is reserved for one person, and most notably always in response to that person stating something along the lines of 'ignorant' or something like that.

I absolutely use that term in a counter-punch, just as I did with your initial sling of **** there, big. Note the adjective 'initial' in the preceding sentence rather closely.

We used to be rather nice towards one another. Seemingly now, at least twice and recently, you have felt to jump off the ad-hom bridge. And I add the term 'initially' to that very specifically. I suggest you stew on that a tad.

My only 'solace' is your apparent inability to note the temporal issues dealing with my use of the term 'son'.

You referred to me as "son" on multiple occasions. That is why I started using it back toward you. When I use it, I'm not actually trying to insult you by calling you "son". I'm using it a little tongue-in-cheek and a little ironically, mostly to make fun of your use of it. Same reason I sometimes quote 69/70/75 back to himself where I just swap 1-2 words. I will stop doing it, as I thought you realized my use of "son" wasn't meant to be insulting in the same way you use it toward others.

(06-22-2020 02:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess you are clueless that you posted that same stupid ass gif as a direct response to me in post 12365 (or somefink like that).

You don't like gifs, I get that. But they can be fun and sometimes Darth Sidious or Star Lord can express my feelings or thoughts in either a more succinct or more humorous way.

(06-22-2020 02:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I dont think I misread the noted post above, mind you. Funny that.

Funny that indeed. I wrote the post so you would think I would know what I meant when I wrote it.

I made the same argument to the Fifth Circuit in a case once! I had written an agreement during oral argument in front of the district court judge regarding how the parties would proceed with motion practice that opposing counsel and I both signed. The other attorney later unsuccessfully complained that the words I wrote somehow had a different meaning then what I actually wrote and what I explained the words meant (and what the district court judge understood them to mean) during motion practice. It wasn't a good argument then and it isn't a good argument for you now.

DUDE!!!!

(06-22-2020 04:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:08 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Sure, I accept that you believe Pelosi, Schumer and Biden (and the rest of the gang!) are incredibly horrible. I believe this because I don't think you a liar and you have written it many many times.

Accepting that I believe they are horrible, despicable human beings is different from accepting that they are in fact horrible, despicable human beings. OK, I accept that you believe Donald Trump is an incredibly horrible human being.

You didn't ask me to accept that they are horrible, despicable human beings. You asked (and I quote what you wrote because that is the best way to ensure accuracy) "can you accept in return that we believe that Pelosi, Schumer, and Biden ... are incredibly ... horrible?" (emphasis added). So I responded that yes, I accept that you believe they are incredibly horrible. I did exactly what you asked. Why are you complaining?

(06-22-2020 04:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:08 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Are we really enemies?

Politically, yes. I would presume that we are not enemies when it comes to supporting Rice athletics, but if you support democrats, then politically we are enemies.

That is too bad. I don't really view us as political enemies, even if we disagree on most issues. If I was your enemy, I wouldn't have spent time researching consumption taxes, the bismarck model for universal health care (and Germany's take on the bismark model) and a host of other things you suggested. I would have just labeled you my enemy and ignored your opinion. I was acting under the assumption that you gave my suggestions (like rank-choice voting, reforming the supreme court, and many other issues) real substantive thought and consideration.

(06-22-2020 04:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:08 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I don't wear panties, but I always appreciate the little bits of sexism that seep out when you decide to insult someone.

For goodness sake, must you attribute everything with which you disagree to racism or sexism? It's a figure of speech, get over it.

It is a figure of speech. A sexist figure of speech because the implicit suggestion is that women (the only gender typically and historically wearing panties) get upset too easily and have a less-controlled emotional reaction to insignificant things. I'd put it in the same category of idioms as "throws like a girl" and "drives like a woman".

(06-22-2020 12:49 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I didn't think the evidence was strong enough to disqualify Kavanaugh because of Blasey-Ford (even though apparently some think me a bot). I thought Kavanaugh lied under oath about how much he drank in college (which is a stupid thing to lie about) and I didn't think he demonstrated the temperment necessary during his hearings. Additionally, I thought he was misleading at best about his role in some of the more controversial actions and nominations during the W Bush administration (some of which I acknowledge we can't really tell whether he was misleading or not because of the lack of document production on the topics).

Quite frankly, I thought Kavanaugh held his cool under intense personal character assassination attacks far better than I would have. I thought he fumbled a few things, basically trying to be too nice. I don't have any competent evidence from which to conclude that he lied about drinking in college. I suspect that's more one of those where how drunk you are is a matter of perception, and I never think I'm as drunk as others may think I am. And I see all of those avenues as fishing trips to find ways to launch ad hominem assaults rather than anything relevant to his ability to serve as a Supreme Court Justice. So he was partisan under GWB. He certainly won't be any more partisan than Ginsburg or Sotomayor or Kagan have been routinely, and nobody on your side seems to see a problem with them.

I've said before that had I been Trump I would have told the democrats, "If you return to debating Supreme Court appointments based on judicial qualifications, like we as a country did before Robert Bork, then I'll commit to nominate Garland for the first vacancy that pops up on the left side of the court." If democrats were looking at, "Hey, if we conduct proper hearings we will get Garland when Ginsburg croaks, if we don't then we'll get Amy Coney Barrett," then I think the level of professionalism with which the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh hearings would have been conducted would have been much more appropriate.

Quote:I completely disagree, but thank you for reiterating the uber-Trump supporter argument. Also, it is hard to get "actual direct first-hand evidence" when the people with such evidence refused to testify before the House or Senate.

The HOR apparently found sufficient "evidence" to indict. That's where this argument seems hollow to me. We were able to indict, along strict party lines, but there wasn't enough to convict? Come on, we both know that the votes were strictly partisan on both sides, because this was obviously a partisan witch hunt.

I think we have unfortunately seen the wave of the future. When your party loses, then you simply do everything you can to impeach the winner.

Quote:I never said you or anyone else "takes your marching orders from Fox & Friends". To quote a great philosopher, "So far, you're doing a pretty good job of suggesting that you are at least incapable of understanding basic statements from me." I said that your arguments are frequently the same as that cohort. Also, I don't mean that in the literal sense.

So please explain what you said and distinguish it from that.

Quote:(1) you are smart enough to get this information on your own (and I suspect you have it); (2) why would anyone waste there time trying to convince you personally to vote for a democrat when you have said hundreds of times over the last few months that you literally hate them and think they are evil; and (3) perhaps you would vote for a democrat like Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards? He is at least closer to you on abortion.

(1) I've seen plenty of information, none of which inclines me to do anything but oppose democrats with every fiber of my being.
(2) You've spent a ton of time trying to convince me that Trump is the devil personified. I'm just saying that it would be more productive to spend that time trying to explain why democrats are not in fact evil.
(3) Obviously, you don't understand my position on abortion.

Quote:I am curious which issues you think you are closer to democrats and which you are closer to Republicans. I think you are closer to democrats on healthcare, as I think you would have a much easier time convincing democrats to support a version of your bismarck model than convincing Republicans to support any kind of universal-type coverage (otherwise they would have put it forward as their Obama-care replacement).

Which issues am I closer to democrats than republicans? Cuba. I thought Obama's steps to reopen relations with Cuba were good, and I think Trump's shutting that door is a mistake. In an area with which I think we both have some familiarity, I thought denying the deal that MLB had worked out with the Cuban Baseball Federation with regard to Cuban fee agents was incredibly stupid and short-sighted.

I disagree with Trump on the wall and tariffs. That doesn't mean I agree with democrats. Given a choice Trump's positions on those issues and democrat positions on those issues, I have less heartburn with Trump's positions. Don't agree with them, just disagree less than I do with democrats.

As far as healthcare, a version of Bismarck has been proposed once, by Heritage in the 1990s. Stupid republicans didn't pass it then. My idea of a universal basic income (UBI) is based upon the negative income tax (NIT) proposed by Milton Friedman or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund proposed in conjunction with "Fair Tax." Friedman was a libertarian and Boortz and Linder are both conservative republicans. So I don't get where you are saying that democrats would support them. But where the differences really stand out is how to pay for them. I support a consumption tax, like Europe, and like a number of republicans. Democrats seem pretty united behind some kind of "tax the rich" income redistribution class warfare which won't raise nearly enough to support their spending plans, even before the "rich" see the writing on the wall and pull their money out of here.

I agree that republicans fumbled the ball badly on health care. That's why I call them the stupid party. I have said for years that when republicans retook control of the HOR after the 2010 elections, their first orders of business should have been to pass Bismarck health care and either Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin, or some combination of the best of both, and sent them to the senate to seize the high ground on health care and the deficit and debt, and to present Harry Reid and Barack Obama with a couple of very hot potatoes to handle. Why they didn't do it, I don't know.

The fact that I differ with republicans to such an extent that you can even ask the question about which issues I am closer to democrats suggests that your Trumpbot characterization is out of bounds.

This is my dilemma--stupid party versus evil party. My preference for stupid is based simply on my intense dislike for evil.

Quote:This is not at all what I said.

Well, please distinguish what you said from that.

When you misquote me, I attempt to distinguish the two. If you believe I have misquoted you, I would appreciate a similar response on your part.

(06-22-2020 04:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am ignoring what is a black swan event. It is as if a farmer was trying some new techniques, and was raising a bumper crop when all of a sudden a wild fire burnt half his crop, and and you want to to say, "See? He is a lousy farmer". Worse yet, you want me to say it.

That's not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that, to use your analogy, Farmer Brown had some forewarning about the risk of fire (risk of pandemic) and knew the fire was burning beforehand and had opportunities to reduce the impact to his crops (even if he couldn't save his entire field). When Farmer Brown then gets hit hard by the fire, I think he should be judged, in part, by his preparedness for the fire and response to the fire once he knew about it and before it devastated his livelihood (in addition to how his crops were doing before the fire). If he had the best crop ever and ignored the smoke, are we supposed to pat him on the back and say "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job"?

(06-22-2020 04:56 PM)mrbig Wrote:  You didn't ask me to accept that they are horrible, despicable human beings. You asked (and I quote what you wrote because that is the best way to ensure accuracy) "can you accept in return that we believe that Pelosi, Schumer, and Biden ... are incredibly ... horrible?" (emphasis added). So I responded that yes, I accept that you believe they are incredibly horrible. I did exactly what you asked. Why are you complaining?

OK, but you seem pretty indignant that anyone who doesn't accept your characterization of Donald Trump as despicable human being is a "Trumpbot." How about this, I agree with you that Trump is a despicable human being, and in return you agree with me that Pelosi, Schumer, and Biden are despicable human beings? We can add numbers to my side if need be to equalize things.

Quote:That is too bad. I don't really view us as political enemies, even if we disagree on most issues. If I was your enemy, I wouldn't have spent time researching consumption taxes, the bismarck model for universal health care (and Germany's take on the bismark model) and a host of other things you suggested. I would have just labeled you my enemy and ignored your opinion. I was acting under the assumption that you gave my suggestions (like rank-choice voting, reforming the supreme court, and many other issues) real substantive thought and consideration.

I've given you my idea of Supreme Court reform. I think the biggest problem with the Court right now is that there is virtually zero intellectual diversity. It's an echo chamber for the eastern establishment world view. I am actually fine with rank-choice voting. It would certainly have been a useful tool for me personally, and probably for libertarians generally, over the last 50 years. I don't see either of those as burning issues. The issues where I see democrats and their supporters as my enemy are things like single-payer health care and gun controls. If government controls my health care and takes away my guns, I am little more than a slave. That government can kill me, and I can't do anything to stop it. And no, I'm not planning to shoot it out with my government, but in a single-payer system they can kill me by denying me health care any time they want to.

Quote:It is a figure of speech. A sexist figure of speech because the implicit suggestion is that women (the only gender typically and historically wearing panties) get upset too easily and have a less-controlled emotional reaction to insignificant things. I'd put it in the same category of idioms as "throws like a girl" and "drives like a woman".

OK, would it be better if I said, "Don't get your drawers in a wad"?

I've really had just about enough of political correctness. Actually, come to think of it, way more than enough.

(06-22-2020 04:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 03:52 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 03:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Perhaps it would be clearer if I said 'The House never bothered to try and enforce any subpoena in light of the issues of qualified immunity and executive privilege, it simply fired them off and promptly forgot about them.'

I would have taken issue with "forgot about them" but yes, that is a more clear articulation of your argument and I wouldn't have responded in the same way to that articulation.

(06-22-2020 03:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Better now? I mean, the original issue was your hopping up and down and squawking about 'no one testified' --- all the while utterly ignoring the House not bothering to try and enforce any single subpoena, and all the while seemingly utterly ignoring the very cogent issues of executive privilege and any associated qualified immunity at play.

I never squawked about that and I'm not sure who you are quoting. 69/70/75 complained about the lack of "actual direct first-hand evidence" and I merely pointed out that the folks with such evidence refused to testify. If I missed the part of the impeachment inquiry or trial where such folks testified, kindly direct me to it!

The point is the offhand manner in which you dismiss the issue without bothering to note the other deep issues that back it.

Tanq, I wasn't trying to get into some in-depth conversation. In fact, I explicitly wrote "Tanq - we discussed Kavanaugh, impeachment, and Charlottesville ad nauseum and I see no reason to delve back into them." I am explicitly trying not to do some deep dive into the House's subpoena powers over executive branch officials in regards to an impeachment inquiry. I'm not really sure why you are upset with me when I told you I wasn't doing some deep dive and then proceeded to post a couple comments where I didn't do a deep dive. I get the point you are making. They are certainly legal arguments that were made.

I'm not trying to be offhand or pretend like the issues you raise do not exist. I was interacting with someone who I know to be intelligent and well-informed on the issues (69/70/75 in this case since my comment that upset you was directed to him and not you) and whom I had already discussed the issues in depth. I shouldn't have to write a multi-paragraph argument with in-depth support on a political discussion board under those circumstances. And you shouldn't get your boxers, briefs, or broxer-briefs in a wad when I fail to do so.

(06-22-2020 04:44 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 04:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 03:46 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 02:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:26 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I leave it to you to point it out if I did ... son!

Well if you want to start the asshat train, good for you. Son.

If you have stopped talking down to people on this forum by repeatedly referring to them as "son" since I left, then I apologize for my comment. I assumed you were still doing it. My only solace is your apparent admission that referring to others as "son" makes you an asshat (and obviously me as well for doing it a few times)!

I guess in your zeal for particularity, that might have bothered to notice the use of the term 'son' is reserved for one person, and most notably always in response to that person stating something along the lines of 'ignorant' or something like that.

I absolutely use that term in a counter-punch, just as I did with your initial sling of **** there, big. Note the adjective 'initial' in the preceding sentence rather closely.

We used to be rather nice towards one another. Seemingly now, at least twice and recently, you have felt to jump off the ad-hom bridge. And I add the term 'initially' to that very specifically. I suggest you stew on that a tad.

My only 'solace' is your apparent inability to note the temporal issues dealing with my use of the term 'son'.

You referred to me as "son" on multiple occasions. That is why I started using it back toward you. When I use it, I'm not actually trying to insult you by calling you "son".

IIRC, I've used it to you twice. Each time in response to your use of it. I think the first time you used it with me I told you to Fk off.

If I used it other than those two times as a counter-punch, my humblest apologies. I actually do respect you and your opinions for the most part.

Quote:

(06-22-2020 02:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess you are clueless that you posted that same stupid ass gif as a direct response to me in post 12365 (or somefink like that).

You don't like gifs, I get that. But they can be fun and sometimes Darth Sidious or Star Lord can express my feelings or thoughts in either a more succinct or more humorous way.

Yet you gloss over that in that communication it is the same accusation of harboring hate

Quote:

(06-22-2020 02:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I dont think I misread the noted post above, mind you. Funny that.

Funny that indeed. I wrote the post so you would think I would know what I meant when I wrote it.

I made the same argument to the Fifth Circuit in a case once! I had written an agreement during oral argument in front of the district court judge regarding how the parties would proceed with motion practice that opposing counsel and I both signed. The other attorney later unsuccessfully complained that the words I wrote somehow had a different meaning then what I actually wrote and what I explained the words meant (and what the district court judge understood them to mean) during motion practice. It wasn't a good argument then and it isn't a good argument for you now.

For all your dancing there, these simple facts remain:

You used the gif 'Let the Hate Flow Through You' twice in your preaching post to #s.

You next use the exact same gif in response to a comment I made.

You seem to want to equate #s speech as full of hate, and one would presume that when you use the same exact gif as a pithy and stupid rejoinder to me you are saying the exact same message.

I noted that if you want to preach the fk about hate, perhaps you should use a little more reflexive tact in your observations.

Funny, to this dumb ass redneck, the posting of the same gif means the exact same message.

Which I just pointed out that you did above.

I dont know what the fk your cha cha cha above is meant to convey. The singular fact is that you used the exact same preachy, pithy, and stupid response to each of us.

(06-22-2020 05:04 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 04:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am ignoring what is a black swan event. It is as if a farmer was trying some new techniques, and was raising a bumper crop when all of a sudden a wild fire burnt half his crop, and and you want to to say, "See? He is a lousy farmer". Worse yet, you want me to say it.

That's not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that, to use your analogy, Farmer Brown had some forewarning about the risk of fire (risk of pandemic) and knew the fire was burning beforehand and had opportunities to reduce the impact to his crops (even if he couldn't save his entire field). When Farmer Brown then gets hit hard by the fire, I think he should be judged, in part, by his preparedness for the fire and response to the fire once he knew about it and before it devastated his livelihood (in addition to how his crops were doing before the fire). If he had the best crop ever and ignored the smoke, are we supposed to pat him on the back and say "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job"?

So do tell -- how the fk do you plan for shutting people into their homes and literally shutting down the economy?

It is mind boggling that you think that is an anywhere near 'plannable' event for anything less than a twenty year time scale. Yet here you are apparently promulgating that it is.

I suggest you return to the real world for your next iteration at this version of 'It's Trump's fault, all of it'. That one doesnt meet the laugh test.

(06-22-2020 04:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Come on, we both know that the votes were strictly partisan on both sides, because this was obviously a partisan witch hunt.

They weren't strictly partisan. Amash and Romney sided with the Democrats while Peterson, Van Drew, and Golden voted with the Republicans. The result fell along mostly partisan lines.

(06-22-2020 04:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 05:04 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I never said you or anyone else "takes your marching orders from Fox & Friends". To quote a great philosopher, "So far, you're doing a pretty good job of suggesting that you are at least incapable of understanding basic statements from me." I said that your arguments are frequently the same as that cohort. Also, I don't mean that in the literal sense.

So please explain what you said and distinguish it from that.

(06-22-2020 04:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  [quote='mrbig' pid='16873103' dateline='1592863498']
This is not at all what I said.

Well, please distinguish what you said from that.

Ok. I literally said on multiple occasions today that I do not consider any of the conservatives or libertarians here to be Trump bots. And I use the word "literally" in the literal sense. I can understand how At Ease (or whomever it was) could make the mistake of believing it because some of arguments (but not all!) of some of the conservatives or libertarians here (but not all, or at least not at all times!) are indistinguishable or extremely similar to the arguments repeated by the Trump bots. I made a similar accusation once to OO and retracted it with an apology (I believe back in March but it could have been earlier).

Satisfied?

(06-22-2020 05:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  OK, but you seem pretty indignant that anyone who doesn't accept your characterization of Donald Trump as despicable human being is a "Trumpbot."

Why do you keep using quotation marks? I haven't called anyone here a Trumpbot at any time in the last few months (other than maybe GoodOwl). Do you realize that I don't think you, OO, Tanq, Hambone, George, or really anyone else is a Trumpbot?

(06-22-2020 05:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 05:04 PM)mrbig Wrote:  It is a figure of speech. A sexist figure of speech because the implicit suggestion is that women (the only gender typically and historically wearing panties) get upset too easily and have a less-controlled emotional reaction to insignificant things. I'd put it in the same category of idioms as "throws like a girl" and "drives like a woman".

OK, would it be better if I said, "Don't get your drawers in a wad"?

I've really had just about enough of political correctness. Actually, come to think of it, way more than enough.

Actually, "drawers in a wad" is much better. It is easy to complain about "political correctness" in your position (or my position for that matter). But if one of my daughters was upset about something at school (or work someday) and a male teacher, professor, or boss told her not to get her panties in a was, it would be extremely sexist. I understand things are a little different when a guy says it to a guy, but the saying itself is still inherently sexist and I feel compelled to point it out.

(06-22-2020 05:36 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 05:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  OK, but you seem pretty indignant that anyone who doesn't accept your characterization of Donald Trump as despicable human being is a "Trumpbot."

Why do you keep using quotation marks? I haven't called anyone here a Trumpbot at any time in the last few months (other than maybe GoodOwl). Do you realize that I don't think you, OO, Tanq, Hambone, George, or really anyone else is a Trumpbot?

(06-22-2020 05:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 05:04 PM)mrbig Wrote:  It is a figure of speech. A sexist figure of speech because the implicit suggestion is that women (the only gender typically and historically wearing panties) get upset too easily and have a less-controlled emotional reaction to insignificant things. I'd put it in the same category of idioms as "throws like a girl" and "drives like a woman".

OK, would it be better if I said, "Don't get your drawers in a wad"?

I've really had just about enough of political correctness. Actually, come to think of it, way more than enough.

Actually, "drawers in a wad" is much better. It is easy to complain about "political correctness" in your position (or my position for that matter). But if one of my daughters was upset about something at school (or work someday) and a male teacher, professor, or boss told her not to get her panties in a was, it would be extremely sexist. I understand things are a little different when a guy says it to a guy, but the saying itself is still inherently sexist and I feel compelled to point it out.

I can settle this for you guys: the preferred expression is "knickers in a twist".

Now, back to the fight!