(06-24-2019 08:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 08:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  All of us think our causes are righteous, since all of us think we are right.

The difference lies the people who think their cause is so "righteous" that it justifies actions that are illegal, immoral, or unethical.

How is that is difference? There are plenty of examples of "illegal, immoral, or unethical" actions on both sides.

Just more on the left, currently.

(06-24-2019 08:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 08:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 08:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  All of us think our causes are righteous, since all of us think we are right.

The difference lies the people who think their cause is so "righteous" that it justifies actions that are illegal, immoral, or unethical.

How is that is difference? There are plenty of examples of "illegal, immoral, or unethical" actions on both sides.

Just more on the left, currently.

OK... no data to back up that assertion but I won't fight you on that. It makes sense that you are going to have more "righteous anger" from the side that is not currently in power in general. I'll give you that. There was probably more from the right during the Obama years.

(06-24-2019 08:55 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 08:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 09:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 08:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 08:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Should we consider any words of disagreement on this board as an exhibit of righteous anger? Tanq's posts are often brimming with anger towards Lad and me. I don't think it's a stretch to say that his are, by far, the most angry posts on this forum as a rule. Is his anger righteous? What makes some anger righteous and not other anger? This is pretty silly, no?

Anger? lolz.... not even close for the extremely large part.

Sarcastic as sin? Yeppers.

Blunt? Aabsoluuuutelllyyyy.

If you want to take bluntness as 'anger', so be it.

In all honesty '93, perhaps the reason I take the tack with you is because your standard modus is to really never bother answering many direct questions, and choose to deflect with another question.

Part of that may be that I am often debating four or five of you at once.

Quote:I mean, just take a look at OO's post, then your method of spinning it into an ancillary question with a pointed comment about me. Kind of cute when it becomes de rigeuer.

OK... went back and looked at the post that you referenced. Did I not answer/respond to his questions?

Quote:Considering you are now apparently a brilliant psychoanalyst who knows how everyone in the world ticks (because I am apparently full of 'anger', and Kavanaugh is obviously a 'blatant li[ar]'), that must be an awful burden to bear. My heart goes out to you with that amazing responsibility. Lolz.

I don't know you and don't know what's inside of you. I feel quite certain, though, that an independent observer reading this forum would say that your posts are the "angriest" on the board. Would you take issue with that assessment? This isn't meant to be a judgement on you nor a psychoanalysis of you.

This was all in response to the original idea that "righteous anger" somehow only belongs to leftists.

I am comfortable with and not surprised in the slightest that you feel 'quite certain' about that.

Honored to know this has the same level as your depth and conviction of your observation of someone you have zero interaction with being absolutely and certainly a blatant liar.

So the new standard for accusing a politician of lying is that one must have a personal relationship with said politician? That is going to temper discussion on this forum for sure.

Well, this does agree with previous arguments on this board that Trump isn’t a pathological liar.

(06-24-2019 08:55 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 08:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 09:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 08:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 08:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Should we consider any words of disagreement on this board as an exhibit of righteous anger? Tanq's posts are often brimming with anger towards Lad and me. I don't think it's a stretch to say that his are, by far, the most angry posts on this forum as a rule. Is his anger righteous? What makes some anger righteous and not other anger? This is pretty silly, no?

Anger? lolz.... not even close for the extremely large part.

Sarcastic as sin? Yeppers.

Blunt? Aabsoluuuutelllyyyy.

If you want to take bluntness as 'anger', so be it.

In all honesty '93, perhaps the reason I take the tack with you is because your standard modus is to really never bother answering many direct questions, and choose to deflect with another question.

Part of that may be that I am often debating four or five of you at once.

Quote:I mean, just take a look at OO's post, then your method of spinning it into an ancillary question with a pointed comment about me. Kind of cute when it becomes de rigeuer.

OK... went back and looked at the post that you referenced. Did I not answer/respond to his questions?

Quote:Considering you are now apparently a brilliant psychoanalyst who knows how everyone in the world ticks (because I am apparently full of 'anger', and Kavanaugh is obviously a 'blatant li[ar]'), that must be an awful burden to bear. My heart goes out to you with that amazing responsibility. Lolz.

I don't know you and don't know what's inside of you. I feel quite certain, though, that an independent observer reading this forum would say that your posts are the "angriest" on the board. Would you take issue with that assessment? This isn't meant to be a judgement on you nor a psychoanalysis of you.

This was all in response to the original idea that "righteous anger" somehow only belongs to leftists.

I am comfortable with and not surprised in the slightest that you feel 'quite certain' about that.

Honored to know this has the same level as your depth and conviction of your observation of someone you have zero interaction with being absolutely and certainly a blatant liar.

So the new standard for accusing a politician of lying is that one must have a personal relationship with said politician? That is going to temper discussion on this forum for sure.

Merely pointing out a 'certain' (unintended pun) penchant for being 'absolutely certain' on a whole slew of topics. (Blunt, on topic, and straightforward -- i.e. 'angry' to some).

By the way, loved the rhetorical 'deflection' question you led off with. Are you sure you have never noticed that before?

(06-24-2019 09:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 08:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 08:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 08:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  All of us think our causes are righteous, since all of us think we are right.

The difference lies the people who think their cause is so "righteous" that it justifies actions that are illegal, immoral, or unethical.

How is that is difference? There are plenty of examples of "illegal, immoral, or unethical" actions on both sides.

Just more on the left, currently.

OK... no data to back up that assertion but I won't fight you on that. It makes sense that you are going to have more "righteous anger" from the side that is not currently in power in general. I'll give you that. There was probably more from the right during the Obama years.

I would be interested in what illegal, immoral, or unethical actions were promulgated by the right out of a sense of justification during the Obama years, in your opinion.

Do you consider the 'town halling' to be illegal, immoral, or unethical?

Or the temerity of the so-called Tea-Party movement for just 'being' to be illegal, immoral, or unethical?

I will undoubtedly grant you that the voices of the libertarians and conservatives were probably much louder than the voices of the left during that time.

Much as the converse of that statement is true today.

But the issue isnt the 'loudness of the voices'. The issue in the term 'righteous anger' we seem to agree means not just the voice, but the sense that the position justifies illegal, immoral, or unethical behavior.

You just stated that "there was probably more from the right during the Obama years" -- so please tell us the specific illegal, immoral, or unethical behavior that the right or libertarian slant justified based on their political philosophy.

You may be correct; but I dont see much (if any) such actions being justified by the right or libertarians during that period. The floor is yours ----

In all honesty I have no issue in the slightest with 'loud voices' or any protest whatsoever. I am a both a 1st Amendment purist, and a strong libertarian bent in that everyone has an absolute right to promulgate their beliefs, no matter how smart, stupid, inspired, or hateful those beliefs are (with of course an exception to terroristic threat type items or conspiring to commit a crime thingies....)

And a purist in the sense that blocking the mere message or presentation of such beliefs, no matter what the message, is an act of cowardice and/or ignorance.

Too angry for ya?

(06-24-2019 09:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 08:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 08:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 08:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  All of us think our causes are righteous, since all of us think we are right.

The difference lies the people who think their cause is so "righteous" that it justifies actions that are illegal, immoral, or unethical.

How is that is difference? There are plenty of examples of "illegal, immoral, or unethical" actions on both sides.

Just more on the left, currently.

OK... no data to back up that assertion but I won't fight you on that. It makes sense that you are going to have more "righteous anger" from the side that is not currently in power in general. I'll give you that. There was probably more from the right during the Obama years.

yes, it is an opinion, and I don't know where one would go for data. I will be glad to get data if you could guide me to a place that has it.

Yeah, probably more from the right in the Obama years, but (IMO) still not as much as the left. The difference, IMO, that the left feels more entitled to tell others how they should act and how they should live. For example, the uproar over the use of the word "crazy". OK for Hillary to call me a deplorable, not OK for me to use certain words.

You would be appalled at the word my Hispanic grandmother used for illegals (what you guys refer to as immigrants). Some 2019 liberals would not hesitate to call her a racist, and try to correct her language - I guess in both English and Spanish.

Quote:The biggest effect of the Trump tax cuts is obvious: People who own businesses and other sources of concentrated wealth will have a lot more money, and the federal budget will have less. But the advocates of the tax cuts insisted it wasn’t about letting the makers keep their hard-earned money rather than handing it over to the takers. It was about incentivizing business to repatriate funds and ramp up its investments, thereby increasing growth and wages.

The Congressional Research Service, a kind of in-house think tank for Congress, has a new paper analyzing the effects of the Trump tax cuts. It finds that none of those secondary effects have materialized. Growth has not increased above the pre-tax-cut trend. Neither have wages. After a brief and much smaller than expected bump, repatriated corporate cash from abroad has leveled off.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/s...tment.html

(06-24-2019 12:27 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:The biggest effect of the Trump tax cuts is obvious: People who own businesses and other sources of concentrated wealth will have a lot more money, and the federal budget will have less. But the advocates of the tax cuts insisted it wasn’t about letting the makers keep their hard-earned money rather than handing it over to the takers. It was about incentivizing business to repatriate funds and ramp up its investments, thereby increasing growth and wages.
The Congressional Research Service, a kind of in-house think tank for Congress, has a new paper analyzing the effects of the Trump tax cuts. It finds that none of those secondary effects have materialized. Growth has not increased above the pre-tax-cut trend. Neither have wages. After a brief and much smaller than expected bump, repatriated corporate cash from abroad has leveled off.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/s...tment.html

Given that the real impact of the tax cuts was supposed to be on future plans--build that next plant here instead of overseas--not much of an effect was to be expected in the short term. The 430,000 new manufacturing jobs and higher average wage were both probably pleasant surprises.

Given all the vitriol from the left on the tax cut, and talk of reversing the cut if elected in 2020, I would imagine that many, probably most, of those long term plans are on hold pending the outcome of the 2020 elections.

(06-24-2019 12:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 12:27 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:The biggest effect of the Trump tax cuts is obvious: People who own businesses and other sources of concentrated wealth will have a lot more money, and the federal budget will have less. But the advocates of the tax cuts insisted it wasn’t about letting the makers keep their hard-earned money rather than handing it over to the takers. It was about incentivizing business to repatriate funds and ramp up its investments, thereby increasing growth and wages.
The Congressional Research Service, a kind of in-house think tank for Congress, has a new paper analyzing the effects of the Trump tax cuts. It finds that none of those secondary effects have materialized. Growth has not increased above the pre-tax-cut trend. Neither have wages. After a brief and much smaller than expected bump, repatriated corporate cash from abroad has leveled off.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/s...tment.html

Given that the real impact of the tax cuts was supposed to be on future plans--build that next plant here instead of overseas--not much of an effect was to be expected in the short term. The 430,000 new manufacturing jobs and higher average wage were both probably pleasant surprises.

Given all the vitriol from the left on the tax cut, and talk of reversing the cut if elected in 2020, I would imagine that many, probably most, of those long term plans are on hold pending the outcome of the 2020 elections.

I will be quite satisfied if the question in 2020 is "Are you better off than than you were four years ago".

(06-24-2019 02:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 12:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 12:27 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:The biggest effect of the Trump tax cuts is obvious: People who own businesses and other sources of concentrated wealth will have a lot more money, and the federal budget will have less. But the advocates of the tax cuts insisted it wasn’t about letting the makers keep their hard-earned money rather than handing it over to the takers. It was about incentivizing business to repatriate funds and ramp up its investments, thereby increasing growth and wages.
The Congressional Research Service, a kind of in-house think tank for Congress, has a new paper analyzing the effects of the Trump tax cuts. It finds that none of those secondary effects have materialized. Growth has not increased above the pre-tax-cut trend. Neither have wages. After a brief and much smaller than expected bump, repatriated corporate cash from abroad has leveled off.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/s...tment.html

Given that the real impact of the tax cuts was supposed to be on future plans--build that next plant here instead of overseas--not much of an effect was to be expected in the short term. The 430,000 new manufacturing jobs and higher average wage were both probably pleasant surprises.

Given all the vitriol from the left on the tax cut, and talk of reversing the cut if elected in 2020, I would imagine that many, probably most, of those long term plans are on hold pending the outcome of the 2020 elections.

I will be quite satisfied if the question in 2020 is "Are you better off than than you were four years ago".

For some the response will be 'No', simply because Orange Man Bad.

Well, they sure are building a lot of houses in my area, when they were not during the Obama years. On my north, 110 units, on my east, 200.

For some reason, people who could not afford them under His Benevolence now think they can.

(06-24-2019 02:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 02:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 12:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 12:27 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:The biggest effect of the Trump tax cuts is obvious: People who own businesses and other sources of concentrated wealth will have a lot more money, and the federal budget will have less. But the advocates of the tax cuts insisted it wasn’t about letting the makers keep their hard-earned money rather than handing it over to the takers. It was about incentivizing business to repatriate funds and ramp up its investments, thereby increasing growth and wages.
The Congressional Research Service, a kind of in-house think tank for Congress, has a new paper analyzing the effects of the Trump tax cuts. It finds that none of those secondary effects have materialized. Growth has not increased above the pre-tax-cut trend. Neither have wages. After a brief and much smaller than expected bump, repatriated corporate cash from abroad has leveled off.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/s...tment.html

Given that the real impact of the tax cuts was supposed to be on future plans--build that next plant here instead of overseas--not much of an effect was to be expected in the short term. The 430,000 new manufacturing jobs and higher average wage were both probably pleasant surprises.

Given all the vitriol from the left on the tax cut, and talk of reversing the cut if elected in 2020, I would imagine that many, probably most, of those long term plans are on hold pending the outcome of the 2020 elections.

I will be quite satisfied if the question in 2020 is "Are you better off than than you were four years ago".

For some the response will be 'No', simply because Orange Man Bad.

True. But those people were never going to consider him anyway. They are all STD voters. They would cut off their nose to spite their face.

(06-24-2019 12:27 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:The biggest effect of the Trump tax cuts is obvious: People who own businesses and other sources of concentrated wealth will have a lot more money, and the federal budget will have less. But the advocates of the tax cuts insisted it wasn’t about letting the makers keep their hard-earned money rather than handing it over to the takers. It was about incentivizing business to repatriate funds and ramp up its investments, thereby increasing growth and wages.

The Congressional Research Service, a kind of in-house think tank for Congress, has a new paper analyzing the effects of the Trump tax cuts. It finds that none of those secondary effects have materialized. Growth has not increased above the pre-tax-cut trend. Neither have wages. After a brief and much smaller than expected bump, repatriated corporate cash from abroad has leveled off.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/s...tment.html

wage growth chart

ten year high

more wage growth

This quote from the AtEase article shows the lack of understanding of economics endemic on the left:

"People who own businesses and other sources of concentrated wealth will have a lot more money..."

So AE and others, what do you think they will do with that extra money? Bury it in coffee cans?
I know what I and most other business owners would do with it...expand. Open new branches, or hire more people or build a warehouse, or buy some forklifts, or...anything but let it sit idle.

Why do you think it will disappear from the economy?

(06-24-2019 04:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, they sure are building a lot of houses in my area, when they were not during the Obama years. On my north, 110 units, on my east, 200.

For some reason, people who could not afford them under His Benevolence now think they can.

They weren’t building as many houses after the housing crisis? I’m shocked, I tell you. Shocked!

(06-24-2019 05:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 04:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, they sure are building a lot of houses in my area, when they were not during the Obama years. On my north, 110 units, on my east, 200.

For some reason, people who could not afford them under His Benevolence now think they can.

They weren’t building as many houses after the housing crisis? I’m shocked, I tell you. Shocked!

Obama was President through 2016.

(06-24-2019 10:55 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 09:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 08:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 08:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 08:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  All of us think our causes are righteous, since all of us think we are right.

The difference lies the people who think their cause is so "righteous" that it justifies actions that are illegal, immoral, or unethical.

How is that is difference? There are plenty of examples of "illegal, immoral, or unethical" actions on both sides.

Just more on the left, currently.

OK... no data to back up that assertion but I won't fight you on that. It makes sense that you are going to have more "righteous anger" from the side that is not currently in power in general. I'll give you that. There was probably more from the right during the Obama years.

I would be interested in what illegal, immoral, or unethical actions were promulgated by the right out of a sense of justification during the Obama years, in your opinion.

Do you consider the 'town halling' to be illegal, immoral, or unethical?

Or the temerity of the so-called Tea-Party movement for just 'being' to be illegal, immoral, or unethical?

I will undoubtedly grant you that the voices of the libertarians and conservatives were probably much louder than the voices of the left during that time.

Much as the converse of that statement is true today.

But the issue isnt the 'loudness of the voices'. The issue in the term 'righteous anger' we seem to agree means not just the voice, but the sense that the position justifies illegal, immoral, or unethical behavior.

You just stated that "there was probably more from the right during the Obama years" -- so please tell us the specific illegal, immoral, or unethical behavior that the right or libertarian slant justified based on their political philosophy.

You may be correct; but I dont see much (if any) such actions being justified by the right or libertarians during that period. The floor is yours ----

Looks like there were some right-wingers filled with righteous anger after Obama was elected in 2008: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/...rack-obama

(06-25-2019 07:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 10:55 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 09:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 08:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 08:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  How is that is difference? There are plenty of examples of "illegal, immoral, or unethical" actions on both sides.

Just more on the left, currently.

OK... no data to back up that assertion but I won't fight you on that. It makes sense that you are going to have more "righteous anger" from the side that is not currently in power in general. I'll give you that. There was probably more from the right during the Obama years.

I would be interested in what illegal, immoral, or unethical actions were promulgated by the right out of a sense of justification during the Obama years, in your opinion.

Do you consider the 'town halling' to be illegal, immoral, or unethical?

Or the temerity of the so-called Tea-Party movement for just 'being' to be illegal, immoral, or unethical?

I will undoubtedly grant you that the voices of the libertarians and conservatives were probably much louder than the voices of the left during that time.

Much as the converse of that statement is true today.

But the issue isnt the 'loudness of the voices'. The issue in the term 'righteous anger' we seem to agree means not just the voice, but the sense that the position justifies illegal, immoral, or unethical behavior.

You just stated that "there was probably more from the right during the Obama years" -- so please tell us the specific illegal, immoral, or unethical behavior that the right or libertarian slant justified based on their political philosophy.

You may be correct; but I dont see much (if any) such actions being justified by the right or libertarians during that period. The floor is yours ----

Looks like there were some right-wingers filled with righteous anger after Obama was elected in 2008: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/...rack-obama

How do you know they were right-wingers? My father-in-law, a lifetime straight ticket Democrat, could have had the same reaction.

But in any case, this discussion has drifted. It originally was about a sense of righteousness in one's cause or position, not anger. I don't think Obama was angry when he made his comment about people "clinging to their guns and religion", and I don't think Hillary was angry when she made here "deplorables" speech. The righteousness portion is about smugness, not anger. "We're better than you, because you lack understanding like we have".

I am sure some people were upset in 2009 at Obama being elected, and others were upset that he was black. But you didn't see the widespread movements including violence over his election we saw with Trump, nor did we see a widespread and long lasting movement to have him removed for unfitness.

So, yes, some right wingers did some stupid stuff. But nowhere as widespread and long lasting as the stupid stuff done by left wingers the last three years. What were the equivalents of the Antifa riots back then? What was the equivalent of the Russia collusion witch hunt? Maybe there were a few people calling for impeachment, maybe not, but anything like the numbers now?

True, I don't have data to back this up, just my eyes and ears, but if one would kindly refer me to the database in which I can find these statistics, I would be glad to reference them.

I love the way a string of anecdotal incidents involving 1-4 people are construed to be a movement similar to the Resistance.

(06-25-2019 07:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 10:55 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 09:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 08:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 08:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  How is that is difference? There are plenty of examples of "illegal, immoral, or unethical" actions on both sides.

Just more on the left, currently.

OK... no data to back up that assertion but I won't fight you on that. It makes sense that you are going to have more "righteous anger" from the side that is not currently in power in general. I'll give you that. There was probably more from the right during the Obama years.

I would be interested in what illegal, immoral, or unethical actions were promulgated by the right out of a sense of justification during the Obama years, in your opinion.

Do you consider the 'town halling' to be illegal, immoral, or unethical?

Or the temerity of the so-called Tea-Party movement for just 'being' to be illegal, immoral, or unethical?

I will undoubtedly grant you that the voices of the libertarians and conservatives were probably much louder than the voices of the left during that time.

Much as the converse of that statement is true today.

But the issue isnt the 'loudness of the voices'. The issue in the term 'righteous anger' we seem to agree means not just the voice, but the sense that the position justifies illegal, immoral, or unethical behavior.

You just stated that "there was probably more from the right during the Obama years" -- so please tell us the specific illegal, immoral, or unethical behavior that the right or libertarian slant justified based on their political philosophy.

You may be correct; but I dont see much (if any) such actions being justified by the right or libertarians during that period. The floor is yours ----

Looks like there were some right-wingers filled with righteous anger after Obama was elected in 2008: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/...rack-obama

So 20 or so SPLC reports over the 8 years of the Obama administration.

Without condoning any of them or minimizing them, seems hard to distinguish from background ass hattery when spread out over 300 million people.

Perhaps we can surmise from the roughly 2 small events per year (heck lets be generous and give it a full 3 events per year) at the nationwide scale that is a yuuuuuuge surge of righteous anger. Kind of more in line with background noise levels.

How many people rioted in Mo. over the false narrative of 'my hands are up dont shoot' alone? I somehow suspect it was more than twenty, would you agree? Heck we still have all the cop ambushes to go down if you decide to really mine that splc source.

Your thesis of more 'right'eous (pun.haha) anger during those years isnt really gaining much traction.

on a tangential note you do know the problems the spcl have found themselves neck deep in in the last couple of years, right?

[/warface off]

(06-25-2019 08:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 07:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 10:55 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 09:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 08:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just more on the left, currently.

OK... no data to back up that assertion but I won't fight you on that. It makes sense that you are going to have more "righteous anger" from the side that is not currently in power in general. I'll give you that. There was probably more from the right during the Obama years.

I would be interested in what illegal, immoral, or unethical actions were promulgated by the right out of a sense of justification during the Obama years, in your opinion.

Do you consider the 'town halling' to be illegal, immoral, or unethical?

Or the temerity of the so-called Tea-Party movement for just 'being' to be illegal, immoral, or unethical?

I will undoubtedly grant you that the voices of the libertarians and conservatives were probably much louder than the voices of the left during that time.

Much as the converse of that statement is true today.

But the issue isnt the 'loudness of the voices'. The issue in the term 'righteous anger' we seem to agree means not just the voice, but the sense that the position justifies illegal, immoral, or unethical behavior.

You just stated that "there was probably more from the right during the Obama years" -- so please tell us the specific illegal, immoral, or unethical behavior that the right or libertarian slant justified based on their political philosophy.

You may be correct; but I dont see much (if any) such actions being justified by the right or libertarians during that period. The floor is yours ----

Looks like there were some right-wingers filled with righteous anger after Obama was elected in 2008: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/...rack-obama

How do you know they were right-wingers? My father-in-law, a lifetime straight ticket Democrat, could have had the same reaction.

But in any case, this discussion has drifted. It originally was about a sense of righteousness in one's cause or position, not anger. I don't think Obama was angry when he made his comment about people "clinging to their guns and religion", and I don't think Hillary was angry when she made here "deplorables" speech. The righteousness portion is about smugness, not anger. "We're better than you, because you lack understanding like we have".

I am sure some people were upset in 2009 at Obama being elected, and others were upset that he was black. But you didn't see the widespread movements including violence over his election we saw with Trump, nor did we see a widespread and long lasting movement to have him removed for unfitness.

So, yes, some right wingers did some stupid stuff. But nowhere as widespread and long lasting as the stupid stuff done by left wingers the last three years. What were the equivalents of the Antifa riots back then? What was the equivalent of the Russia collusion witch hunt? Maybe there were a few people calling for impeachment, maybe not, but anything like the numbers now?

True, I don't have data to back this up, just my eyes and ears, but if one would kindly refer me to the database in which I can find these statistics, I would be glad to reference them.

I love the way a string of anecdotal incidents involving 1-4 people are construed to be a movement similar to the Resistance.

Sorry... I remembered racist violence after the 2008 elections and so I looked it up. That was the first thing that came to mind. I'm sure there's plenty more to be found if one has the time (which I currently don't). I did not mean for my post to be looked at as a definitive catalog on this topic.

Remember that church that I recently linked where the police detective was calling for gay people to be put to death? I wonder what was said in that church (and many others like it) after the 2008 election.

*edit* You are correct. I don't KNOW that they were right-wingers. I don't want to revisit the "leftists think only conservatives can be racist" issue. My assumption is that these people who were so triggered by the election of Obama were not Democrats. Maybe I'm mistaken.

(06-25-2019 09:07 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 08:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 07:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 10:55 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-24-2019 09:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  OK... no data to back up that assertion but I won't fight you on that. It makes sense that you are going to have more "righteous anger" from the side that is not currently in power in general. I'll give you that. There was probably more from the right during the Obama years.

I would be interested in what illegal, immoral, or unethical actions were promulgated by the right out of a sense of justification during the Obama years, in your opinion.

Do you consider the 'town halling' to be illegal, immoral, or unethical?

Or the temerity of the so-called Tea-Party movement for just 'being' to be illegal, immoral, or unethical?

I will undoubtedly grant you that the voices of the libertarians and conservatives were probably much louder than the voices of the left during that time.

Much as the converse of that statement is true today.

But the issue isnt the 'loudness of the voices'. The issue in the term 'righteous anger' we seem to agree means not just the voice, but the sense that the position justifies illegal, immoral, or unethical behavior.

You just stated that "there was probably more from the right during the Obama years" -- so please tell us the specific illegal, immoral, or unethical behavior that the right or libertarian slant justified based on their political philosophy.

You may be correct; but I dont see much (if any) such actions being justified by the right or libertarians during that period. The floor is yours ----

Looks like there were some right-wingers filled with righteous anger after Obama was elected in 2008: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/...rack-obama

How do you know they were right-wingers? My father-in-law, a lifetime straight ticket Democrat, could have had the same reaction.

But in any case, this discussion has drifted. It originally was about a sense of righteousness in one's cause or position, not anger. I don't think Obama was angry when he made his comment about people "clinging to their guns and religion", and I don't think Hillary was angry when she made here "deplorables" speech. The righteousness portion is about smugness, not anger. "We're better than you, because you lack understanding like we have".

I am sure some people were upset in 2009 at Obama being elected, and others were upset that he was black. But you didn't see the widespread movements including violence over his election we saw with Trump, nor did we see a widespread and long lasting movement to have him removed for unfitness.

So, yes, some right wingers did some stupid stuff. But nowhere as widespread and long lasting as the stupid stuff done by left wingers the last three years. What were the equivalents of the Antifa riots back then? What was the equivalent of the Russia collusion witch hunt? Maybe there were a few people calling for impeachment, maybe not, but anything like the numbers now?

True, I don't have data to back this up, just my eyes and ears, but if one would kindly refer me to the database in which I can find these statistics, I would be glad to reference them.

I love the way a string of anecdotal incidents involving 1-4 people are construed to be a movement similar to the Resistance.

Sorry... I remembered racist violence after the 2008 elections and so I looked it up. That was the first thing that came to mind. I'm sure there's plenty more to be found if one has the time (which I currently don't). I did not mean for my post to be looked at as a definitive catalog on this topic.

Remember that church that I recently linked where the police detective was calling for gay people to be put to death? I wonder what was said in that church (and many others like it) after the 2008 election.

Maybe a lot of the same, or maybe it was people talking about how crazy Brother Cop is. Your assumptions are just...assumptions. Seemingly based on a stereotype.

Still trying to make a single cop, or even a single church, equivalent to the organized anti-right actions and the widespread calls for impeachment?

My assessment stands, that although there are self-righteous people on both sides, at this time the preponderance is on the left. Although some of those people on each side just grumble, some take action based on a feeling that the righteousness of their cause justifies the actions, and the preponderance of those are on the left.

JMHO.

Going to take more than a story about some guy(s) in East Bumfick acting/talking bad to change that.

.