(01-30-2021 10:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Party of Unity?

lefties, please comment on the content and not the source. halfway through, please note that a Democrat speaks to this.

But it appears the vendetta continues. The witch hunt has been expanded from Trump to the entire right. We haven't seen this much unity since the Spanish Inquisition.

What’s the argument? Not exactly interested in watching a few minutes of Ingrahm... Articles are a lot easier to discuss.

(01-30-2021 09:10 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 08:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 08:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 07:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 01:28 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I am just asking what you think should be done about folks like GOP Congresswoman Greene. She is a fellow Trump supporter like you. Is she too far out there, or are you good with her?

Getting back to the original subject (Greene, etc), how do *you* feel about AOC tweeting that Cruz tried to have her murdered?

Or, perhaps, is this a figment of my prejudice against her based on her skin color?

Funny, last time I looked, saying that someone tried to 'murder' someone else pretty much rises to libelous speech. I guess those of us that criticize AOC for her positions, and her actions (like saying that Cruz tried to 'murder her') are just basing it on her skin color (according to some).

As for Greene, I have no problem with disavowing her. Nor has most of the Repub leadership felt and done the same. There was public talk against her from republicans going back as far as the primary she won.

That seems to be a fairly decent difference between AOC/Omar and Greene in particular. Republicans have publicly been apposed to here; i.e. Steve Scalise and Liz Cheney (the #2 and #3 Repub House positions) publicly and actively backed her House primary opponent.

On the other hand, the views of Omar, Talibi, and AOC have become mainstream Democratic positions.

So I would actually say there is a big difference in the responses by each party to their own radical wackjobs. Both in official opposition (which, by the way is increasingly growiing every day), and in the apparent responses to their outlooks from the rank and file, ostensibly since the opposition to the Squad is based on bias, prejudice, and racism (according to some).

And thanks for bringing Greene to my attention, I truly had not noted her before this. I would hope the Republican party can firm up the (already public and visible) official opposition to her. I would also hope that the Democrats try to acknowledge the same actions with AOC (especially evident with her grotesque characterization of Cruz), Omar (I seem to remember the Democrats couldnt even vote for a censure of her incendiary and repetitious anti-Semitic comments), and cant seemingly address the milder form of that coming from Talibi.

Yeah... ridiculous of AOC. She is condemning his use of hyperbolic, inflammatory language all the while using her own hyperbolic, inflammatory language. I think AOC is pretty smart but I don't understand outrageous language sometimes.

Did you even read the tweet she responded to? Perhaps you should, then come back here and offer a summary for us.

Here it is: Cruz: 'I could support that' (an idea AOC floated)
AOC: I wont accept your help you pig, you tried to have me murdered.

Please note the 'hyperbolic inflammatory' language there that she is 'responding' to.

Nice uninformed kneejerk.

Glad to note your seeming defense of a charge that someone tried to 'murder' her. And, glad to see your defense of that 'you tried to have me murdered' as 'not really meaning that' -- since you never bothered to accord Trump *any* of that. Really interesting to see that change in tone and tenor when 'your side' is saying that ****.

Quote:Greene is a complete disaster and her constituents should be mortified by her behavior (as well as the fact that they elected that woman to congress).

And again noted that some oevr here can denote Greene as such, even here on this board. And again noted the 'to the mats' corresponding defense of the Squad.

Truly eye-opening.

Quote:Not wanting to start a new argument/controversy... but I'm still a bit underwhelmed about the controversy of Omar's statements re: Israel. I think it's a bit of a stretch to accuse her of anti-semitism over them. I'd be interested in what a politically moderate Jewish person thinks about her tweets/statements. Regardless... I don't think she came close to Greene's ridiculousness (FTR I am no fan of Omar).

Kind of rich coming from a guy that gave zero quarter to anything Trump said, and seemingly ginned up 'racist' to anything coming from that quarter that had any iota of race attached to it.

Seems to be a rule from you that "Trump says or mentions anything re: race, yelp and squeal racism; anything in the same ballpark from your side of the fence lets look at it in the most moderate sense."

Sounds fun.

Quote:

Quote:And again, position wise, the Republicans are seeming to excoriate Greene for her radical policies (not to mention her incendiary language); all the while the radical policies put forth by the trio are warmingly embraced by the Democrats. And, to boot, any opposition to the squad is steeped in the warm waters of 'skin color' and racism by that side.

Embraced by the far, far left wing of democrats to be clear. Note that Bernie Sanders did not defeat Joe Biden last fall. That said... certainly AOC's views are closer to mainstream Democrat than Greene's views are to mainstream Republican (at least I hope so).

Animosity or antipathy to Israel as a whole, warming to Iran to the extent of implicitly promoting them as a nuclear power, and following the GND certainly seem to be somewhat central tenets of the Democratic movement these days.

And back to my question: do you have the warm fuzzy's over AOC tweeting that Cruz 'tried to have [her] murdered'? You jump the shark when you seemingly try to pawn the issue off on Cruz's 'hyperbolic' (still yet to see that, mind you) language. Again, and in the broad general sense. Please note *anywhere* where Cruz has charged that *anyone* in Congress 'tried to have [him] murdered'. Or anywhere near that, for that matter.

Holy crap and to think I almost wrote something in my first post this morning to the effect of "Tanq... it's good to have you back and I appreciate your POV particularly so when you discuss things so reasonably."

And then this.

I meant Cruz's incendiary language in general regarding "stop the steal". Whatever tweet you may be referring to I missed. In no way was I trying to excuse AOC for what she said.

When I posted this morning I was thinking that you and I were generally on the same page re: AOC/Greene/Omar.etc .

As to the rest of it... have a nice weekend. Please go back and re-read my post from this morning (especially in the context with what I just said) and ask yourself if it was deserving of your tone.

Actual tweet for reference:

Quote: I am happy to work with Republicans on this issue where there’s common ground, but you almost had me murdered 3 weeks ago so you can sit this one out.

Happy to work w/ almost any other GOP that aren’t trying to get me killed.

In the meantime if you want to help, you can resign.

(01-30-2021 11:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 09:10 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 08:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 08:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 07:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Getting back to the original subject (Greene, etc), how do *you* feel about AOC tweeting that Cruz tried to have her murdered?

Or, perhaps, is this a figment of my prejudice against her based on her skin color?

Funny, last time I looked, saying that someone tried to 'murder' someone else pretty much rises to libelous speech. I guess those of us that criticize AOC for her positions, and her actions (like saying that Cruz tried to 'murder her') are just basing it on her skin color (according to some).

As for Greene, I have no problem with disavowing her. Nor has most of the Repub leadership felt and done the same. There was public talk against her from republicans going back as far as the primary she won.

That seems to be a fairly decent difference between AOC/Omar and Greene in particular. Republicans have publicly been apposed to here; i.e. Steve Scalise and Liz Cheney (the #2 and #3 Repub House positions) publicly and actively backed her House primary opponent.

On the other hand, the views of Omar, Talibi, and AOC have become mainstream Democratic positions.

So I would actually say there is a big difference in the responses by each party to their own radical wackjobs. Both in official opposition (which, by the way is increasingly growiing every day), and in the apparent responses to their outlooks from the rank and file, ostensibly since the opposition to the Squad is based on bias, prejudice, and racism (according to some).

And thanks for bringing Greene to my attention, I truly had not noted her before this. I would hope the Republican party can firm up the (already public and visible) official opposition to her. I would also hope that the Democrats try to acknowledge the same actions with AOC (especially evident with her grotesque characterization of Cruz), Omar (I seem to remember the Democrats couldnt even vote for a censure of her incendiary and repetitious anti-Semitic comments), and cant seemingly address the milder form of that coming from Talibi.

Yeah... ridiculous of AOC. She is condemning his use of hyperbolic, inflammatory language all the while using her own hyperbolic, inflammatory language. I think AOC is pretty smart but I don't understand outrageous language sometimes.

Did you even read the tweet she responded to? Perhaps you should, then come back here and offer a summary for us.

Here it is: Cruz: 'I could support that' (an idea AOC floated)
AOC: I wont accept your help you pig, you tried to have me murdered.

Please note the 'hyperbolic inflammatory' language there that she is 'responding' to.

Nice uninformed kneejerk.

Glad to note your seeming defense of a charge that someone tried to 'murder' her. And, glad to see your defense of that 'you tried to have me murdered' as 'not really meaning that' -- since you never bothered to accord Trump *any* of that. Really interesting to see that change in tone and tenor when 'your side' is saying that ****.

Quote:Greene is a complete disaster and her constituents should be mortified by her behavior (as well as the fact that they elected that woman to congress).

And again noted that some oevr here can denote Greene as such, even here on this board. And again noted the 'to the mats' corresponding defense of the Squad.

Truly eye-opening.

Quote:Not wanting to start a new argument/controversy... but I'm still a bit underwhelmed about the controversy of Omar's statements re: Israel. I think it's a bit of a stretch to accuse her of anti-semitism over them. I'd be interested in what a politically moderate Jewish person thinks about her tweets/statements. Regardless... I don't think she came close to Greene's ridiculousness (FTR I am no fan of Omar).

Kind of rich coming from a guy that gave zero quarter to anything Trump said, and seemingly ginned up 'racist' to anything coming from that quarter that had any iota of race attached to it.

Seems to be a rule from you that "Trump says or mentions anything re: race, yelp and squeal racism; anything in the same ballpark from your side of the fence lets look at it in the most moderate sense."

Sounds fun.

Quote:

Quote:And again, position wise, the Republicans are seeming to excoriate Greene for her radical policies (not to mention her incendiary language); all the while the radical policies put forth by the trio are warmingly embraced by the Democrats. And, to boot, any opposition to the squad is steeped in the warm waters of 'skin color' and racism by that side.

Embraced by the far, far left wing of democrats to be clear. Note that Bernie Sanders did not defeat Joe Biden last fall. That said... certainly AOC's views are closer to mainstream Democrat than Greene's views are to mainstream Republican (at least I hope so).

Animosity or antipathy to Israel as a whole, warming to Iran to the extent of implicitly promoting them as a nuclear power, and following the GND certainly seem to be somewhat central tenets of the Democratic movement these days.

And back to my question: do you have the warm fuzzy's over AOC tweeting that Cruz 'tried to have [her] murdered'? You jump the shark when you seemingly try to pawn the issue off on Cruz's 'hyperbolic' (still yet to see that, mind you) language. Again, and in the broad general sense. Please note *anywhere* where Cruz has charged that *anyone* in Congress 'tried to have [him] murdered'. Or anywhere near that, for that matter.

I meant Cruz's incendiary language in general regarding "stop the steal".

So the 'in general' language re: "stop the steal" is "hyperbolic" to you. (scratching my head).

Quote:Whatever tweet you may be referring to I missed. In no way was I trying to excuse AOC for what she said.

Here is the full twitter back and forth:

AOC: "We now need to know more about @RobinhoodApp’s decision to block retail investors from purchasing stock while hedge funds are freely able to trade the stock as they see fit.

As a member of the Financial Services Cmte, I’d support a hearing if necessary. twitter.com/motherboard/st…"

Cruz: "Fully agree."

AOC: "I am happy to work with Republicans on this issue where there’s common ground, but you almost had me murdered 3 weeks ago so you can sit this one out.

Happy to work w/ almost any other GOP that aren’t trying to get me killed.

In the meantime if you want to help, you can resign."

Now that you know of the back and forth, and are not giving an automatic response of the horrible, way out line, "hyperbolic", and "incendiary" language of 'stop the steal', maybe you can give us an informed comment.

Quote:When I posted this morning I was thinking that you and I were generally on the same page re: AOC/Greene/Omar.etc .

As to the rest of it... have a nice weekend. Please go back and re-read my post from this morning (especially in the context with what I just said) and ask yourself if it was deserving of your tone.

With all respect, your answer to the 'tried to murder me' comment was seemingly uninformed, and solely focused on the 'horrific' language of 'stop the steal' as a justification for that comment from AOC.

You read it wrong. I meant how stupid was it for AOC to accuse Ted Cruz of hyperbolic, incendiary language while she was the one using hyperbolic, incendiary language. Like... that's really dumb that she was doing that. I wasn't meaning to get after Cruz for his tone or justify what AOC said. I meant that it was really dumb to do exactly what she accused him of doing but x10.

Quote:And, considering your past history of tying anything related to race uttered by Trump as evidence of 'racism' from him, your gloss over of AOC's comments above seem rather hypocritical, trying to make it all Cruz's fault --- that is all his fault for the unpardonable language of 'stop the steal'.

The bolded is true hyperbole. As to "glossed over" have I not made it clear that I thought what she said sucked?

Quote:Sorry for pointing those items out.

And I'm sorry that you're wrong.

Quote:Saying someone 'tried to murder' you, if uttered in any other forum, rises to libelous speech if untrue. Not just libelous, but horrendously grotesque in nature.

Since we are talking about OAC and her gang in distinction to Greene, this very recent comment from her seems rather germane. Some here might point to my apparent racism and the touch point of AOC's skin color as playing a part in my criticism: but this comment is a wonderful counterpoint to that claim of 'skin color' coloring my beliefs (and those of others, I might surmise).

I can readily point to Greene as a demagogic half wit that is sad was elected to office based on her past comments. And I point to AOC in the same manner.

The big distinction is that the Repub leadership actually has explicitly made comments distancing themselves from Greene, and in the past the high leadership explicitly campaigned against her, to the extent that the #2 and #3 positions in the House explicitly and openly backed her opponent based on Greenes comments *and* positions.

In distinction, AOC and her gang are very much closer to the mainstream of modern Democratic thought and policy than Greene is or ever has been to that of Republican.

Thanks for pointing that out. It's eerily similar to what I said in my first post of this morning (you know... the one that unhinged you):

That said... certainly AOC's views are closer to mainstream Democrat than Greene's views are to mainstream Republican (at least I hope so).

Quote:I find AOC's current comments equally unhinged; and again, the paradigm readily appears to be: "Green unhinged is met with explicit disavowal, and was met in her election with explicit opposition from top Republican leadership; AOC unhinged is met with..... either crickets, or comments on how Ted Cruz had it coming to him'.

I haven't seen much a difference between D's response to Omar and R's response to Greene in terms of the two events in question. Pretty similar level of outrage IIRC. I can't remember how long it took D's to come around with their condemnation... maybe it was a lot longer. I can't remember.

Look... I made a post this morning despite trying not to spend time posting on weekends. I saw your post and I thought... hey... here's something upon which Tanq and I pretty much agree.

You read my post and my tone wrong. I get it. That happens with internet forums. It happens to all of us. Of course... instead of you giving me any benefit of the doubt or displaying even a modicum of grace you decided to act like a complete dick. Disappointing but not surprising.

A good reminder to not use any weekend time to post here.

(01-30-2021 10:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 08:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And back to my question: do you have the warm fuzzy's over AOC tweeting that Cruz 'tried to have [her] murdered'?

Never did see an answer to this question.

*whooooooooooooooooooooosh*

Quote:In no way was I trying to excuse AOC for what she said.

Quote:When I posted this morning I was thinking that you and I were generally on the same page re: AOC/Greene/Omar.etc .

Do you think I have the warm fuzzies, OO? I said I was on the same page as Tanq re: AOC. Was that not clear?

(01-30-2021 12:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  You read it wrong. I meant how stupid was it for AOC to accuse Ted Cruz of hyperbolic, incendiary language

So you read 'tried to have me murdered' as an accusation of 'hyperbolic, incendiary language'?

Its a *use* of hyperbolic incendiary language. I fail to see anywhere where AOC accuses Ted of using hyperbolic incendiary language. She accuses him of 'trying to murder her'.

Quote:I meant that it was really dumb to do exactly what she accused him of doing but x10.

Again, where exactly does she accuse Ted in any way, shape, or form of 'using hyperbolic, incendiary language? Or is this your interpretation and channeling of her words?

Quote:As to "glossed over" have I not made it clear that I thought what she said sucked?

It read as an excuse of her language 93. Thank you for clarifying. In fact, it introduced Cruz's (as yet unspecified) 'hyperbolic' language, and you still keep pointing to that 'hyperbolic' language more in your last post. What is 'hyperbolic' about Cruz's 'stop the steal' language that you consistently raise as a parallel?

Quote:

Quote:Saying someone 'tried to murder' you, if uttered in any other forum, rises to libelous speech if untrue. Not just libelous, but horrendously grotesque in nature.

Since we are talking about OAC and her gang in distinction to Greene, this very recent comment from her seems rather germane. Some here might point to my apparent racism and the touch point of AOC's skin color as playing a part in my criticism: but this comment is a wonderful counterpoint to that claim of 'skin color' coloring my beliefs (and those of others, I might surmise).

I can readily point to Greene as a demagogic half wit that is sad was elected to office based on her past comments. And I point to AOC in the same manner.

The big distinction is that the Repub leadership actually has explicitly made comments distancing themselves from Greene, and in the past the high leadership explicitly campaigned against her, to the extent that the #2 and #3 positions in the House explicitly and openly backed her opponent based on Greenes comments *and* positions.

In distinction, AOC and her gang are very much closer to the mainstream of modern Democratic thought and policy than Greene is or ever has been to that of Republican.

Thanks for pointing that out. It's eerily similar to what I said in my first post of this morning (you know... the one that unhinged you):

That said... certainly AOC's views are closer to mainstream Democrat than Greene's views are to mainstream Republican (at least I hope so).

There is hardly any similarity between the phrase italicized above and 'Republicans have disavowed, and in the past have actively opposed, Greene, while the Democrats seemingly embrace AOC's positions and in this instance are imitating crickets over her 'murder her' language.

If one were to adopt the similarity that you pounce on above, that would be akin to comparing the sinking of the backyard canoe and that of the Lusitania.

Quote:

Quote:I find AOC's current comments equally unhinged; and again, the paradigm readily appears to be: "Green unhinged is met with explicit disavowal, and was met in her election with explicit opposition from top Republican leadership; AOC unhinged is met with..... either crickets, or comments on how Ted Cruz had it coming to him'.

I haven't seen much a difference between D's response to Omar and R's response to Greene in terms of the two events in question. Pretty similar level of outrage IIRC. I can't remember how long it took D's to come around with their condemnation... maybe it was a lot longer. I can't remember.

They still havent disavowed AOC's comments. So please, dont give me the 'similar outrage' with the two. The Republicans comments are definitely in the record, as is the leadership's active opposition to Greene in the primary. Comparing that to the sound of crickets and deeming them 'pretty similar' is quite the exercise I would posit.

(01-30-2021 10:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 08:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And back to my question: do you have the warm fuzzy's over AOC tweeting that Cruz 'tried to have [her] murdered'?

Never did see an answer to this question.

I think her statement was hyperbole, but that what Cruz did could have ended up with Pelosi, AOC, or Pence killed. AOC probably gets a lot of death threats and folks like Cruz make the situation worse.

I mean, would you feel even remotely safe if you were AOC on 1/6 and hundreds of pro-Trump folks were battering their way through Capitol Police into the building?!? The Trump folks were willing to attack police when supposedly this is the “blue lives matter” crowd, I shudder to think of what they would have done to the liberal bogeymen (mostly women) like AOC, Pelosi, Tlaib, etc. if they had been found by some segments of the mob.

I think Cruz was complicit in Trump’s dangerous gambit and aided him by objecting to the results of a legitimate, democratic election. Cruz’s actions will forever be seen as being complicit in an unprecedented attack against our democracy. (that is me basically copying what Senator Romney said about the likes of Hawley and Cruz on 1/6).

I wouldn't feel safe if I were AOC trying to cross the street.

(01-30-2021 04:37 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 10:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 08:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And back to my question: do you have the warm fuzzy's over AOC tweeting that Cruz 'tried to have [her] murdered'?

Never did see an answer to this question.

I think her statement was hyperbole, but that what Cruz did could have ended up with Pelosi, AOC, or Pence killed. AOC probably gets a lot of death threats and folks like Cruz make the situation worse.

I mean, would you feel even remotely safe if you were AOC on 1/6 and hundreds of pro-Trump folks were battering their way through Capitol Police into the building?!?

No. I would not feel safe in in any sort of civil disturbance. I maust say I would feel even more unsafe at a BLM protest, especially if I voiced my opinion.

Quote:The Trump folks were willing to attack police when supposedly this is the “blue lives matter” crowd, I shudder to think of what they would have done to the liberal bogeymen (mostly women) like AOC, Pelosi, Tlaib, etc. if they had been found by some segments of the mob.

My opinion is that their bark was worse than their bite, and had they found those people, probably it would have been similar to what happens when a dog chases a car and the car stops.

BTW, the opposite of the "Blue Lives matter" crowd is what? The Blue Lives DON'T matter crowd?

Quote:I think Cruz was complicit in Trump’s dangerous gambit and aided him by objecting to the results of a legitimate, democratic election.

Well, our country was founded on dangerous gambits, such as the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War. I don't think making objections to a suspicious election is verboten, or should be. If it is, the entire three years of Russia! Russia! Russia! should count the same.

(01-30-2021 04:37 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 10:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 08:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And back to my question: do you have the warm fuzzy's over AOC tweeting that Cruz 'tried to have [her] murdered'?

Never did see an answer to this question.

I think her statement was hyperbole, but that what Cruz did could have ended up with Pelosi, AOC, or Pence killed. AOC probably gets a lot of death threats and folks like Cruz make the situation worse.

I mean, would you feel even remotely safe if you were AOC on 1/6 and hundreds of pro-Trump folks were battering their way through Capitol Police into the building?!? The Trump folks were willing to attack police when supposedly this is the “blue lives matter” crowd, I shudder to think of what they would have done to the liberal bogeymen (mostly women) like AOC, Pelosi, Tlaib, etc. if they had been found by some segments of the mob.

I think Cruz was complicit in Trump’s dangerous gambit and aided him by objecting to the results of a legitimate, democratic election. Cruz’s actions will forever be seen as being complicit in an unprecedented attack against our democracy. (that is me basically copying what Senator Romney said about the likes of Hawley and Cruz on 1/6).

What exactly did Cruz do?

If your answer is 'objecting to the results of an election', you are really going to have to dig a lot (and I mean a LOT) harder to find something so obscenely over the top that you imply.

I mean, how *dare* someone object. How *dare* someone ask for an audit.

(that is *me* saying what happened, not copying another person's words which you seemingly hang your hat on.)

Please do tell, and answer that first question about *exactly* what Ted Cruz did (that is aside from the broad-brush platitude assumptions embedded in your post from the onset.)

I'm all ears for how depraved Cruz is in his actions, but remember, kind of need to be specific.

I have zero interest in digging up stuff on Cruz right now. I am not going to change your opinions and you do not seem open-minded on the subject. I am comfortable parroting and agreeing with what one of his own Republican Senate colleagues said on the subject. That doesn’t need to satisfy you or be enough for you. I can live with that.

(01-30-2021 05:57 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I have zero interest in digging up stuff on Cruz right now. I am not going to change your opinions and you do not seem open-minded on the subject. I am comfortable parroting and agreeing with what one of his own Republican Senate colleagues said on the subject. That doesn’t need to satisfy you or be enough for you. I can live with that.

Big, I am deeply curious about *why* Cruz is the most evil person in the Senate, and *what* he did that earned that wide as a barn comment.

Dont pawn it off on 'I wont agree with you' when *your* wide as a barn comment is asked about the details behind it. Good grief.

If you want to make that country mile wide assertion, nothing prevents you from making it. But I would suggest that you *dont* fob off *your* lack of details on my supposed 'never going to agree with it' viewpoint if/when your naked assumption and loaded language is challenged.

In essence, you made an opening statement of yours.

When noted for the reasons and facts behind them, you fob off to do so.

Thats the problem of mile wide assertions, sometimes people ask for facts backing them up. I would hope that in trial, when you make a very deep and eventful assertive statement ibn court, when pressed with presenting facts that back that, that you dont retreat to the combination of: a) someone else said it and agrees with me; b) Im not going to give you facts that back up that assertion; c) I *wont* give you the facts that underlie that assertion since you wont believe me, in varying weights.

As for me 'not being open minded', you can go jump in the proverbial lake. If you cant (or wont) proffer facts, that in no way is *any* evidence of any extent of my open mindedness or not. Funny that. Hit me with some facts, but dont run away telling me how close minded I am when I have the (apparent) gd temerity to ask *you* for underlying facts of what specifically Cruz did that engenders him as the most evilific Senator in this regard. Shame on you for that horseshit move.

(01-30-2021 05:57 PM)mrbig Wrote:  you do not seem open-minded on the subject.

Who do you consider open-minded?

(I think I know, but I wanted to see you say it)

(01-30-2021 02:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 12:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  You read it wrong. I meant how stupid was it for AOC to accuse Ted Cruz of hyperbolic, incendiary language

So you read 'tried to have me murdered' as an accusation of 'hyperbolic, incendiary language'?

Its a *use* of hyperbolic incendiary language. I fail to see anywhere where AOC accuses Ted of using hyperbolic incendiary language. She accuses him of 'trying to murder her'.

Quote:I meant that it was really dumb to do exactly what she accused him of doing but x10.

Again, where exactly does she accuse Ted in any way, shape, or form of 'using hyperbolic, incendiary language? Or is this your interpretation and channeling of her words?

Quote:As to "glossed over" have I not made it clear that I thought what she said sucked?

It read as an excuse of her language 93. Thank you for clarifying. In fact, it introduced Cruz's (as yet unspecified) 'hyperbolic' language, and you still keep pointing to that 'hyperbolic' language more in your last post. What is 'hyperbolic' about Cruz's 'stop the steal' language that you consistently raise as a parallel?

Quote:

Quote:Saying someone 'tried to murder' you, if uttered in any other forum, rises to libelous speech if untrue. Not just libelous, but horrendously grotesque in nature.

Since we are talking about OAC and her gang in distinction to Greene, this very recent comment from her seems rather germane. Some here might point to my apparent racism and the touch point of AOC's skin color as playing a part in my criticism: but this comment is a wonderful counterpoint to that claim of 'skin color' coloring my beliefs (and those of others, I might surmise).

I can readily point to Greene as a demagogic half wit that is sad was elected to office based on her past comments. And I point to AOC in the same manner.

The big distinction is that the Repub leadership actually has explicitly made comments distancing themselves from Greene, and in the past the high leadership explicitly campaigned against her, to the extent that the #2 and #3 positions in the House explicitly and openly backed her opponent based on Greenes comments *and* positions.

In distinction, AOC and her gang are very much closer to the mainstream of modern Democratic thought and policy than Greene is or ever has been to that of Republican.

Thanks for pointing that out. It's eerily similar to what I said in my first post of this morning (you know... the one that unhinged you):

That said... certainly AOC's views are closer to mainstream Democrat than Greene's views are to mainstream Republican (at least I hope so).

There is hardly any similarity between the phrase italicized above and 'Republicans have disavowed, and in the past have actively opposed, Greene, while the Democrats seemingly embrace AOC's positions and in this instance are imitating crickets over her 'murder her' language.

If one were to adopt the similarity that you pounce on above, that would be akin to comparing the sinking of the backyard canoe and that of the Lusitania.

Quote:

Quote:I find AOC's current comments equally unhinged; and again, the paradigm readily appears to be: "Green unhinged is met with explicit disavowal, and was met in her election with explicit opposition from top Republican leadership; AOC unhinged is met with..... either crickets, or comments on how Ted Cruz had it coming to him'.

I haven't seen much a difference between D's response to Omar and R's response to Greene in terms of the two events in question. Pretty similar level of outrage IIRC. I can't remember how long it took D's to come around with their condemnation... maybe it was a lot longer. I can't remember.

They still havent disavowed AOC's comments. So please, dont give me the 'similar outrage' with the two. The Republicans comments are definitely in the record, as is the leadership's active opposition to Greene in the primary. Comparing that to the sound of crickets and deeming them 'pretty similar' is quite the exercise I would posit.

The bottom line is I was not familiar with the specifics of who said what. I had vaguely heard mention of AOC asserting that Cruz had put her life at risk. I confess to not really digging into the details on it. To be honest, I didn’t think it was really necessary to do so because when I wrote that post I was trying to agree with you. When I saw your post I thought to myself, “With all the disagreeing that Tanq and I do, it would be nice to voice some common ground.” I was happy to pile on AOC with you. Clearly, that was a mistake on my part.

We have now had who knows how many (and I'm surely not going to spend the effort to count) going back and forth about personalities. Where do these people stand on the issues?

As nearly as I can tell, Cruz takes many positions that I support and a few that I think are nuts. AOC takes no issue positions that I think are not nuts, off the top of my head--except maybe the one where she sort of agreed with Cruz, but went on to rant about something that I think is nuts.

(01-29-2021 06:56 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-29-2021 03:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-29-2021 03:25 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Ham - what that "other woman" did to your daughter was not "be a slut". There are more accurate phrases like "gold digger" or "slept her way to the top". Here are some actual definitions, none of which describe what happened to your daughter with this other woman:
Merriam-Webster - disparaging + offensive : a promiscuous person : someone who has many sexual partners —usually used of a woman
Cambridge Dictionary - a woman who has sexual relationships with a lot of men without any emotional involvement
dictionary.com - Disparaging and Offensive. a person, especially a woman, who is sexually promiscuous.
vocabulary.com - A slut is a vulgar insult hurled at woman and it implies that she sleeps around or has sex with too many people. It is not cool to call any woman a slut.

Rather than thinking it is OK because your daughter is OK with it, maybe expand the portfolio of voices you consider? This article in Teen Vogue is pretty elucidating.

Also, if you have any links to definitions that suggest it is not an offensive term, I'll read them. Might as well expand my own knowledge and views.

Why did you do this?

1) I've said a dozen times including here that its offensive... so why do you imply that I didn't?

You say the word is offensive to the woman it is directed at, rather than all women. You also say that it applies to the woman who got a job instead of your daughter, and what she did does not meet these descriptions. That is why I copy-pasted these definitions. And for everyone else.

A) Your response above doesn't address your request of me to provide you with a definition claiming it isn't offensive. That's what you asked... and I never once said it wasn't offensive.
B) Not one of your definitions says that even though the term may be levied against one woman, that ALL women are offended by its use... which is what you're now talking about. I guess we'll just ignore the thousands of time every day that women use the term against women or anyone uses it against men... and go with the Teen Vogue article as opposed to reality. It may be ugly reality and as vocabulary.com says, 'not cool'.... but its still reality.
C) My point was that it was INTENDED to offend the recipient of the word... My daughter meant for it to offend... Numbers means for it to offend... Other than those times its used as a joke, I can't imagine that ANYONE who uses that word (or any of dozens of other words) DON'T intend to offend the person the word is directed towards. If someone else chooses to be offended by it, that's their choice. I taught my daughter not to internalize stereotypes... and I also follow the line from whatever movie that was where the guy says 'he called my mom a whore' and the question was, 'Is she?' If she's not, then how does it say anything about ANYONE except the speaker? Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me... And Elanor Roosevelt... Nobody can make you feel inferior without your acquiescence. Teen vogue is entitled to their opinion... In my family we prefer not to give words uttered by detractors that much power.

D) Kindly show me a word that describes a woman who strategically engages in a sex for power exchange thereby enabling a misogynist to the detriment of other women. Until you show me that word with the definition like that in those same sources as you present above, you're admitting that such a word doesn't exist.

Quote:I wasn't trying to say anything specific about your daughter or my wife or your parenting. Sorry if my inartful posts made it come off that way!

I know you didn't and I'll apologize back if that sounds like what I was responding to.

What I meant was that whether or not my daughter used it has no bearing on whether or not I think its okay. I never ONCE said it was okay. I simply tried to imply that when people feel deeply hurt and offended or angry or any of a number of other emotions, 'proper etiquette' often goes out the window... at least momentarily.

Quote:I am just trying to move to more objective sources rather than comparing your daughter's opinion vs. my wife's opinion vs. the opinions of a bunch of dudes on a message board.

But you're still replying to something I never said.... and I brought up my daughter solely to point out that despite your opinion on the definition of the word, that a woman... who according to you would be especially offended by the word, found it LINGUISITICALLY appropriate to describe the person.

You seem to want to engage in an argument about values and whether that's a word that should be used... and I've said a dozen times now that its an ugly word that shouldn't be used... but the REALITY is that sometimes such vulgar words are the only way to express the anger one feels. My daughter was that angry.

And then we go to definitions, and as I have also said numerous times... The word doesn't fit, but no other word does either.... and apparently a decent number of people find it to be 'close enough'.

(01-29-2021 03:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  My daughter and I think so and I have no idea what you think because you keep trying to imply things I've never remotely said.... though I haven't seen you present a better word that doesn't violate the same rules you have here.

"Gold digger" or "slept her way to the top" are both more accurate and less offensive. As I previously wrote...
[/quote]

Yet when you pull the definition of Gold Digger, NOWHERE does it present someone who enables a misogynist thereby putting a ceiling on women who don't.... or someone who exchanged power for someone in a position of power.... in no small part but because of the use of the term 'gold'.... and 'slept her way to the top' I don't think is in the dictionary.

Oh man... I'm so incensed at that person for what she did. She slept her way to the top!! Yeah, that really captures the anger and offense... and the momentary sense of 'I guess this is the only way women can succeed' that my daughter (and millions of others) experience(d). She's a 'sleeper to the top' person!!

I wonder what Teen Vogue thinks about women who enable misogynists? I suspect they tell them NOT to.... and that its bad and offensive to other women.... just as they did in your article... and I doubt they'd say that it was 'okay' to call a woman a gold-digger or that they 'slept their way to the top' based on the way they dress. I suspect they would STILL say that it was offensive.

So again... what I'm saying is that the word, even though not exactly on point... can capture the essence of the act along with the anger or pain that can be felt. If your daughter comes home one day and says that some girl stole her boyfriend by sleeping with him when she wouldn't... and if she calls her a slut... I'm 100% sure you would acknowledge the anger and hurt she feels and discourage her from using the word... but I suspect you won't pull out your dictionary and tell her that 'person with a lower moral code' is a more accurate term to use.

As to whether it offends every woman? I suspect it offends some and not others... UNLESS they are the targets of it... In which case I suspect it offends more, but still not all.... like rapist or pedophile or sexual predator. Why do we think women internalize 'slut' directed at someone else any more than men internalize 'rapist'? Other than perhaps some centuries old sense that women aren't as strong as men are?

(01-30-2021 07:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 05:57 PM)mrbig Wrote:  you do not seem open-minded on the subject.

Who do you consider open-minded?

(I think I know, but I wanted to see you say it)

I think we are all open-minded on some issues. I don’t sense that Tanq or anyone else delving into this Cruz/AOC spat is very open-minded.

Tanq - I do not recall ever saying, writing, or otherwise endorsing that Cruz is the most evil person in the Senate. Not sure where you came up with that one.

(01-30-2021 06:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As for me 'not being open minded', you can go jump in the proverbial lake. If you cant (or wont) proffer facts, that in no way is *any* evidence of any extent of my open mindedness or not. Funny that. Hit me with some facts, but dont run away telling me how close minded I am when I have the (apparent) gd temerity to ask *you* for underlying facts of what specifically Cruz did that engenders him as the most evilific Senator in this regard. Shame on you for that horseshit move.

I feel like you are perhaps not well. I am not sure where this heightened amount of vitriol is coming from. I don’t recall ever calling Cruz evil. Shame on you for whatever horseshit move you are currently pulling. I don’t care enough about the topic to dig into this. There have been many many many posts where I provided a lot of factual support for my contentions. I don’t feel like doing so this time because I don’t care. And I don’t feel like responding to someone who is being a total a$$hole about it and who is also putting words into my mouth. Go bark up a different tree.

(01-30-2021 08:53 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 07:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 05:57 PM)mrbig Wrote:  you do not seem open-minded on the subject.

Who do you consider open-minded?

(I think I know, but I wanted to see you say it)

I think we are all open-minded on some issues. I don’t sense that Tanq or anyone else delving into this Cruz/AOC spat is very open-minded.

Tanq - I do not recall ever saying, writing, or otherwise endorsing that Cruz is the most evil person in the Senate. Not sure where you came up with that one.

I guess we have different definitions of "open minded".

Although I am in agreement with some left-wing issues/solutions, as are all the right-wingers here, I was thinking more of the likelihood of somebody either changing their mind, or being undecided but willing to hear arguments on both sides before committing.

I cannot remember the last time somebody here changed their position based on something another poster said.

So I think it is much closer to we are all NOT open minded.

Out of curiosity, what topics do you think I have been open minded about, since I am a part of "we...all".

(01-30-2021 08:59 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 06:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As for me 'not being open minded', you can go jump in the proverbial lake. If you cant (or wont) proffer facts, that in no way is *any* evidence of any extent of my open mindedness or not. Funny that. Hit me with some facts, but dont run away telling me how close minded I am when I have the (apparent) gd temerity to ask *you* for underlying facts of what specifically Cruz did that engenders him as the most evilific Senator in this regard. Shame on you for that horseshit move.

I feel like you are perhaps not well. I am not sure where this heightened amount of vitriol is coming from. I don’t recall ever calling Cruz evil. Shame on you for whatever horseshit move you are currently pulling. I don’t care enough about the topic to dig into this. There have been many many many posts where I provided a lot of factual support for my contentions. I don’t feel like doing so this time because I don’t care. And I don’t feel like responding to someone who is being a total a$$hole about it and who is also putting words into my mouth. Go bark up a different tree.

Big, I asked you a simple question -- what precisely did "Cruz [do] [that]could have ended up with Pelosi, AOC, or Pence killed."

Your response was 'I am not going to answer' that very broad comment. And, you added that 'you are not open minded enough.' (paraphrase)

Excuse the hell out of me for asking the basis of a very broad and conclusory assertion. But since I am obviously a close minded ignorant, why bother. Got it.

Look, if you (or I) state the grandiose deep statement that you proffered, I think it fair to ask precisely *why* or *what* the acts were for that.

Apparently I am too close minded for you to deign to be bothered to back your grandiose conclusory sentence. You made that fairly clear there.

And yes, I was little hyperbolic about the 'most evil', but from your sentence that Cruz did stuff that almost killed several people, I dont think that is too much of stretch.

I will take it that you are roger A-OK with the AOC statement that Cruz tried to have her murdered, as when you read what you yourself wrote isnt too far from that.

Yes, Cruz objected to various elections. I know you dont like that, but that is *far* from doing something that could have killed various people. Amazingly far.

And, big, if you dont want to answer the details on a grandiose and conclusory as **** statement, that is your right to do so. My paradigm is that if I make a broad and conclusory as hell statement, then it is perfectly acceptable to be questioned on the details. You simply apparently want to throw that broad conclusory statement out there, then simply walk away when one dares ask for exactly *what* backs it. Got it.

But to denote that one of the reasons that you do not that is because the person being responded to is too 'close minded' for you to bother --- well go jump in the proverbial lake too if that is your characterization. Capiche?

And yes, what I describe *is* a horseshit move. As for being an 'a$$hole' about it, I guess you dont notice your own 'close minded' statement there at the onset, pardner.

(01-30-2021 08:53 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 07:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-30-2021 05:57 PM)mrbig Wrote:  you do not seem open-minded on the subject.

Who do you consider open-minded?

(I think I know, but I wanted to see you say it)

I think we are all open-minded on some issues. I don’t sense that Tanq or anyone else delving into this Cruz/AOC spat is very open-minded.

Tanq - I do not recall ever saying, writing, or otherwise endorsing that Cruz is the most evil person in the Senate. Not sure where you came up with that one.

I simply asked for exactly *what* Cruz did that crossed bigs line. I dont see what he did that leads you to the 'Cruz could have gotten people killed' juncture.

If you present a horrendous thing that Cruz did, I will readily consider it --- maybe there are things he did and said that I dont know about. Maybe Cruz walked into the lobby, whistled to the antler guy, and told em 'Stretch is down the hall', or 'AOC just went that way'.

I keep hearing how Cruz is a cause in fact of the riot, and how Cruz 'could have gotten people killed'. I think a little light being shown on the genesis of the belief is a fair thing to ask.

When I see big also write that for all intents and purposes that Cruz did things that could have gotten people killed, that isnt too far off from the AOC statements.

Perhaps the game de jour is to accuse people of trying to kill AOC, or doing things that could have gotten them killed. Then calling the people who ask for specifics as too 'close minded' to bother to answer.

Fun, fun, fun.