(10-05-2025 08:15 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-04-2025 09:29 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2025 08:43 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Now mind you this is another “political Attorney General” that Tanqi Ofer Bois would be telling us is as pure as the driven snow. A government official who would never be biased. Never do harm to political opponents. Always go by the book. Never use the law against anyone he doesn’t like or agree with. Always deal in facts. Always follow the constitution.

If tanq is speaking, he's lying.

I'll get some pushback for this but I don't think he's lying. I think he is misguided in thinking that the law is absolute perhaps, and it appears that his whole life is the law, as shown in his writings. I don't think he likes to think about, much less acknowledge, the distinct possibility that there are those in our political system who are perverting justice for their own ends and getting away with it under the guise of some legal technicalities. However misguided I may think he is, he certainly has the same rights we do to speak freely. If you pay attention he is right more than he's wrong about the finer points of the law. He may be wrong in his conclusions most of the time - I really couldn't say - but none of us bats .1000 and I'm not sure he's ever 100% wrong.

While I'm not defending the way he speaks to people we are guilty of it ourselves, or at least I know I have been, I'm trying to ease up, not just for the sake of those I usually attack but for my own peace of mind...

There are a couple of recent examples of me asking him questions without resorting to being a smart ass, some that were probably fairly dumb questions or silly scenarios, and to his credit he answered in a respectful manner even while pointing out the absurdity of one of those scenarios.

Bottom line, I don't think we are as far apart from tanq as we are from the full blown loons here, I don't have to name them. They are the ones for whom I have no affinity, at all, none. In their ignorance, or in spite of it, who can be sure, they are supporting Marxism. It can't be stated any plainer than that. NYC is on the verge of having a self avowed freakin Muslim communist mayor - such strange bedfellows - and that's just the beginning.

Why don’t you just admit the obvious Tanq knows his interpretation of the law but has been brainwashed through his education and government propaganda. It’s really that simple.

He will NEVER be able to see it because as a former Russian dissident told me in college they have lost their ability to rationalize even with evidence of the truth in their lap.

All those texts mean is he is highly qualified for the job... based by the lefts standards nowadays.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

(10-05-2025 08:15 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-04-2025 09:29 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2025 08:43 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Now mind you this is another “political Attorney General” that Tanqi Ofer Bois would be telling us is as pure as the driven snow. A government official who would never be biased. Never do harm to political opponents. Always go by the book. Never use the law against anyone he doesn’t like or agree with. Always deal in facts. Always follow the constitution.

If tanq is speaking, he's lying.

I'll get some pushback for this but I don't think he's lying. I think he is misguided in thinking that the law is absolute perhaps, and it appears that his whole life is the law, as shown in his writings. I don't think he likes to think about, much less acknowledge, the distinct possibility that there are those in our political system who are perverting justice for their own ends and getting away with it under the guise of some legal technicalities. However misguided I may think he is, he certainly has the same rights we do to speak freely. If you pay attention he is right more than he's wrong about the finer points of the law. He may be wrong in his conclusions most of the time - I really couldn't say - but none of us bats .1000 and I'm not sure he's ever 100% wrong.

While I'm not defending the way he speaks to people we are guilty of it ourselves, or at least I know I have been, I'm trying to ease up, not just for the sake of those I usually attack but for my own peace of mind...

There are a couple of recent examples of me asking him questions without resorting to being a smart ass, some that were probably fairly dumb questions or silly scenarios, and to his credit he answered in a respectful manner even while pointing out the absurdity of one of those scenarios.

Bottom line, I don't think we are as far apart from tanq as we are from the full blown loons here, I don't have to name them. They are the ones for whom I have no affinity, at all, none. In their ignorance, or in spite of it, who can be sure, they are supporting Marxism. It can't be stated any plainer than that. NYC is on the verge of having a self avowed freakin Muslim communist mayor - such strange bedfellows - and that's just the beginning.

Quite the olive branch put out there. I doubt it will be accepted as you hope it will.
The problem with him is even being a lawyer, he doesn’t seem to understand that there are two sides in every courtroom. His finer points of the law are not fact. They are simply his argument to be met with an argument by other lawyers in a courtroom. He doesn’t have all the facts. He doesn’t know all outcomes. And he’s not the world‘s greatest expert on the law. Although he believes he is.
So good luck with your effort to get him to be civil.

Even when you were civil to tanq, he was still condescending to you in return. It's as if he held what you said in contempt because it "wasn't right" even if you had the facts on your side. If that's doesn't make one a narcissist, I don't know what does.

(10-05-2025 11:19 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Even when you were civil to tanq, he was still condescending to you in return. It's as if he held what you said in contempt because it "wasn't right" even if you had the facts on your side. If that's doesn't make one a narcissist, I don't know what does.

Yeah, lots of us already held out an olive branch to that pos and were ridiculed in return.

(10-05-2025 11:03 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(10-05-2025 08:15 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-04-2025 09:29 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2025 08:43 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Now mind you this is another “political Attorney General” that Tanqi Ofer Bois would be telling us is as pure as the driven snow. A government official who would never be biased. Never do harm to political opponents. Always go by the book. Never use the law against anyone he doesn’t like or agree with. Always deal in facts. Always follow the constitution.

If tanq is speaking, he's lying.

I'll get some pushback for this but I don't think he's lying. I think he is misguided in thinking that the law is absolute perhaps, and it appears that his whole life is the law, as shown in his writings. I don't think he likes to think about, much less acknowledge, the distinct possibility that there are those in our political system who are perverting justice for their own ends and getting away with it under the guise of some legal technicalities. However misguided I may think he is, he certainly has the same rights we do to speak freely. If you pay attention he is right more than he's wrong about the finer points of the law. He may be wrong in his conclusions most of the time - I really couldn't say - but none of us bats .1000 and I'm not sure he's ever 100% wrong.

While I'm not defending the way he speaks to people we are guilty of it ourselves, or at least I know I have been, I'm trying to ease up, not just for the sake of those I usually attack but for my own peace of mind...

There are a couple of recent examples of me asking him questions without resorting to being a smart ass, some that were probably fairly dumb questions or silly scenarios, and to his credit he answered in a respectful manner even while pointing out the absurdity of one of those scenarios.

Bottom line, I don't think we are as far apart from tanq as we are from the full blown loons here, I don't have to name them. They are the ones for whom I have no affinity, at all, none. In their ignorance, or in spite of it, who can be sure, they are supporting Marxism. It can't be stated any plainer than that. NYC is on the verge of having a self avowed freakin Muslim communist mayor - such strange bedfellows - and that's just the beginning.

Quite the olive branch put out there. I doubt it will be accepted as you hope it will.
The problem with him is even being a lawyer, he doesn’t seem to understand that there are two sides in every courtroom. His finer points of the law are not fact. They are simply his argument to be met with an argument by other lawyers in a courtroom. He doesn’t have all the facts. He doesn’t know all outcomes. And he’s not the world‘s greatest expert on the law. Although he believes he is.
So good luck with your effort to get him to be civil.

It's not an olive branch at all. I'm not defending him, I am simply stating my position in regards to how I now choose to interact with him, if at all. I no longer have the beef with him that others do. I acknowledge the validity of the problems some of y'all have with him. I acknowledge that he brings a lot of it on himself and he is at odds with my positions almost all the time. I got caught up in all the back and forth with him early on and just stopped. I just don't engage him except to pose an occasional question. He usually answers me if not respectfully then at least civilly, I'm guessing because I no longer get personal about it. There are a few examples of it. I can only speak for myself...

None of it means that I am trying to buddy up to him or to placate him. I just got tired of the personal and petty crap. I save that for the real loons here. You know who they are. And I have pretty much eased up on them, at least in the way I talk at most of them, not for their benefit, for my own.

(10-05-2025 11:19 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Even when you were civil to tanq, he was still condescending to you in return. It's as if he held what you said in contempt because it "wasn't right" even if you had the facts on your side. If that's doesn't make one a narcissist, I don't know what does.

Meh, it was civil for him. I'm at a point where I'm just ignoring crap from everyone I think is too stupid to respond to. If if it's egregiously stupid I'll respond, if not I'll scroll past. I'm tired of the drama and I'm tired of talking at #sub90 loons here who do nothing but troll all day. I'm not even sure they believe the crap they post. If they do or don't makes no difference, they'll never change.

(10-05-2025 11:43 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-05-2025 11:19 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Even when you were civil to tanq, he was still condescending to you in return. It's as if he held what you said in contempt because it "wasn't right" even if you had the facts on your side. If that's doesn't make one a narcissist, I don't know what does.

Meh, it was civil for him. I'm at a point where I'm just ignoring crap from everyone I think is too stupid to respond to. If if it's egregiously stupid I'll respond, if not I'll scroll past. I'm tired of the drama and I'm tired of talking at #sub90 loons here who do nothing but troll all day. I'm not even sure they believe the crap they post. If they do or don't makes no difference, they'll never change.

And that's great, TB4E. I mean that. I guess I just no longer care what he or anybody else on that side of the political aisle thinks of me so I act accordingly. I know I should be civil, and I still try to be when I know they'll be civil back. But at this point I have very little patience for their gaslighting and subterfuge.

Meh, I hate them all.

First -- the comments from Jay should absolutely be disqualifying for anyone to vote for him. That type of language and discourse is abjectly unacceptable.

Second -- just in the last three or four responses above on the subject of the 'other side' -- there is as much blind hatred of the 'other side' in general, and absolute 'othering' of the 'other side' in general as the comments that Jay posted. Kind of humorous.

lolno. We just don't put up with bullcrap, especially from the likes of you.

But as you like to say, you be you, sparkles. Cool cool.

(10-05-2025 06:31 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

All your Meow Mix are belong to us!

(10-05-2025 06:30 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  lolno. We just don't put up with bullcrap, especially from the likes of you.

But as you like to say, you be you, sparkles. Cool cool.

Got it. Terrible for left leaning to say bad things in general about those on the right.

Your general **** laden garbage about the left in general is so highly acceptable.

Cool cool. Lolz.

And.... you then generally lapse into a person specific whiny spiel. Quite the presentation, due. Quite the presentation. Double lolz. Good temper tantrum material overall. Neat stuff.

As for much of your entire post quoted above, if not all -- *you* seem to exhibit *you* in all *your* glory, sir. Please continue. Its very illuminating.

(10-05-2025 06:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  First -- the comments from Jay should absolutely be disqualifying for anyone to vote for him. That type of language and discourse is abjectly unacceptable.

Second -- just in the last three or four responses above on the subject of the 'other side' -- there is as much blind hatred of the 'other side' in general, and absolute 'othering' of the 'other side' in general as the comments that Jay posted. Kind of humorous.

He should lose his law license.... yesterday

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

(10-05-2025 07:07 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(10-05-2025 06:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  First -- the comments from Jay should absolutely be disqualifying for anyone to vote for him. That type of language and discourse is abjectly unacceptable.

Second -- just in the last three or four responses above on the subject of the 'other side' -- there is as much blind hatred of the 'other side' in general, and absolute 'othering' of the 'other side' in general as the comments that Jay posted. Kind of humorous.

He should lose his law license.... yesterday

Cool --- another triggered puny, whiny comment. Quite the display tonite from the folk around here.

(10-05-2025 06:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  First -- the comments from Jay should absolutely be disqualifying for anyone to vote for him. That type of language and discourse is abjectly unacceptable.

Second -- just in the last three or four responses above on the subject of the 'other side' -- there is as much blind hatred of the 'other side' in general, and absolute 'othering' of the 'other side' in general as the comments that Jay posted. Kind of humorous.

First comment is about time you actually used some common sense to denounce malicious nature of what has become of the Democrat Party

Your condemnation is something you want hear any Democrat do unless the heat is turned up on them

(10-05-2025 07:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-05-2025 06:30 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  lolno. We just don't put up with bullcrap, especially from the likes of you.

But as you like to say, you be you, sparkles. Cool cool.

Got it. Terrible for left leaning to say bad things in general about those on the right.

Your general **** laden garbage about the left in general is so highly acceptable.

Cool cool. Lolz.

And.... you then generally lapse into a person specific whiny spiel. Quite the presentation, due. Quite the presentation. Double lolz. Good temper tantrum material overall. Neat stuff.

As for much of your entire post quoted above, if not all -- *you* seem to exhibit *you* in all *your* glory, sir. Please continue. Its very illuminating.

TBF, there are different standards applied to anonymous posters on a political subforum for a site that is primarily about sports vs a candidate for political office.

tanq thinks it’s a courtroom