(06-29-2020 08:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:25 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You made the grandiose statement that, and I paraphrase '[the shooting] was questionable (I can assume we all agree)'.

I mentioned some very cogent and particular points.

Then you say (paraphrase) 'well I just simply repeat what I read, here is what I have read'.

What I read and heard from police officers made it seem reasonable to call it a questionable shooting. Probably most times a cop shoots somebody in the back as they are running it is worth questioning. My tone on the matter should have reflected just how not-outraged I was over this particular shooting. You seem to want to turn this into a fight.

None of your numbered points that you made do I disagree with.

Quote:That change from the first response (that how dare anyone not deem the shooting 'questionable') to the 'well I simply regurgitate what I read, without either thinking about it, nor really bothering to assess with any particularity anything that might run contrary' seems a pretty massive leap.

Perhaps you should have just led off with the latter, and saved all of us some time.

But you have done that before, havent you? That is led off with grandiose conclusory statements, and when pressed, simply abandon them with amazing alacrity and refuse to even acknowledge any issue that a contrary position might have with what you proffer, followed by a rapid abandonment of the conversation en toto.

Glad to note your are "not very interested". First, it seems a fairly wide contradistinction from your first statement you gleefully made about the issue being steadfastly 'questionable', closer to retreat on 'here is stuff I read, but I wont even bother to note what is in it, I am simply regurgitating'. And quite the way to finish that progression with the same velocity and direction.

Seems to be quite your tactic when actually pressed on specific points in your stance(s).

You must have a camera inside my house, Tanq. You are right... I was completely gleeful when I made that statement. Making that statement was the highlight of my week and I derived innumberable joy from that moment.

You and OO are correct... I should be more engaging with you. That service academy thing was super fun for me. More of that, please.

Fine -- scratch the word 'gleefully'. Then perhaps address the content. Or just use the gleeful to try a 'lets redirect this away from my absolute inability and refusal to address the issue at hand.' Par for the course, though. Good grief.

Did you read this?

Yep. I guess you find that dispositive. Good for you. Thank you for that prime example of regurgitation.

Edited to add: to be blunt, you have never been 'engaging' about any of the SJW issues that you throw up on the screen as all encompassing 'truisms'. When counters are presented, you just run away. Just noting that this falls in that ongoing and unblemished pattern as well.

Now tell me, if I noted that 'well I spoke to a number of prosecutors who say this wasnt a bad shoot in the slightest', please do tell how much you would take that to the bank, 93? I will tell you, all that 'proof' level would do would earn a sarcastic as hell statement from you about 'all the prosecutors you know.' But, I dont need to tell you that, do I?

So in counter, all the cops I talked to here said the shooting appears clean. Bummer. How about those bones?

Then I would say I'm not surprised. "Questionable" \= "absolute". How many times can I tell you that I don't personally find this shooting to be very problematic? I have heard/read more than one police officer describe this is a bad shooting. They know more than I do about this matter. That's why I said it was questionable.

If I was on the jury for this shooting, I'm pretty sure I would exonerate this cop based on the information that I have. Does that help?

(06-29-2020 08:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  If I was on the jury for this shooting, I'm pretty sure I would exonerate this cop based on the information that I have. Does that help?

Well, it helps me.

(06-29-2020 08:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:25 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  You and OO are correct... I should be more engaging with you. That service academy thing was super fun for me. More of that, please.

Now I will do my best Big impression:

You misunderstand me. How can you? I am always so clear in my own mind.

I just said (speaking more plainly now) that there is a tendency of the leftists on this board to go away when they do not like the way the discussion is going. Multiple cases. Big, you, FBO, and even to a certain extent, Lad. It is just an observation.

Interesting that both you and Big bring up fun(joy). I don't think I get a lot of fun or joy out of this either. But I care about what is happening in the world and country, And I care about how those happenings will affect me and my family, and I need somebody who is pushing for what i consider negative changes to explain to me "why?".

Why are you people pushing for capital gains tax increases, for example. Why a wealth tax? Why do you think that is a good thing to do for the country? And if you believe those are wrong, why are you planning to vote for that platform?

Best I can tell, as I have said many times, my priorities are tax/fiscal policy and foreign policy. I think the goals of most leftists/democrats are rooted in social policy, with finance completely ignored. They ignore fiscal policy except where it impinges on social policy. There seems to be this idea that that the Democrats are the anti-racists and the Republicans the pro-racists(!), and so any cost is OK in the battle against racism. Much like knights going forth to battle for the Holy Land in the Crusades, little thought is given to anything else or long term results.

Why don't the liberals on here post more often?

(proceeds to mock a liberal poster they're talking about and then paint a personal picture of liberals as being ignorant and short sighted, which they expect the liberal posters to defend/address)

(06-29-2020 08:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:25 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  What I read and heard from police officers made it seem reasonable to call it a questionable shooting. Probably most times a cop shoots somebody in the back as they are running it is worth questioning. My tone on the matter should have reflected just how not-outraged I was over this particular shooting. You seem to want to turn this into a fight.

None of your numbered points that you made do I disagree with.


You must have a camera inside my house, Tanq. You are right... I was completely gleeful when I made that statement. Making that statement was the highlight of my week and I derived innumberable joy from that moment.

You and OO are correct... I should be more engaging with you. That service academy thing was super fun for me. More of that, please.

Fine -- scratch the word 'gleefully'. Then perhaps address the content. Or just use the gleeful to try a 'lets redirect this away from my absolute inability and refusal to address the issue at hand.' Par for the course, though. Good grief.

Did you read this?

Yep. I guess you find that dispositive. Good for you. Thank you for that prime example of regurgitation.

Edited to add: to be blunt, you have never been 'engaging' about any of the SJW issues that you throw up on the screen as all encompassing 'truisms'. When counters are presented, you just run away. Just noting that this falls in that ongoing and unblemished pattern as well.

Now tell me, if I noted that 'well I spoke to a number of prosecutors who say this wasnt a bad shoot in the slightest', please do tell how much you would take that to the bank, 93? I will tell you, all that 'proof' level would do would earn a sarcastic as hell statement from you about 'all the prosecutors you know.' But, I dont need to tell you that, do I?

So in counter, all the cops I talked to here said the shooting appears clean. Bummer. How about those bones?

Then I would say I'm not surprised. "Questionable" \= "absolute". How many times can I tell you that I don't personally find this shooting to be very problematic? I have heard/read more than one police officer describe this is a bad shooting. They know more than I do about this matter. That's why I said it was questionable.

If I was on the jury for this shooting, I'm pretty sure I would exonerate this cop based on the information that I have. Does that help?

I dont find much question in the Atlanta issue in the slightest. As noted, the only 'question' is based on 'should the cops have let him walk'.

The only thing I note is the counter-questions 'Why should the cops have let him walk? In what circumstances should cops 'overlook' the law'.

The only times that seems to be answered is 'in this instance' and *only* after a police fatality. In that regards that question has perfect hindsight record.

Turn it to the Floyd death. Not the 'after the arrest, resisting, and putting the knee on his neck'. One truism that keeps popping up is Floyd was arrested for passing phony bills. I have seen on more than one instance that the cops, in hindsight, should have simply let Floyd walk. Much like the question posed in the first article you posted.

Why, in either the Atlanta instance or the Floyd instance should it be a viable rationale to let either 'walk'? (as is ostensibly championed by not just a few.)

*That* is the biggest question in the Atlanta case for me, and, hate to say it, it really doesnt even rise to that in my view.

(06-29-2020 09:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:25 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  You and OO are correct... I should be more engaging with you. That service academy thing was super fun for me. More of that, please.

Now I will do my best Big impression:

You misunderstand me. How can you? I am always so clear in my own mind.

I just said (speaking more plainly now) that there is a tendency of the leftists on this board to go away when they do not like the way the discussion is going. Multiple cases. Big, you, FBO, and even to a certain extent, Lad. It is just an observation.

Interesting that both you and Big bring up fun(joy). I don't think I get a lot of fun or joy out of this either. But I care about what is happening in the world and country, And I care about how those happenings will affect me and my family, and I need somebody who is pushing for what i consider negative changes to explain to me "why?".

Why are you people pushing for capital gains tax increases, for example. Why a wealth tax? Why do you think that is a good thing to do for the country? And if you believe those are wrong, why are you planning to vote for that platform?

Best I can tell, as I have said many times, my priorities are tax/fiscal policy and foreign policy. I think the goals of most leftists/democrats are rooted in social policy, with finance completely ignored. They ignore fiscal policy except where it impinges on social policy. There seems to be this idea that that the Democrats are the anti-racists and the Republicans the pro-racists(!), and so any cost is OK in the battle against racism. Much like knights going forth to battle for the Holy Land in the Crusades, little thought is given to anything else or long term results.

Why don't the liberals on here post more often?

(proceeds to mock a liberal poster they're talking about and then paint a personal picture of liberals as being ignorant and short sighted, which they expect the liberal posters to defend/address)

Why do you guys always misunderstand my posts? I guess I will just have to go hide until you learn some manners.

NOT. I am not afraid to say what I think and defend it. I do not equate coming here with going to a fun center.

Undeniably, the liberals here tend to run away from conflict and confrontation. Numerous examples. Lad is probably the least of those, IOW, the most likely to engage in conflict and confrontation, sometimes known as discussion or debate. For this, I appreciate him.

What I said was your (generic leftist) priorities are different from mine. But since you (Lad) are here, and in a feisty mood, how about answering my questions? What is it about a wealth tax or raising the capital gains tax that appeals to you?

(06-29-2020 09:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Fine -- scratch the word 'gleefully'. Then perhaps address the content. Or just use the gleeful to try a 'lets redirect this away from my absolute inability and refusal to address the issue at hand.' Par for the course, though. Good grief.

Did you read this?

Yep. I guess you find that dispositive. Good for you. Thank you for that prime example of regurgitation.

Edited to add: to be blunt, you have never been 'engaging' about any of the SJW issues that you throw up on the screen as all encompassing 'truisms'. When counters are presented, you just run away. Just noting that this falls in that ongoing and unblemished pattern as well.

Now tell me, if I noted that 'well I spoke to a number of prosecutors who say this wasnt a bad shoot in the slightest', please do tell how much you would take that to the bank, 93? I will tell you, all that 'proof' level would do would earn a sarcastic as hell statement from you about 'all the prosecutors you know.' But, I dont need to tell you that, do I?

So in counter, all the cops I talked to here said the shooting appears clean. Bummer. How about those bones?

Then I would say I'm not surprised. "Questionable" \= "absolute". How many times can I tell you that I don't personally find this shooting to be very problematic? I have heard/read more than one police officer describe this is a bad shooting. They know more than I do about this matter. That's why I said it was questionable.

If I was on the jury for this shooting, I'm pretty sure I would exonerate this cop based on the information that I have. Does that help?

I dont find much question in the Atlanta issue in the slightest. As noted, the only 'question' is based on 'should the cops have let him walk'.

The only thing I note is the counter-questions 'Why should the cops have let him walk? In what circumstances should cops 'overlook' the law'.

The only times that seems to be answered is 'in this instance' and *only* after a police fatality. In that regards that question has perfect hindsight record.

Turn it to the Floyd death. Not the 'after the arrest, resisting, and putting the knee on his neck'. One truism that keeps popping up is Floyd was arrested for passing phony bills. I have seen on more than one instance that the cops, in hindsight, should have simply let Floyd walk. Much like the question posed in the first article you posted.

Why, in either the Atlanta instance or the Floyd instance should it be a viable rationale to let either 'walk'? (as is ostensibly championed by not just a few.)

*That* is the biggest question in the Atlanta case for me, and, hate to say it, it really doesnt even rise to that in my view.

This might be a good example of getting non-responses ("running away"). There are plenty of topics in which I have no insight (or interest in researching the topic/time to do so). The question of when cops should enforce the law or let suspects walk falls into that category. There simply isn't enough time to get educated on every topic that pops up here.

(06-29-2020 09:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  One truism that keeps popping up is Floyd was arrested for passing phony bills. I have seen on more than one instance that the cops, in hindsight, should have simply let Floyd walk.

True. I keep hearing that a man should not lose his life over $20 or that a man's life is worth more than $20.

But those are false equivalences.

(06-29-2020 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 09:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:25 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  You and OO are correct... I should be more engaging with you. That service academy thing was super fun for me. More of that, please.

Now I will do my best Big impression:

You misunderstand me. How can you? I am always so clear in my own mind.

I just said (speaking more plainly now) that there is a tendency of the leftists on this board to go away when they do not like the way the discussion is going. Multiple cases. Big, you, FBO, and even to a certain extent, Lad. It is just an observation.

Interesting that both you and Big bring up fun(joy). I don't think I get a lot of fun or joy out of this either. But I care about what is happening in the world and country, And I care about how those happenings will affect me and my family, and I need somebody who is pushing for what i consider negative changes to explain to me "why?".

Why are you people pushing for capital gains tax increases, for example. Why a wealth tax? Why do you think that is a good thing to do for the country? And if you believe those are wrong, why are you planning to vote for that platform?

Best I can tell, as I have said many times, my priorities are tax/fiscal policy and foreign policy. I think the goals of most leftists/democrats are rooted in social policy, with finance completely ignored. They ignore fiscal policy except where it impinges on social policy. There seems to be this idea that that the Democrats are the anti-racists and the Republicans the pro-racists(!), and so any cost is OK in the battle against racism. Much like knights going forth to battle for the Holy Land in the Crusades, little thought is given to anything else or long term results.

Why don't the liberals on here post more often?

(proceeds to mock a liberal poster they're talking about and then paint a personal picture of liberals as being ignorant and short sighted, which they expect the liberal posters to defend/address)

Why do you guys always misunderstand my posts? I guess I will just have to go hide until you learn some manners.

I don't know... I kind of view this forum like I view Rice sports. I attend games when I find them worth carving out time for. When I get zero enjoyment out of them (the end of the WW era in BB for example) I don't go.

I don't think it's "hiding" per se... I think it's deciding where your priorities lie (and we all have different priorities). When I find myself feeling irritated from time spent here, I back off. I have plenty of irritation in my daily life and I find little reason add more unnecessarily. Sorry if that's not considered "brave".

(06-29-2020 10:03 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 09:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Did you read this?

Yep. I guess you find that dispositive. Good for you. Thank you for that prime example of regurgitation.

Edited to add: to be blunt, you have never been 'engaging' about any of the SJW issues that you throw up on the screen as all encompassing 'truisms'. When counters are presented, you just run away. Just noting that this falls in that ongoing and unblemished pattern as well.

Now tell me, if I noted that 'well I spoke to a number of prosecutors who say this wasnt a bad shoot in the slightest', please do tell how much you would take that to the bank, 93? I will tell you, all that 'proof' level would do would earn a sarcastic as hell statement from you about 'all the prosecutors you know.' But, I dont need to tell you that, do I?

So in counter, all the cops I talked to here said the shooting appears clean. Bummer. How about those bones?

Then I would say I'm not surprised. "Questionable" \= "absolute". How many times can I tell you that I don't personally find this shooting to be very problematic? I have heard/read more than one police officer describe this is a bad shooting. They know more than I do about this matter. That's why I said it was questionable.

If I was on the jury for this shooting, I'm pretty sure I would exonerate this cop based on the information that I have. Does that help?

I dont find much question in the Atlanta issue in the slightest. As noted, the only 'question' is based on 'should the cops have let him walk'.

The only thing I note is the counter-questions 'Why should the cops have let him walk? In what circumstances should cops 'overlook' the law'.

The only times that seems to be answered is 'in this instance' and *only* after a police fatality. In that regards that question has perfect hindsight record.

Turn it to the Floyd death. Not the 'after the arrest, resisting, and putting the knee on his neck'. One truism that keeps popping up is Floyd was arrested for passing phony bills. I have seen on more than one instance that the cops, in hindsight, should have simply let Floyd walk. Much like the question posed in the first article you posted.

Why, in either the Atlanta instance or the Floyd instance should it be a viable rationale to let either 'walk'? (as is ostensibly championed by not just a few.)

*That* is the biggest question in the Atlanta case for me, and, hate to say it, it really doesnt even rise to that in my view.

This might be a good example of getting non-responses ("running away"). There are plenty of topics in which I have no insight (or interest in researching the topic/time to do so). The question of when cops should enforce the law or let suspects walk falls into that category. There simply isn't enough time to get educated on every topic that pops up here.

To be blunt 93, those last two sentences are diametrically opposed to your throwing out your 'truism about the Atlanta shooting' *and* your 'truism about systemic blahbitty blah'. And yes, when those broad based truisms are tossed out here, I would expect one to have to answer for them.

In fact your defense of the 'truism about Atlanta' was an article -- an article in which the explicitly largest component of the 'question' was 'why didnt the cops just drive him to his sister's place'. (and I hate to tell you, there are a lot of problems with that approach in that circumstance -- issues that the 5 inch analysis in the article seems blithely unaware of, or, just fails to note).

No offense, but the defense of 'I just dont read so much about it, nor do I wish to' isnt a really cogent response in support of already stated broad-based 'truisms'.

No offense 93, but when you yourself toss out such broad based truisms, then refuse to engage in discussion of cogent points of *your* trusim, how do *you* think that might reflect upon those truisms?

If you are saying "I (93) dont get irritated tossing out broad based truisms, but dont deem the time important enough to engage in any form of cogent discussion of those broad based truisms", just exactly *how* are we supposed to view that weird marriage of actions and inactions there?

It seemingly appears that you have the unabashed ability to toss out wide ranging statements of 'fact', and wow, you get *irritated* when you have to back them up. Mercy me. How dare that happen. And yes, the last two statements are churlish, but that is probably an accurate assessment of the combination of 'tossing out broad based and unsubstantiated truism' with the 'refusing to engage in any discussion except by being pulled by a yoke' has with some.

One other way to do this is, if it is so irritating and not worth your time to defend a broad based truism, why toss it out there at all?

(06-29-2020 10:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:03 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 09:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yep. I guess you find that dispositive. Good for you. Thank you for that prime example of regurgitation.

Edited to add: to be blunt, you have never been 'engaging' about any of the SJW issues that you throw up on the screen as all encompassing 'truisms'. When counters are presented, you just run away. Just noting that this falls in that ongoing and unblemished pattern as well.

Now tell me, if I noted that 'well I spoke to a number of prosecutors who say this wasnt a bad shoot in the slightest', please do tell how much you would take that to the bank, 93? I will tell you, all that 'proof' level would do would earn a sarcastic as hell statement from you about 'all the prosecutors you know.' But, I dont need to tell you that, do I?

So in counter, all the cops I talked to here said the shooting appears clean. Bummer. How about those bones?

Then I would say I'm not surprised. "Questionable" \= "absolute". How many times can I tell you that I don't personally find this shooting to be very problematic? I have heard/read more than one police officer describe this is a bad shooting. They know more than I do about this matter. That's why I said it was questionable.

If I was on the jury for this shooting, I'm pretty sure I would exonerate this cop based on the information that I have. Does that help?

I dont find much question in the Atlanta issue in the slightest. As noted, the only 'question' is based on 'should the cops have let him walk'.

The only thing I note is the counter-questions 'Why should the cops have let him walk? In what circumstances should cops 'overlook' the law'.

The only times that seems to be answered is 'in this instance' and *only* after a police fatality. In that regards that question has perfect hindsight record.

Turn it to the Floyd death. Not the 'after the arrest, resisting, and putting the knee on his neck'. One truism that keeps popping up is Floyd was arrested for passing phony bills. I have seen on more than one instance that the cops, in hindsight, should have simply let Floyd walk. Much like the question posed in the first article you posted.

Why, in either the Atlanta instance or the Floyd instance should it be a viable rationale to let either 'walk'? (as is ostensibly championed by not just a few.)

*That* is the biggest question in the Atlanta case for me, and, hate to say it, it really doesnt even rise to that in my view.

This might be a good example of getting non-responses ("running away"). There are plenty of topics in which I have no insight (or interest in researching the topic/time to do so). The question of when cops should enforce the law or let suspects walk falls into that category. There simply isn't enough time to get educated on every topic that pops up here.

To be blunt 93, those last two sentences are diametrically opposed to your throwing out your 'truism about the Atlanta shooting' *and* your 'truism about systemic blahbitty blah'. And yes, when those broad based truisms are tossed out here, I would expect one to have to answer for them.

In fact your defense of the 'truism about Atlanta' was an article -- an article in which the explicitly largest component of the 'question' was 'why didnt the cops just drive him to his sister's place'. (and I hate to tell you, there are a lot of problems with that approach in that circumstance -- issues that the 5 inch analysis in the article seems blithely unaware of, or, just fails to note).

No offense, but the defense of 'I just dont read so much about it, nor do I wish to' isnt a really cogent response in support of already stated broad-based 'truisms'.

I think I said something to the effect of "I think we can all agree that the shooting was questionable". Questionable as in "worth questioning" as opposed to "absolutely wrong". Perhaps if I had said, "I think this shooting was questionable" it would have been less of an issue.

In retrospect, I would take the "I think we can all agree" part out. Is was unnecessary.

(06-29-2020 10:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 09:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:25 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  You and OO are correct... I should be more engaging with you. That service academy thing was super fun for me. More of that, please.

Now I will do my best Big impression:

You misunderstand me. How can you? I am always so clear in my own mind.

I just said (speaking more plainly now) that there is a tendency of the leftists on this board to go away when they do not like the way the discussion is going. Multiple cases. Big, you, FBO, and even to a certain extent, Lad. It is just an observation.

Interesting that both you and Big bring up fun(joy). I don't think I get a lot of fun or joy out of this either. But I care about what is happening in the world and country, And I care about how those happenings will affect me and my family, and I need somebody who is pushing for what i consider negative changes to explain to me "why?".

Why are you people pushing for capital gains tax increases, for example. Why a wealth tax? Why do you think that is a good thing to do for the country? And if you believe those are wrong, why are you planning to vote for that platform?

Best I can tell, as I have said many times, my priorities are tax/fiscal policy and foreign policy. I think the goals of most leftists/democrats are rooted in social policy, with finance completely ignored. They ignore fiscal policy except where it impinges on social policy. There seems to be this idea that that the Democrats are the anti-racists and the Republicans the pro-racists(!), and so any cost is OK in the battle against racism. Much like knights going forth to battle for the Holy Land in the Crusades, little thought is given to anything else or long term results.

Why don't the liberals on here post more often?

(proceeds to mock a liberal poster they're talking about and then paint a personal picture of liberals as being ignorant and short sighted, which they expect the liberal posters to defend/address)

Why do you guys always misunderstand my posts? I guess I will just have to go hide until you learn some manners.

I don't know... I kind of view this forum like I view Rice sports. I attend games when I find them worth carving out time for. When I get zero enjoyment out of them (the end of the WW era in BB for example) I don't go.

I don't think it's "hiding" per se... I think it's deciding where your priorities lie (and we all have different priorities). When I find myself feeling irritated from time spent here, I back off. I have plenty of irritation in my daily life and I find little reason add more unnecessarily. Sorry if that's not considered "brave".

We hear all sorts of excuses for disappearing, and I guess yours is as good or better than any.

I think all of us have plenty of irritation in our lives. If anybody here is posting from Nirvana, speak up.

I am irritated by my sister, and the local tax office, and the noise from the nearby construction, and people whose dogs run loose, and, and, and....


I am irritated by the negative impact of Democratic policies on my life and on the life of my family. Before Covid, I was enjoying the positive impacts on my life and the life of my family through Trump's economic policies. I would not want to give those up because he was rude to a journalist. It does irritate me greatly that the supporters of the left seem to either ignore or worse, support, those bad policies advocated for by the socialists. Now, THAT is truly irritating.

I don't think any of the leftists here support those socialistic policies, which would explain why they would rather ignore the questions. But it is frustrating to me that they support them indirectly, with their votes.

(06-29-2020 10:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:03 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 09:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yep. I guess you find that dispositive. Good for you. Thank you for that prime example of regurgitation.

Edited to add: to be blunt, you have never been 'engaging' about any of the SJW issues that you throw up on the screen as all encompassing 'truisms'. When counters are presented, you just run away. Just noting that this falls in that ongoing and unblemished pattern as well.

Now tell me, if I noted that 'well I spoke to a number of prosecutors who say this wasnt a bad shoot in the slightest', please do tell how much you would take that to the bank, 93? I will tell you, all that 'proof' level would do would earn a sarcastic as hell statement from you about 'all the prosecutors you know.' But, I dont need to tell you that, do I?

So in counter, all the cops I talked to here said the shooting appears clean. Bummer. How about those bones?

Then I would say I'm not surprised. "Questionable" \= "absolute". How many times can I tell you that I don't personally find this shooting to be very problematic? I have heard/read more than one police officer describe this is a bad shooting. They know more than I do about this matter. That's why I said it was questionable.

If I was on the jury for this shooting, I'm pretty sure I would exonerate this cop based on the information that I have. Does that help?

I dont find much question in the Atlanta issue in the slightest. As noted, the only 'question' is based on 'should the cops have let him walk'.

The only thing I note is the counter-questions 'Why should the cops have let him walk? In what circumstances should cops 'overlook' the law'.

The only times that seems to be answered is 'in this instance' and *only* after a police fatality. In that regards that question has perfect hindsight record.

Turn it to the Floyd death. Not the 'after the arrest, resisting, and putting the knee on his neck'. One truism that keeps popping up is Floyd was arrested for passing phony bills. I have seen on more than one instance that the cops, in hindsight, should have simply let Floyd walk. Much like the question posed in the first article you posted.

Why, in either the Atlanta instance or the Floyd instance should it be a viable rationale to let either 'walk'? (as is ostensibly championed by not just a few.)

*That* is the biggest question in the Atlanta case for me, and, hate to say it, it really doesnt even rise to that in my view.

This might be a good example of getting non-responses ("running away"). There are plenty of topics in which I have no insight (or interest in researching the topic/time to do so). The question of when cops should enforce the law or let suspects walk falls into that category. There simply isn't enough time to get educated on every topic that pops up here.

To be blunt 93, those last two sentences are diametrically opposed to your throwing out your 'truism about the Atlanta shooting' *and* your 'truism about systemic blahbitty blah'. And yes, when those broad based truisms are tossed out here, I would expect one to have to answer for them.

In fact your defense of the 'truism about Atlanta' was an article -- an article in which the explicitly largest component of the 'question' was 'why didnt the cops just drive him to his sister's place'. (and I hate to tell you, there are a lot of problems with that approach in that circumstance -- issues that the 5 inch analysis in the article seems blithely unaware of, or, just fails to note).

No offense, but the defense of 'I just dont read so much about it, nor do I wish to' isnt a really cogent response in support of already stated broad-based 'truisms'.

No offense 93, but when you yourself toss out such broad based truisms, then refuse to engage in discussion of cogent points of *your* trusim, how do *you* think that might reflect upon those truisms?

If you are saying "I (93) dont get irritated tossing out broad based truisms, but dont deem the time important enough to engage in any form of cogent discussion of those broad based truisms", just exactly *how* are we supposed to view that weird marriage of actions and inactions there?

It seemingly appears that you have the unabashed ability to toss out wide ranging statements of 'fact', and wow, you get *irritated* when you have to back them up. Mercy me. How dare that happen. And yes, the last two statements are churlish, but that is probably an accurate assessment of the combination of 'tossing out broad based and unsubstantiated truism' with the 'refusing to engage in any discussion except by being pulled by a yoke' has with some.

One other way to do this is, if it is so irritating and not worth your time to defend a broad based truism, why toss it out there at all?

The irritation to which I referred when it comes to being on this forum stems from dealing with certain behavior patterns, not from being asked to defend positions.

(06-29-2020 10:32 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:03 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 09:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Then I would say I'm not surprised. "Questionable" \= "absolute". How many times can I tell you that I don't personally find this shooting to be very problematic? I have heard/read more than one police officer describe this is a bad shooting. They know more than I do about this matter. That's why I said it was questionable.

If I was on the jury for this shooting, I'm pretty sure I would exonerate this cop based on the information that I have. Does that help?

I dont find much question in the Atlanta issue in the slightest. As noted, the only 'question' is based on 'should the cops have let him walk'.

The only thing I note is the counter-questions 'Why should the cops have let him walk? In what circumstances should cops 'overlook' the law'.

The only times that seems to be answered is 'in this instance' and *only* after a police fatality. In that regards that question has perfect hindsight record.

Turn it to the Floyd death. Not the 'after the arrest, resisting, and putting the knee on his neck'. One truism that keeps popping up is Floyd was arrested for passing phony bills. I have seen on more than one instance that the cops, in hindsight, should have simply let Floyd walk. Much like the question posed in the first article you posted.

Why, in either the Atlanta instance or the Floyd instance should it be a viable rationale to let either 'walk'? (as is ostensibly championed by not just a few.)

*That* is the biggest question in the Atlanta case for me, and, hate to say it, it really doesnt even rise to that in my view.

This might be a good example of getting non-responses ("running away"). There are plenty of topics in which I have no insight (or interest in researching the topic/time to do so). The question of when cops should enforce the law or let suspects walk falls into that category. There simply isn't enough time to get educated on every topic that pops up here.

To be blunt 93, those last two sentences are diametrically opposed to your throwing out your 'truism about the Atlanta shooting' *and* your 'truism about systemic blahbitty blah'. And yes, when those broad based truisms are tossed out here, I would expect one to have to answer for them.

In fact your defense of the 'truism about Atlanta' was an article -- an article in which the explicitly largest component of the 'question' was 'why didnt the cops just drive him to his sister's place'. (and I hate to tell you, there are a lot of problems with that approach in that circumstance -- issues that the 5 inch analysis in the article seems blithely unaware of, or, just fails to note).

No offense, but the defense of 'I just dont read so much about it, nor do I wish to' isnt a really cogent response in support of already stated broad-based 'truisms'.

No offense 93, but when you yourself toss out such broad based truisms, then refuse to engage in discussion of cogent points of *your* trusim, how do *you* think that might reflect upon those truisms?

If you are saying "I (93) dont get irritated tossing out broad based truisms, but dont deem the time important enough to engage in any form of cogent discussion of those broad based truisms", just exactly *how* are we supposed to view that weird marriage of actions and inactions there?

It seemingly appears that you have the unabashed ability to toss out wide ranging statements of 'fact', and wow, you get *irritated* when you have to back them up. Mercy me. How dare that happen. And yes, the last two statements are churlish, but that is probably an accurate assessment of the combination of 'tossing out broad based and unsubstantiated truism' with the 'refusing to engage in any discussion except by being pulled by a yoke' has with some.

One other way to do this is, if it is so irritating and not worth your time to defend a broad based truism, why toss it out there at all?

The irritation to which I referred when it comes to being on this forum stems from dealing with certain behavior patterns, not from being asked to defend positions.

If those behavior patterns are mine, tell me what they are.

otherwise answer my questiions.

(06-29-2020 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:32 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:03 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 09:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I dont find much question in the Atlanta issue in the slightest. As noted, the only 'question' is based on 'should the cops have let him walk'.

The only thing I note is the counter-questions 'Why should the cops have let him walk? In what circumstances should cops 'overlook' the law'.

The only times that seems to be answered is 'in this instance' and *only* after a police fatality. In that regards that question has perfect hindsight record.

Turn it to the Floyd death. Not the 'after the arrest, resisting, and putting the knee on his neck'. One truism that keeps popping up is Floyd was arrested for passing phony bills. I have seen on more than one instance that the cops, in hindsight, should have simply let Floyd walk. Much like the question posed in the first article you posted.

Why, in either the Atlanta instance or the Floyd instance should it be a viable rationale to let either 'walk'? (as is ostensibly championed by not just a few.)

*That* is the biggest question in the Atlanta case for me, and, hate to say it, it really doesnt even rise to that in my view.

This might be a good example of getting non-responses ("running away"). There are plenty of topics in which I have no insight (or interest in researching the topic/time to do so). The question of when cops should enforce the law or let suspects walk falls into that category. There simply isn't enough time to get educated on every topic that pops up here.

To be blunt 93, those last two sentences are diametrically opposed to your throwing out your 'truism about the Atlanta shooting' *and* your 'truism about systemic blahbitty blah'. And yes, when those broad based truisms are tossed out here, I would expect one to have to answer for them.

In fact your defense of the 'truism about Atlanta' was an article -- an article in which the explicitly largest component of the 'question' was 'why didnt the cops just drive him to his sister's place'. (and I hate to tell you, there are a lot of problems with that approach in that circumstance -- issues that the 5 inch analysis in the article seems blithely unaware of, or, just fails to note).

No offense, but the defense of 'I just dont read so much about it, nor do I wish to' isnt a really cogent response in support of already stated broad-based 'truisms'.

No offense 93, but when you yourself toss out such broad based truisms, then refuse to engage in discussion of cogent points of *your* trusim, how do *you* think that might reflect upon those truisms?

If you are saying "I (93) dont get irritated tossing out broad based truisms, but dont deem the time important enough to engage in any form of cogent discussion of those broad based truisms", just exactly *how* are we supposed to view that weird marriage of actions and inactions there?

It seemingly appears that you have the unabashed ability to toss out wide ranging statements of 'fact', and wow, you get *irritated* when you have to back them up. Mercy me. How dare that happen. And yes, the last two statements are churlish, but that is probably an accurate assessment of the combination of 'tossing out broad based and unsubstantiated truism' with the 'refusing to engage in any discussion except by being pulled by a yoke' has with some.

One other way to do this is, if it is so irritating and not worth your time to defend a broad based truism, why toss it out there at all?

The irritation to which I referred when it comes to being on this forum stems from dealing with certain behavior patterns, not from being asked to defend positions.

If those behavior patterns are mine, tell me what they are.

otherwise answer my questiions.

Your questions about tax policy? No thanks. The far left's position on taxes is not something I care to champion. We all effectively have two choices. Most of us disagree with certain aspects of the platforms of those for whom we vote. I'm not going to argue for the side of every single Democratic policy.

(06-29-2020 10:32 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:03 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 09:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Then I would say I'm not surprised. "Questionable" \= "absolute". How many times can I tell you that I don't personally find this shooting to be very problematic? I have heard/read more than one police officer describe this is a bad shooting. They know more than I do about this matter. That's why I said it was questionable.

If I was on the jury for this shooting, I'm pretty sure I would exonerate this cop based on the information that I have. Does that help?

I dont find much question in the Atlanta issue in the slightest. As noted, the only 'question' is based on 'should the cops have let him walk'.

The only thing I note is the counter-questions 'Why should the cops have let him walk? In what circumstances should cops 'overlook' the law'.

The only times that seems to be answered is 'in this instance' and *only* after a police fatality. In that regards that question has perfect hindsight record.

Turn it to the Floyd death. Not the 'after the arrest, resisting, and putting the knee on his neck'. One truism that keeps popping up is Floyd was arrested for passing phony bills. I have seen on more than one instance that the cops, in hindsight, should have simply let Floyd walk. Much like the question posed in the first article you posted.

Why, in either the Atlanta instance or the Floyd instance should it be a viable rationale to let either 'walk'? (as is ostensibly championed by not just a few.)

*That* is the biggest question in the Atlanta case for me, and, hate to say it, it really doesnt even rise to that in my view.

This might be a good example of getting non-responses ("running away"). There are plenty of topics in which I have no insight (or interest in researching the topic/time to do so). The question of when cops should enforce the law or let suspects walk falls into that category. There simply isn't enough time to get educated on every topic that pops up here.

To be blunt 93, those last two sentences are diametrically opposed to your throwing out your 'truism about the Atlanta shooting' *and* your 'truism about systemic blahbitty blah'. And yes, when those broad based truisms are tossed out here, I would expect one to have to answer for them.

In fact your defense of the 'truism about Atlanta' was an article -- an article in which the explicitly largest component of the 'question' was 'why didnt the cops just drive him to his sister's place'. (and I hate to tell you, there are a lot of problems with that approach in that circumstance -- issues that the 5 inch analysis in the article seems blithely unaware of, or, just fails to note).

No offense, but the defense of 'I just dont read so much about it, nor do I wish to' isnt a really cogent response in support of already stated broad-based 'truisms'.

No offense 93, but when you yourself toss out such broad based truisms, then refuse to engage in discussion of cogent points of *your* trusim, how do *you* think that might reflect upon those truisms?

If you are saying "I (93) dont get irritated tossing out broad based truisms, but dont deem the time important enough to engage in any form of cogent discussion of those broad based truisms", just exactly *how* are we supposed to view that weird marriage of actions and inactions there?

It seemingly appears that you have the unabashed ability to toss out wide ranging statements of 'fact', and wow, you get *irritated* when you have to back them up. Mercy me. How dare that happen. And yes, the last two statements are churlish, but that is probably an accurate assessment of the combination of 'tossing out broad based and unsubstantiated truism' with the 'refusing to engage in any discussion except by being pulled by a yoke' has with some.

One other way to do this is, if it is so irritating and not worth your time to defend a broad based truism, why toss it out there at all?

The irritation to which I referred when it comes to being on this forum stems from dealing with certain behavior patterns, not from being asked to defend positions.

93, even when I 'play nice' you ostensibly avoid answering the underlying questions posed. Pretty much in every instance. That is the interesting part.

One might suspect the 'certain behavior patterns' might be the temerity to subscribe to and present opposing points, given the above.

(06-29-2020 10:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 09:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Now I will do my best Big impression:

You misunderstand me. How can you? I am always so clear in my own mind.

I just said (speaking more plainly now) that there is a tendency of the leftists on this board to go away when they do not like the way the discussion is going. Multiple cases. Big, you, FBO, and even to a certain extent, Lad. It is just an observation.

Interesting that both you and Big bring up fun(joy). I don't think I get a lot of fun or joy out of this either. But I care about what is happening in the world and country, And I care about how those happenings will affect me and my family, and I need somebody who is pushing for what i consider negative changes to explain to me "why?".

Why are you people pushing for capital gains tax increases, for example. Why a wealth tax? Why do you think that is a good thing to do for the country? And if you believe those are wrong, why are you planning to vote for that platform?

Best I can tell, as I have said many times, my priorities are tax/fiscal policy and foreign policy. I think the goals of most leftists/democrats are rooted in social policy, with finance completely ignored. They ignore fiscal policy except where it impinges on social policy. There seems to be this idea that that the Democrats are the anti-racists and the Republicans the pro-racists(!), and so any cost is OK in the battle against racism. Much like knights going forth to battle for the Holy Land in the Crusades, little thought is given to anything else or long term results.

Why don't the liberals on here post more often?

(proceeds to mock a liberal poster they're talking about and then paint a personal picture of liberals as being ignorant and short sighted, which they expect the liberal posters to defend/address)

Why do you guys always misunderstand my posts? I guess I will just have to go hide until you learn some manners.

I don't know... I kind of view this forum like I view Rice sports. I attend games when I find them worth carving out time for. When I get zero enjoyment out of them (the end of the WW era in BB for example) I don't go.

I don't think it's "hiding" per se... I think it's deciding where your priorities lie (and we all have different priorities). When I find myself feeling irritated from time spent here, I back off. I have plenty of irritation in my daily life and I find little reason add more unnecessarily. Sorry if that's not considered "brave".

We hear all sorts of excuses for disappearing, and I guess yours is as good or better than any.

I think all of us have plenty of irritation in our lives. If anybody here is posting from Nirvana, speak up.

I am irritated by my sister, and the local tax office, and the noise from the nearby construction, and people whose dogs run loose, and, and, and....


I am irritated by the negative impact of Democratic policies on my life and on the life of my family. Before Covid, I was enjoying the positive impacts on my life and the life of my family through Trump's economic policies. I would not want to give those up because he was rude to a journalist. It does irritate me greatly that the supporters of the left seem to either ignore or worse, support, those bad policies advocated for by the socialists. Now, THAT is truly irritating.

I don't think any of the leftists here support those socialistic policies, which would explain why they would rather ignore the questions. But it is frustrating to me that they support them indirectly, with their votes.

I feel the same way. It is frustrating to me that you guys support probable irreversible environmental catastrophes, indirectly, with your votes. That may hyperbole and I recognize that you guys aren't on the same page as me when it comes to climate change.

But climate change is one of my "show stoppers" (to use #'s term). I care much more about a candidate's approach to climate change than I do their tax platform.

To each their own.

(06-29-2020 11:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 09:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why don't the liberals on here post more often?

(proceeds to mock a liberal poster they're talking about and then paint a personal picture of liberals as being ignorant and short sighted, which they expect the liberal posters to defend/address)

Why do you guys always misunderstand my posts? I guess I will just have to go hide until you learn some manners.

I don't know... I kind of view this forum like I view Rice sports. I attend games when I find them worth carving out time for. When I get zero enjoyment out of them (the end of the WW era in BB for example) I don't go.

I don't think it's "hiding" per se... I think it's deciding where your priorities lie (and we all have different priorities). When I find myself feeling irritated from time spent here, I back off. I have plenty of irritation in my daily life and I find little reason add more unnecessarily. Sorry if that's not considered "brave".

We hear all sorts of excuses for disappearing, and I guess yours is as good or better than any.

I think all of us have plenty of irritation in our lives. If anybody here is posting from Nirvana, speak up.

I am irritated by my sister, and the local tax office, and the noise from the nearby construction, and people whose dogs run loose, and, and, and....


I am irritated by the negative impact of Democratic policies on my life and on the life of my family. Before Covid, I was enjoying the positive impacts on my life and the life of my family through Trump's economic policies. I would not want to give those up because he was rude to a journalist. It does irritate me greatly that the supporters of the left seem to either ignore or worse, support, those bad policies advocated for by the socialists. Now, THAT is truly irritating.

I don't think any of the leftists here support those socialistic policies, which would explain why they would rather ignore the questions. But it is frustrating to me that they support them indirectly, with their votes.

I feel the same way. It is frustrating to me that you guys support probable irreversible environmental catastrophes, indirectly, with your votes. That may hyperbole and I recognize that you guys aren't on the same page as me when it comes to climate change.

But climate change is one of my "show stoppers" (to use #'s term). I care much more about a candidate's approach to climate change than I do their tax platform.

To each their own.

"support probable irreversible environmental catastrophes"

I would be happy to change my vote for such a sum certain occurrence of such an irreversible catastrophe, or even when that chance is weighed against the economic consideration cost.

And yes, I changed your 'probable' to 'sum certain' to denote the rhetoric embodied therein.

But then again I would have to 'read up on it' in order to do that --- wait..... I have done that.

Again, do you have any concept of the 'sum certain truisms' that you toss off here?

(06-29-2020 11:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 11:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why do you guys always misunderstand my posts? I guess I will just have to go hide until you learn some manners.

I don't know... I kind of view this forum like I view Rice sports. I attend games when I find them worth carving out time for. When I get zero enjoyment out of them (the end of the WW era in BB for example) I don't go.

I don't think it's "hiding" per se... I think it's deciding where your priorities lie (and we all have different priorities). When I find myself feeling irritated from time spent here, I back off. I have plenty of irritation in my daily life and I find little reason add more unnecessarily. Sorry if that's not considered "brave".

We hear all sorts of excuses for disappearing, and I guess yours is as good or better than any.

I think all of us have plenty of irritation in our lives. If anybody here is posting from Nirvana, speak up.

I am irritated by my sister, and the local tax office, and the noise from the nearby construction, and people whose dogs run loose, and, and, and....


I am irritated by the negative impact of Democratic policies on my life and on the life of my family. Before Covid, I was enjoying the positive impacts on my life and the life of my family through Trump's economic policies. I would not want to give those up because he was rude to a journalist. It does irritate me greatly that the supporters of the left seem to either ignore or worse, support, those bad policies advocated for by the socialists. Now, THAT is truly irritating.

I don't think any of the leftists here support those socialistic policies, which would explain why they would rather ignore the questions. But it is frustrating to me that they support them indirectly, with their votes.

I feel the same way. It is frustrating to me that you guys support probable irreversible environmental catastrophes, indirectly, with your votes. That may hyperbole and I recognize that you guys aren't on the same page as me when it comes to climate change.

But climate change is one of my "show stoppers" (to use #'s term). I care much more about a candidate's approach to climate change than I do their tax platform.

To each their own.

"support probable irreversible environmental catastrophes"

I would be happy to change my vote for such a sum certain occurrence of such an irreversible catastrophe, or even when that chance is weighed against the economic consideration cost.

OK. I'm not sure I follow. I think the "or" is confusing me.

Quote:And yes, I changed your 'probable' to 'sum certain' to denote the rhetoric embodied therein.

But then again I would have to 'read up on it' in order to do that --- wait..... I have done that.

Again, do you have any concept of the 'sum certain truisms' that you toss off here?

I was responding to OO about how we all have priorities when it comes to our vote and that our priorities (like most people's) don't line up exactly.

I mean, I said up front that I was using hyperbole.

*edit* Exactly what “sum certain truism” do you think that I just threw out there?

(06-29-2020 11:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I feel the same way. It is frustrating to me that you guys support probable irreversible environmental catastrophes, indirectly, with your votes. That may hyperbole and I recognize that you guys aren't on the same page as me when it comes to climate change.

But climate change is one of my "show stoppers" (to use #'s term). I care much more about a candidate's approach to climate change than I do their tax platform.

To each their own.

Funny... this was precisely what came to my mind when you spoke of your lack of support for leftists tax policies.

'Climate change' as addressed by the left is an open checkbook for the globe... not just us.... so while it's not 'tax policy' per se, you support (vicariously through your votes... as much as any of us do 'irreversible climate change') unlimited taxation.

especially in that nobody has been able to demonstrate that most of what has been suggested WOULD reverse anything.... or couldn't be undone by some very likely outcomes...

i.e. we decide that we're going to eliminate all petro-based engines in the US... we spend trillions developing and repowering our machinery... and then we lose market-share globally to say, Africa (or China)... who buys up all our old tech for pennies on the dollar, now with a fuel source that is even cheaper than it is today... and of course they don't have our regulation or safety measures or worker protections etc etc etc... and now we can't afford the interest on the trillions we spent.... and because of this, they essentially 'undo' all of the good that we did in terms of global carbon output. Now all of a sudden it costs $1.000 as opposed to $400 to ship something to Africa using new tech... but it costs $200 to ship it FROM Africa with now cheaper, old tech.

I'm all for being good stewards... I'm all for developing new, cleaner technologies. What I'm NOT in favor of is spending untold amounts for untold outcomes... and the moment someone comes out and tells me that I have to do something quickly and without questioning the motivations or results... I'm going to say 'no' on principle alone. I'm not an unintelligent person, nor am I seeking to exploit the earth without consequence. If you (the generic you) NEED to scare me to get me to go along, then you don't have the facts to explain it to me.

(06-29-2020 12:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 11:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I feel the same way. It is frustrating to me that you guys support probable irreversible environmental catastrophes, indirectly, with your votes. That may hyperbole and I recognize that you guys aren't on the same page as me when it comes to climate change.

But climate change is one of my "show stoppers" (to use #'s term). I care much more about a candidate's approach to climate change than I do their tax platform.

To each their own.

Funny... this was precisely what came to my mind when you spoke of your lack of support for leftists tax policies.

'Climate change' as addressed by the left is an open checkbook for the globe... not just us.... so while it's not 'tax policy' per se, you support (vicariously through your votes... as much as any of us do 'irreversible climate change') unlimited taxation.

Well, I have yet to vote for anybody that most people would consider socialist but that time may someday come. I'm hoping (but not holding my breath) that both sides listen to their moderate majorities.

Quote:especially in that nobody has been able to demonstrate that most of what has been suggested WOULD reverse anything.... or couldn't be undone by some very likely outcomes...

i.e. we decide that we're going to eliminate all petro-based engines in the US... we spend trillions developing and repowering our machinery... and then we lose market-share globally to say, Africa (or China)... who buys up all our old tech for pennies on the dollar, now with a fuel source that is even cheaper than it is today... and of course they don't have our regulation or safety measures or worker protections etc etc etc... and now we can't afford the interest on the trillions we spent.... and because of this, they essentially 'undo' all of the good that we did in terms of global carbon output. Now all of a sudden it costs $1.000 as opposed to $400 to ship something to Africa using new tech... but it costs $200 to ship it FROM Africa with now cheaper, old tech.

I hear you. These are reasonable points and I share your concerns here.

Quote:I'm all for being good stewards... I'm all for developing new, cleaner technologies. What I'm NOT in favor of is spending untold amounts for untold outcomes... and the moment someone comes out and tells me that I have to do something quickly and without questioning the motivations or results... I'm going to say 'no' on principle alone. I'm not an unintelligent person, nor am I seeking to exploit the earth without consequence. If you (the generic you) NEED to scare me to get me to go along, then you don't have the facts to explain it to me.

Do you know who's NOT going to be a good steward? Somebody who thinks climate change (and the human contribution to it) is a hoax.

But I don't want to turn this into yet another climate change argument. I brought it up simply as an example of my personal priorities.