(02-05-2021 11:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just points out how powerless she is - is there any possibility of her getting the rules changed to allow a handgun? It doesn't matter to me if she advocates armor clad desks if it is just a pipe dream.

I haven't followed the situation closely, but after the 1/6 storming of the capital I'm pretty sure they installed metal detectors and security checkpoints at the entrances to the House floor. Some Republicans have not been complying with this and choose to get fined for not complying. So ... while she can't change the rules, they are just refusing to cooperate.

(02-05-2021 11:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As for the support of killing people, it would depend on if I took her words to be literal or figurative. Foe example, one Democrat said Republicans wanted people to die, and another talked of pushing Granny off a cliff. Did we take it literally?

Master of the red herring, side-step, and both siderisms! I find it very frustrating to try and engage with you because of this kind of stuff. It isn't hard to figure out what Greene wrote or liked or shared. If you don't feel like doing some modicum of research on your own, I won't fault you for it. But just throwing up these silly smoke screens is not productive.

(02-05-2021 12:30 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-05-2021 11:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just points out how powerless she is - is there any possibility of her getting the rules changed to allow a handgun? It doesn't matter to me if she advocates armor clad desks if it is just a pipe dream.

I haven't followed the situation closely, but after the 1/6 storming of the capital I'm pretty sure they installed metal detectors and security checkpoints at the entrances to the House floor. Some Republicans have not been complying with this and choose to get fined for not complying. So ... while she can't change the rules, they are just refusing to cooperate.

I think you mean "comply". But in any case, even together, they haven't the political means of changing the rules.

(02-05-2021 11:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As for the support of killing people, it would depend on if I took her words to be literal or figurative. Foe example, one Democrat said Republicans wanted people to die, and another talked of pushing Granny off a cliff. Did we take it literally?

Master of the red herring, side-step, and both siderisms! I find it very frustrating to try and engage with you because of this kind of stuff. It isn't hard to figure out what Greene wrote or liked or shared. If you don't feel like doing some modicum of research on your own, I won't fault you for it. But just throwing up these silly smoke screens is not productive.

Just when I thought we were having a discussion, you fly off into a name-calling tirade because I see things differently (and IMO, more common sensically) than you do.

I hear people make outlandish claims all the time. I have parents say "I am going to kill that kid when I find him. I have hreard a parent say he was going to break his kids arm. I have heard, back in the days of Viet Nam, Democrats(!) say that the hippies should be lined up and shot. I never took any of those seriously, like I guess you would. Never reported them to the thought and word police, watched the kids grow up, watched the hippies cut their hair and run for office, mostly as Democrats. Bill Ayers, Tom Hayden, etc.

I think the Democrats are piling on to Greene, not because she poses a real threat, but because they can take figurative statements literally and use them for political advantage. I don't see her as a risk to anybody; you do, and it seems you do because you are buying the rhetoric that she is deadly serious about shooting people. That's why I keep asking what is the danger of allowing her to serve on committees. Still don't have an answer on that, from anybody here.

(02-05-2021 12:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-05-2021 12:30 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Master of the red herring, side-step, and both siderisms!

Just when I thought we were having a discussion, you fly off into a name-calling tirade because I see things differently (and IMO, more common sensically) than you do.

Name-calling tirade seems a bit strong. I called you a master of certain arguing techniques. Lots of people on here have certainly used much worse names toward others (Tanq being rather infamous for it).

(02-05-2021 12:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I hear people make outlandish claims all the time. I have parents say "I am going to kill that kid when I find him. I have hreard a parent say he was going to break his kids arm. I have heard, back in the days of Viet Nam, Democrats(!) say that the hippies should be lined up and shot. I never took any of those seriously, like I guess you would.

Stop guessing what I would do or how I think or I will kill you. (extremely tongue-in-cheek and hopefully an obvious joke)

(02-05-2021 12:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the Democrats are piling on to Greene, not because she poses a real threat, but because they can take figurative statements literally and use them for political advantage. I don't see her as a risk to anybody; you do, and it seems you do because you are buying the rhetoric that she is deadly serious about shooting people.

If you don't know what she said, liked, or posted and you don't know the context of what she said, liked, or posted ... how do you feel comfortable deciding that she isn't a risk to anybody?!?

I have read about those things and I can understand why people in Congress would be extremely uncomfortable with her in the Capital, especially after 1/6.

(02-05-2021 12:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  That's why I keep asking what is the danger of allowing her to serve on committees. Still don't have an answer on that, from anybody here.

Keep asking? As far as I can tell you only asked once before this.

To answer your question, putting politics aside, her beliefs are so violent and outside the norm that I believe putting her in a position of power where she can spread those beliefs to others is dangerous. I think removing her from committees is a small step to remove her power, like was done with Steve King (former Iowa Congressman) a few years ago. Of course with Steve King, Republicans did it themselves, rather than having the entire House vote to remove.

If there was a Democrat who was elected to Congress who believed that 9/11 was an inside job done to boost George W. Bush's approval ratings in a rally-around-the-flag affect, believed that Trump supporters started the California wildfires to hurt liberal Californians, believed that Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy ran a pedophilia ring where children were molested, believed that conservatives had orchestrated the shootings in El Paso and Las Vegas to distract from Trump's poor performance as POTUS, and believed that as a result McConnell and McCarthy should be executed ... I would say that the democratic congressman should be expelled from Congress, not just have committee assignments removed. I wouldn't want that democrat having any power or leadership whatsoever. And that is true even if that democratic congressman also advocated the exact policy positions that I prefer on every single issue. I would say to get that person away from power and out of the spotlight ASAP and replace them with someone that I agree with less on policy issues (regardless of whether the replacement was a democrat or republican.

So big, you are for Congress short circuiting an explicit choice of the people? On a subjective basis to boot. Wow.

Quote:If there was a Democrat who was elected.... should be expelled.

(02-05-2021 03:37 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-05-2021 12:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-05-2021 12:30 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Master of the red herring, side-step, and both siderisms!

Just when I thought we were having a discussion, you fly off into a name-calling tirade because I see things differently (and IMO, more common sensically) than you do.

Name-calling tirade seems a bit strong. I called you a master of certain arguing techniques. Lots of people on here have certainly used much worse names toward others (Tanq being rather infamous for it).

Still, you went directly to name-calling, and now try to defend it as not being among the worst names you could have chosen.

I am kind of curious as to what is wrong with with what you term two siderism, and curious as to what you think is a red herring or a sidestep. All I did was explain my thoughts to you and you blew up.

(02-05-2021 12:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I hear people make outlandish claims all the time. I have parents say "I am going to kill that kid when I find him. I have hreard a parent say he was going to break his kids arm. I have heard, back in the days of Viet Nam, Democrats(!) say that the hippies should be lined up and shot. I never took any of those seriously, like I guess you would.

Stop guessing what I would do or how I think or I will kill you. (extremely tongue-in-cheek and hopefully an obvious joke)

Kind of makes my point for me. If I were to take that as seriously as you want me to take Greene, I would report you not only to the mods but to the police. After all, making terroristic threats is a serious crime.

(02-05-2021 12:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the Democrats are piling on to Greene, not because she poses a real threat, but because they can take figurative statements literally and use them for political advantage. I don't see her as a risk to anybody; you do, and it seems you do because you are buying the rhetoric that she is deadly serious about shooting people.

If you don't know what she said, liked, or posted and you don't know the context of what she said, liked, or posted ... how do you feel comfortable deciding that she isn't a risk to anybody?!?
As your team keeps explaining what she is guilty of, I am coming more and more to know what she posted/said, and being an intelligent human being, can make up my own mind what I think of them. I don't need you or Pelosi to explain to me how I should think.

I have read about those things and I can understand why people in Congress would be extremely uncomfortable with her in the Capital, especially after 1/6.
I also read and understand, that it is entirely political.

(02-05-2021 12:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  That's why I keep asking what is the danger of allowing her to serve on committees. Still don't have an answer on that, from anybody here.

Keep asking? As far as I can tell you only asked once before this.
So what is the minimum number of times I have to ask before you will alow me to use the work "keep"?

To answer your question, putting politics aside, her beliefs are so violent and outside the norm that I believe putting her in a position of power where she can spread those beliefs to others is dangerous. I think removing her from committees is a small step to remove her power, like was done with Steve King (former Iowa Congressman) a few years ago. Of course with Steve King, Republicans did it themselves, rather than having the entire House vote to remove.
It is indeed a very small step, so small as to be useless. Certainly more punitive than useful. Certainly the word of a single minority memebr on the XYZ committee is so powerful that she could raise a small army in no time. Now, thank goodness, she has been muzzled and neutered and is no longer a threat to the common welfare.

If there was a Democrat who was elected to Congress who believed that 9/11 was an inside job done to boost George W. Bush's approval ratings in a rally-around-the-flag affect, believed that Trump supporters started the California wildfires to hurt liberal Californians, believed that Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy ran a pedophilia ring where children were molested, believed that conservatives had orchestrated the shootings in El Paso and Las Vegas to distract from Trump's poor performance as POTUS, and believed that as a result McConnell and McCarthy should be executed ... I would say that the democratic congressman should be expelled from Congress, not just have committee assignments removed. I wouldn't want that democrat having any power or leadership whatsoever. And that is true even if that democratic congressman also advocated the exact policy positions that I prefer on every single issue. I would say to get that person away from power and out of the spotlight ASAP and replace them with someone that I agree with less on policy issues (regardless of whether the replacement was a democrat or republican.

If believing in conspiracy theories was grounds for removal, then all the Democrats in congress should have been removed four years ago.

But more importantly, our democracy means we need to have voices in Congress from all over the spectrum. Once we start telling people that certain voices may not be heard, we are taking - no, I mean YOU,(the Democrats) are taking - the first steps toward an authoritarian state where wrongthink is a crime.

Plenty of members of Congress that, IMO, have strange and wrong beliefs. Lots of them are on your team.

(02-05-2021 04:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So big, you are for Congress short circuiting an explicit choice of the people? On a subjective basis to boot. Wow.

Quote:If there was a Democrat who was elected.... should be expelled.

I think there’s a place for the body to govern itself, but I hesitate to say the body should be able to explicitly expel people from its ranks. It’s one thing to expel them from the committees or the party, but another from the legislative body itself.

The biggest concern I have with this Greene thing, is how one sided the voting was. I’m fine with the result, based on how unfit she is to govern, but not a fan that Reps did not step up to the challenge. And frankly, if Dems couldn’t get a good majority of Reps, they shouldn’t have gone through the process of stripping her of her committee assignments.

(02-05-2021 06:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-05-2021 04:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So big, you are for Congress short circuiting an explicit choice of the people? On a subjective basis to boot. Wow.

Quote:If there was a Democrat who was elected.... should be expelled.

I think there’s a place for the body to govern itself, but I hesitate to say the body should be able to explicitly expel people from its ranks. It’s one thing to expel them from the committees or the party, but another from the legislative body itself.

The biggest concern I have with this Greene thing, is how one sided the voting was. I’m fine with the result, based on how unfit she is to govern, but not a fan that Reps did not step up to the challenge. And frankly, if Dems couldn’t get a good majority of Reps, they shouldn’t have gone through the process of stripping her of her committee assignments.

In a sense the Rs did step up.

When confronted in closed meeting Greene recanted and disavowed the positions.

And she repeated that to the body as a whole. To no avail apparently.

The act of stripping should be a party decision. If the Greens won, say, 20 seats on the platform of 9/11 truther -- the greens should have an absolute say on whom their representative is on the committees they have the right to fill.

The stripping of Greene even after her dual acts of disavowed just mean there is zero upside for any disavowed in the future.

(02-05-2021 04:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So big, you are for Congress short circuiting an explicit choice of the people? On a subjective basis to boot. Wow.

Quote:If there was a Democrat who was elected.... should be expelled.

In exceptionally rare circumstances, sure. Don’t bother asking me to define those circumstances, I will just answer with something like the definition of pornography. You know it when you see it.

Edit: after reading your follow-up and Lad’s, I acknowledge it is a tough and unique situation. I would be fine with expelling, fine with just committee removal, fine with censure ... but not really fine with nothing at all. I do worry about the precedent, but she, is a nut job in a way that the vast majority of extremists in either party is not even close to. She kind of redefines what am extremist is for people actually holding elected federal office.

OO - you are just the worst to have a dialogue with. I would rather deal with Tanq calling me names, Ham’s really long posts’s, and 69/70/75’s popcorn and sluttiness all at once. You really think that was me “blowing up”? Lol.

(02-05-2021 06:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-05-2021 04:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So big, you are for Congress short circuiting an explicit choice of the people? On a subjective basis to boot. Wow.

Quote:If there was a Democrat who was elected.... should be expelled.

I think there’s a place for the body to govern itself, but I hesitate to say the body should be able to explicitly expel people from its ranks. It’s one thing to expel them from the committees or the party, but another from the legislative body itself.

The biggest concern I have with this Greene thing, is how one sided the voting was. I’m fine with the result, based on how unfit she is to govern, but not a fan that Reps did not step up to the challenge.

Surely you can comfort yourself with the belief that failure to sufficiently discipline lunacy among one's fellow travelers is a uniquely Republican weakness.

(02-06-2021 09:09 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-05-2021 06:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-05-2021 04:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So big, you are for Congress short circuiting an explicit choice of the people? On a subjective basis to boot. Wow.

Quote:If there was a Democrat who was elected.... should be expelled.

I think there’s a place for the body to govern itself, but I hesitate to say the body should be able to explicitly expel people from its ranks. It’s one thing to expel them from the committees or the party, but another from the legislative body itself.

The biggest concern I have with this Greene thing, is how one sided the voting was. I’m fine with the result, based on how unfit she is to govern, but not a fan that Reps did not step up to the challenge.

Surely you can comfort yourself with the belief that failure to sufficiently discipline lunacy among one's fellow travelers is a uniquely Republican weakness.

(02-06-2021 12:24 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-05-2021 04:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So big, you are for Congress short circuiting an explicit choice of the people? On a subjective basis to boot. Wow.

Quote:If there was a Democrat who was elected.... should be expelled.

In exceptionally rare circumstances, sure. Don’t bother asking me to define those circumstances, I will just answer with something like the definition of pornography. You know it when you see it.

And that is precisely why I denoted the action as purely 'subjective'.

Quote:Edit: after reading your follow-up and Lad’s, I acknowledge it is a tough and unique situation. I would be fine with expelling, fine with just committee removal, fine with censure ... but not really fine with nothing at all. I do worry about the precedent, but she, is a nut job in a way that the vast majority of extremists in either party is not even close to. She kind of redefines what am extremist is for people actually holding elected federal office.

So the Constitutional requirements *should* be at least 25 years old, have been a U.S. citizen for at least seven years, and live in the state they represent (though not necessarily the same district), *and* 'not be an extremist'.

My problem with that (as it is with much of the progressive viewpoint) is two-fold: an addition of a requirement out of thin air; and having purely subjective rationale being a condition.

In conjunction, I think the Democrats here have done a really bad 'tip over the line', akin to the Dingy Harry move to scuttle the filibuster. This is a move that can be used in a purely arbitrary manner, and simply invites retaliation in using the same mode.

Kind of short sighted for the Democrats in a sense, imo.

Republicans in Congress should have a very low tolerance for Greene’s conspiracy-mongering, but they should be unified in safeguarding the long-standing norm that the parties must police their own or suffer the consequences. If the Democrats break that norm, this game won’t stop with Greene.

Democrats are delusional if they believe the GOP won’t return the favor and push Omar from her post on the House Foreign Affairs Committee when the tables are turned.

But now, we have a purely subjective norm that makes it copacetic to do so.

Thirdly, as noted before, Greene disavowed and recanted her previous positions to her full caucus. Scuttlebut was that had she refused, the republicans would not have just de-committeed her, but some were actually prepared to join in a resolution to expel if need be.

Greene followed up that caucus wide disavowal with a full disavowal in front of the chamber as a whole. Now, the rule shall be that in these cases, a disavowal will be useless as an exit point. Do you think that will make the current political climate better or worse?

But, leave it to the Democrats to open that Pandora box, much as they started the filibuster killer stuff. Fun fun fun. And, leave it to the progressives to ground it in purely subjective rationale.

(02-06-2021 12:33 AM)mrbig Wrote:  OO - you are just the worst to have a dialogue with. I would rather deal with Tanq calling me names, Ham’s really long posts’s, and 69/70/75’s popcorn and sluttiness all at once. You really think that was me “blowing up”? Lol.p

Golly gee, Wally, you think that was nothing? Once again excusing yourself with the excuse it could have been worse.

I am sure it could have been worse. When you really blow up in a big way you tend to also leave. It does smack of a red herring - rather than address what I said, you preferred to take false umbrage. Now we are talking about that umbrage rather than Greene. Well done, sir.

I agree , we do not dialogue well together, because we are resolute in our positions. What is interesting is that you think this make ME to be at fault, and YOU guiltless.

Here is what you said to my very patient explanation of what I thought:

“Master of the red herring, side-step, and both siderisms!“

I fail to see the spirit of bipartisanship and unity in that. I also fail to see the desire for calm discussion, which generally requires neither names nor exclamation points.

I know what red herrings are and I know what a sidestep is. Democrats doing both daily. I don’t see what you consider to be a red herring or a sidestep. What are “both siderisms” and why are they bad?

To bolster my point above, here are some comments from Tom Cotton (R Ark) (i.e. the same Tom Cotton who created an insurrection at the NYT for having the audacity to be be allowed to state on their opinion page that the BLM riots should be dealt with by actual enforcement of the law)

“Make no mistake, plenty of Democrats do and say outlandish things, too. Ilhan Omar has made multiple antisemitic statements. Maxine Waters urged mobs to attack Trump administration officials. Eric Swalwell cavorted with a Chinese spy. Chuck Schumer threatened two Supreme Court justices [if] they didn’t rule the way he wanted."

“What the Democrats proposed to do, to reach into the minority and decide who the minority party is going to put on committees is unprecedented, and if they go down that path, then mark my words, Republicans in two years, we’ll go down the same path. Should Ilhan Omar, who’s made multiple antisemitic statements, be sitting on the Foreign Relations Committee? Should Eric Swalwell, cavorting with a Chinese spy be sitting on the Intelligence Committee?”

“This is a very dangerous precedent that the Democratic majority in the House wants to set when they’re on the precipice of losing that majority next year. What Democrats and the liberal media want to do is to leverage a fringe of extremist statements and violence from the right against mainstream conservatives in a way that they would never do on the left.”

As we see once again:
- "Progressives" demonstrate their belief that power should be used aggressively, in case it is used virtuously.
- Others believe it should not, in case it is not.
- History makes abundantly clear which course is wiser.
- "Progressives" disdain history.

(02-06-2021 09:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What Democrats and the liberal media want to do is to leverage a fringe of extremist statements and violence from the right against mainstream conservatives in a way that they would never do on the left.”

Exactly why I have been saying this is all political. Painting a picture of right wing extremism permeating the entire caucus.

Why Schumer is cozying up to the AIC wing

"He had done a bunch of homework and knew everything that we were going to ask about and made a bunch of commitments with us to make it happen,” said Cea Weaver, a strategist for New York’s Housing Justice for All coalition. “He was like: I’m talking to Ilhan Omar, I’m talking to Bernie Sanders, I’m talking to A.O.C.”

There is no "Greene" wing of the GOP. Nobody in leadership is 'cozying up" to them. THAT is why the Squad (their name for themselves) is both different from Greene and infinitely more dangerous.

(02-06-2021 10:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2021 09:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What Democrats and the liberal media want to do is to leverage a fringe of extremist statements and violence from the right against mainstream conservatives in a way that they would never do on the left.”

Exactly why I have been saying this is all political. Painting a picture of right wing extremism permeating the entire caucus.

What I don't understand or accept is the obvious double standard that conservatives are painted as the most extreme nutcases on the right, no matter how much they disavow them, but leftists can embrace the most extreme nutcases on the left with impunity.

(02-08-2021 09:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-06-2021 10:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-06-2021 09:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What Democrats and the liberal media want to do is to leverage a fringe of extremist statements and violence from the right against mainstream conservatives in a way that they would never do on the left.”

Exactly why I have been saying this is all political. Painting a picture of right wing extremism permeating the entire caucus.

What I don't understand or accept is the obvious double standard that conservatives are painted as the most extreme nutcases on the right, no matter how much they disavow them, but leftists can embrace the most extreme nutcases on the left with impunity.

There's inherently a conflation of issues here, which I think started with this thread premise that is a bit off-the-mark in the inclusion of Greene in the comparison.

Republicans have done exactly what you're saying Dems have done, in regard to political philosophies. The Tea Party and Freedom Caucuses have 100% been embraced by the right and have influenced the politics of Reps in more concrete ways than The Squad has on the left.

This is starkly obvious by the fact that Mitt Romney is now considered a liberal conservative.

The thing is, the issues with Greene aren't related to her politic views, but her personal views. Do you think Reps have never tried to weaponize personal views of Dems to attack those politicians of the rest of the party?

nonstop coverage of Greene risks turning her into the next Trump

Sorry guys, maybe it is best that yu read this one for yourselves rather than rely on my snippets.