(01-30-2020 07:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 06:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 09:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 09:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I stopped reading when you said I was intent on changing it.
I’ve stated multiple times im not. Ya dingus.

So what are you intent on?

With respect to this conversation, actually recognizing that the EC has some flaws.

So recognizing flaws but not changing anything? Complaining but not wanting to do anything about it? Sounds like you just want to have a gripe session.

You never have discussions with your colleagues or friends that verifiably look at things? It’s either all roses or you’re defending a position?

(01-30-2020 07:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 07:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 06:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 09:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 09:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I stopped reading when you said I was intent on changing it.
I’ve stated multiple times im not. Ya dingus.

So what are you intent on?

With respect to this conversation, actually recognizing that the EC has some flaws.

So recognizing flaws but not changing anything? Complaining but not wanting to do anything about it? Sounds like you just want to have a gripe session.

You never have discussions with your colleagues or friends that verifiably look at things? It’s either all roses or you’re defending a position?

The point you missed is that it is entirely reasonable to presume that one who complains about something wants it changed.

If you're just interested in navel contemplation, I don't think a group of conservatives is where you are going to find what you are seeking. Conservatives tend to be people of action. To a conservative, complaining about something means you want it changed, not that you are simply interested in starting a theoretical conversation. That's better for coffee shops after midnight.

(01-29-2020 08:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 08:17 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Tanq over here losing it over states rights while Congress demonstrates that a president can literally do whatever they want as long they can hold 34 votes in the Senate.

I knew you couldnt resist lapsing into a drive by ad hom. Good for you chuckles.

Your choice of extreme wording in your last sentence is cute as well. Funny that, you feel the need to make an extreme language statement that, when read literally (note the correct use of the word 'literally'), is really pretty much an asinine whine.

Perhaps next time when their might be a better example of behavior, say, like..... well.... coordinating a break in, you might feel better. Or better yet, when there is, say, something like...... hmmm..... an actual felony like perjury or obstruction of justice.

But if yelling at the terrible orange man and jumping to a fro like the apes do in the opening sequence of 2001 A Space Odyssey (which your second sentence really kind of boils down to) makes you feel better, then ----- go for it sparkles.

When you decide to actually comment using real facts and cogent comments instead of a panoply of drive by ad-hom and dumb*** rhetoric, I will be more than happy to engage you as an adult.

I'm not wrong!

(01-30-2020 10:18 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 08:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 08:17 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Tanq over here losing it over states rights while Congress demonstrates that a president can literally do whatever they want as long they can hold 34 votes in the Senate.

I knew you couldnt resist lapsing into a drive by ad hom. Good for you chuckles.

Your choice of extreme wording in your last sentence is cute as well. Funny that, you feel the need to make an extreme language statement that, when read literally (note the correct use of the word 'literally'), is really pretty much an asinine whine.

Perhaps next time when their might be a better example of behavior, say, like..... well.... coordinating a break in, you might feel better. Or better yet, when there is, say, something like...... hmmm..... an actual felony like perjury or obstruction of justice.

But if yelling at the terrible orange man and jumping to a fro like the apes do in the opening sequence of 2001 A Space Odyssey (which your second sentence really kind of boils down to) makes you feel better, then ----- go for it sparkles.

When you decide to actually comment using real facts and cogent comments instead of a panoply of drive by ad-hom and dumb*** rhetoric, I will be more than happy to engage you as an adult.

I'm not wrong!

(stamps foot and breaks into tears)

Dersh yesterday: "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

We all cool with this?

We have people on one end of the conversation saying if you don't like it, change it. We have another, on the other end, saying that 34 votes in the Senate gives license to do whatever one wants.

I thought I would look into the process for amending the Constitution to see if "one man, one vote" majority rule prevails.

Constitution

Starts off with a 2/3 vote in each chamber of Congress. If California and New York are in the 1/3, has the will of the people been expressed?

Then it goes to the states, the sovereign states. It take 3/4 of them, currently 38 states, to pass the amendment. If New York and California are among the 12 that do not, has the will of the people been expressed? There is no difference at this stage between barely populated with cowboys Wyoming and chock full o' nuts California. Unfair?

Sounds very much to me like the EC process. Sounds too, like the FF did not trust one man(now one person), one vote majority rule.

(01-30-2020 06:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Edit: sometimes I feel like you conservatives forget that we can just have a conversation about topics in here without flags being planted on positions and sides being taken.

Just sometimes?

(01-30-2020 10:49 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 06:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Edit: sometimes I feel like you conservatives forget that we can just have a conversation about topics in here without flags being planted on positions and sides being taken.

Just sometimes?

Just conservatives?

(01-30-2020 07:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 06:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 09:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 09:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I stopped reading when you said I was intent on changing it.
I’ve stated multiple times im not. Ya dingus.

So what are you intent on?

With respect to this conversation, actually recognizing that the EC has some flaws.

So recognizing flaws but not changing anything? Complaining but not wanting to do anything about it? Sounds like you just want to have a gripe session.

Or maybe he is just an intelligent person who wants to have constructive and informative dialogue about a topic of interest? An opportunity to heard the views of others who disagree with him on a lot of topics in a setting that is hopefully not too toxic?

Often when I try to take that approach on the quad I have the conservatives jumping down my throat with assumptions they made about something innocuous that I posted. Thinking of my thread on ranked-choice voting resulted in Frizzy making it a partisan issue by being completely wrong about Dems opposing the idea, OO inserting the idea that dems want illegal immigrants to vote, GoodOwl using the idea of paper ballots to take a shot at environmentalists, and tanq dragging 2nd amendment issues into the discussion by suggesting that I only care about Constitutional protections in a selective way. Beneath all that we still had reasonable discussions on both ranked choice voting and voter ID laws, but egads.

(01-30-2020 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 10:49 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 06:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Edit: sometimes I feel like you conservatives forget that we can just have a conversation about topics in here without flags being planted on positions and sides being taken.

Just sometimes?

Just conservatives?

I see no reason to go down this road, regardless of what I believe. I'm not going to delete my post, but I don't think there is any productive reason to begin a tit-for-tat. Maybe we can all just make an effort to not read things into each others' posts unless the post actually says something?

I'll cut back on "drive-by ad homs" if tanq acknowledges the truth of big's post.

(01-30-2020 11:06 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 07:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 06:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 09:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 09:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I stopped reading when you said I was intent on changing it.
I’ve stated multiple times im not. Ya dingus.

So what are you intent on?

With respect to this conversation, actually recognizing that the EC has some flaws.

So recognizing flaws but not changing anything? Complaining but not wanting to do anything about it? Sounds like you just want to have a gripe session.

Or maybe he is just an intelligent person who wants to have constructive and informative dialogue about a topic of interest? An opportunity to heard the views of others who disagree with him on a lot of topics in a setting that is hopefully not too toxic?

Every time I try to take that approach on the quad I have the conservatives jumping down my throat with assumptions they made about something innocuous that I posted. Thinking of my thread on ranked-choice voting resulted in Frizzy making it a partisan issue by being completely wrong about Dems opposing the idea, OO inserting the idea that dems want illegal immigrants to vote, GoodOwl using the idea of paper ballots to take a shot at environmentalists, and tanq dragging 2nd amendment issues into the discussion by suggesting that I only care about Constitutional protections in a selective way. Beneath all that we still had reasonable discussions on both ranked choice voting and voter ID laws, but egads.

Well, to be honest, perhaps we can parse this.

I brought up the issue of selective approval of Constitutional provisions only with regard to your very spirited defense of the voting right.

I understand how people can 'challenge in a discussion'; in that context I have zero issue. When someone holds down a position with vigor as did lad with his view of the role of state sovereignty and the actual history behind it, at some point that 'gee lets look at a different angle shall we' can be very easily interpreted as a spirited defense. It isnt like he charged that hill only once, it was kind of like the battle of the Somme in that regard. When the waves come, and come, and come, and come, at some point even the most objective person might conclude that that particular viewpoint is held.

As to my comment on the 2nd amendment, yes it was a 'challenge question' -- that was brought up only once or twice. And we discussed it.

So what exactly is the difference between your 'model engaging challenge' ("Or maybe he is just an intelligent person who wants to have constructive and informative dialogue about a topic of interest?") which I have no issue with, and my apparent 'real bad' ungood non-engaging challenge with the question about the vigor in which you would defend other rights?

Not trying to be snarky here, and, if you read the above question with the 'this is a model engaging quetion' bias set, I think that might be a valid question. Just tossing it out there.

(01-30-2020 11:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Well, to be honest, perhaps we can parse this.

I brought up the issue of selective approval of Constitutional provisions only with regard to your very spirited defense of the voting right.

I understand how people can 'challenge in a discussion'; in that context I have zero issue. When someone holds down a position with vigor as did lad with his view of the role of state sovereignty and the actual history behind it, at some point that 'gee lets look at a different angle shall we' can be very easily interpreted as a spirited defense. It isnt like he charged that hill only once, it was kind of like the battle of the Somme in that regard. When the waves come, and come, and come, and come, at some point even the most objective person might conclude that that particular viewpoint is held.

As to my comment on the 2nd amendment, yes it was a 'challenge question' -- that was brought up only once or twice. And we discussed it.

Fair point that it was a small discussion. What bothered me is that I'm not anywhere close to a gun control extremist so it felt like you were calling me a hypocrite, rather than just disagreeing with an idea or policy.

(01-30-2020 11:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So what exactly is the difference between your 'model engaging challenge' ("Or maybe he is just an intelligent person who wants to have constructive and informative dialogue about a topic of interest?") which I have no issue with, and my apparent 'real bad' ungood non-engaging challenge with the question about the vigor in which you would defend other rights?

Not trying to be snarky here, and, if you read the above question with the 'this is a model engaging quetion' bias set, I think that might be a valid question. Just tossing it out there.

Context. I think the ranked choice voting thread is a good example. It started out as a completely apolitical discussion. I literally asked "any thoughts...?" as part of my short post to start the thread. Nothing in that post was negative toward conservatives. So in something like that, no reason to start throwing hand grenades at each other.

Word choice. Lad and I don't try and hide our beliefs. So if we don't state an opinion, there is no need to infer an opinion. When a person infers that we have an opinion and then start throwing hand grenades at the inference, the discussion devolves quickly. I've made the same mistake a time or two, making inferences about conservatives when they weren't trying to state an opinion. I'm trying to avoid doing so.

(01-30-2020 11:16 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 10:49 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 06:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Edit: sometimes I feel like you conservatives forget that we can just have a conversation about topics in here without flags being planted on positions and sides being taken.

Just sometimes?

Just conservatives?

I see no reason to go down this road, regardless of what I believe. I'm not going to delete my post, but I don't think there is any productive reason to begin a tit-for-tat. Maybe we can all just make an effort to not read things into each others' posts unless the post actually says something?

\Well, there is a very real perception among many conservatives that many liberals think only conservatives want or accept (insert bad thing here). have been told I want a return to slavery. I have been told I want children to starve. I have been call a nazi sympathizer. After a while, one get the idea that many libs think all conservatives are just horrible people, too disgustting to contemplate.


I think in the minds of many liberals, we are the Morlocks, and they are the Eloi, only with brains. I think the libs who don't want conservative speakers to have their say on campus are just the tip of the iceberg. Just the opinion of this one poor deplorable.

Personally, I think the libs here plant just as many flags (e.g., trump was not elected by the will of the people) but do not see the reciprocity of their views and beliefs. That is a part of the double standard I rail about.

I just saw a Warren ad all upset that ambassadorships were awarded to political donors. I think that has been going on for 200 years. But her ad implies that it is just Trump. I wonder who appointed Yovanovich and why. I wonder how many liberals will unthinkingly accept that is is just Trump, and just another thing that liberals will do better and more honestly. I wonder how many more, that know the facts, will just keep quiet.

As for illegals voting, I provided links. But if you need me to, I can go back to Google and get you 10-15 links. Not in my imagination, if that is what you were implying.

(01-30-2020 11:18 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  I'll cut back on "drive-by ad homs" if tanq acknowledges the truth of big's post.

Which post, and which portion(s)? There are definitely nuggets of truth in most of his posts.

As for the 'cut back' -- no deal. I have no idea what your version of 'cut back' is? 99% of your rate? Once a month? And, without trying to be prigish (although there is really no way to say this nicely), I dont think you could cut it to zero.

(01-30-2020 11:37 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 11:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Well, to be honest, perhaps we can parse this.

I brought up the issue of selective approval of Constitutional provisions only with regard to your very spirited defense of the voting right.

I understand how people can 'challenge in a discussion'; in that context I have zero issue. When someone holds down a position with vigor as did lad with his view of the role of state sovereignty and the actual history behind it, at some point that 'gee lets look at a different angle shall we' can be very easily interpreted as a spirited defense. It isnt like he charged that hill only once, it was kind of like the battle of the Somme in that regard. When the waves come, and come, and come, and come, at some point even the most objective person might conclude that that particular viewpoint is held.

As to my comment on the 2nd amendment, yes it was a 'challenge question' -- that was brought up only once or twice. And we discussed it.

Fair point that it was a small discussion. What bothered me is that I'm not anywhere close to a gun control extremist so it felt like you were calling me a hypocrite, rather than just disagreeing with an idea or policy.

(01-30-2020 11:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So what exactly is the difference between your 'model engaging challenge' ("Or maybe he is just an intelligent person who wants to have constructive and informative dialogue about a topic of interest?") which I have no issue with, and my apparent 'real bad' ungood non-engaging challenge with the question about the vigor in which you would defend other rights?

Not trying to be snarky here, and, if you read the above question with the 'this is a model engaging quetion' bias set, I think that might be a valid question. Just tossing it out there.

Context. I think the ranked choice voting thread is a good example. It started out as a completely apolitical discussion. I literally asked "any thoughts...?" as part of my short post to start the thread. Nothing in that post was negative toward conservatives. So in something like that, no reason to start throwing hand grenades at each other.

Word choice. Lad and I don't try and hide our beliefs. So if we don't state an opinion, there is no need to infer an opinion. When a person infers that we have an opinion and then start throwing hand grenades at the inference, the discussion devolves quickly. I've made the same mistake a time or two, making inferences about conservatives when they weren't trying to state an opinion. I'm trying to avoid doing so.

I have found that flagging it as a 'discussion that you dont support' is best.

Kind of like, 'Look, for the record I support the current EC system. But what about x, y, and z as factors'. Simple, forthright, and effective.

Curious: where does everyone here sit on the last dimension of Myers-Briggs? J vs. P

I have a hunch that might explain some of what Big and Lad are commenting on.

Ok, back to lurking...

(01-30-2020 01:27 PM)MOBalum Wrote:  Curious: where does everyone here sit on the last dimension of Myers-Briggs? J vs. P

I have a hunch that might explain some of what Big and Lad are commenting on.

Ok, back to lurking...

I've forgotten what J and P stand for...

(01-30-2020 01:27 PM)MOBalum Wrote:  Curious: where does everyone here sit on the last dimension of Myers-Briggs? J vs. P

I have a hunch that might explain some of what Big and Lad are commenting on.

Ok, back to lurking...

Last time I took the test I was an ENFP.

(01-30-2020 01:27 PM)MOBalum Wrote:  Curious: where does everyone here sit on the last dimension of Myers-Briggs? J vs. P

I have a hunch that might explain some of what Big and Lad are commenting on.

Ok, back to lurking...

Since the lurkers are chiming in...

I think because the board is so small (most posts come from 4 posters plus about 8 semi-regulars), conversations bleed into each other and it can be hard to have a non-politicized discussion when the exact same people were going at it on some political point in another thread.