|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 02 2018 04:50 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 04:47 Plansix wrote:
Seems accurate. Though Kwark and Modoo are filthy centrist according to some. They are definitely not centrist by US standards, I think. Kwark certainly isn't at any rate. I wouldn't say Mohdoo is centrist either, his views on race and stuff definitely put him in the Democrat camp, I think.
As long as they are not libertarian, the naïve bastard child of conservative and liberal that neither side is willing to claim.
On February 02 2018 04:51 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 04:01 Emnjay808 wrote:
i wish there was a tag next to each person's name so i know whos conserv and whos lib. that way i know whos arguing with who. Yes lets just have one side get stars and the other side (insert nazi symbol here for shock effect). That was a great way to identify people and separate them.
I support that we all get “meat Popsicle” as a descriptor.
|
On February 02 2018 01:25 IyMoon wrote:
Lets get it going guys!
What should we place on odds?
Is it a ban bet? Paypal someone something? Who gets to be the ref? (It 100% should be GH)
I approve this message
On February 02 2018 02:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 02:14 Leporello wrote:
Hooray for partisan memo day! I can't wait for Nunes to expose the FBI's troubling behavior of spying on Russians and Russo-Americans like Carter Page to the public. This just in: American citizens can be "Russo-Americans" undeserving of constitutional protections like the Fourth Amendment against spying. I thought Democrats were into civil rights, even including criminals on trial? Maybe I'm relying on outdated assumptions about Democrats. Americans that deal with Russians get put on the gangplank these days.
You don't need me to remind you why this is gross do you? I know you feel silly for this now.
On February 02 2018 04:47 Plansix wrote:
Seems accurate. Though Kwark and Modoo are filthy centrist according to some.
Come on, Kwark self-identifies as a coinservative (typo that I'm keeping). The US political spectrum is FUBAR.
|
i thought as i got older i’d move more right but i find now that i actually have money, i appreciate taxes even more. when i didn’t have any of my own money i thought the big gubmint taking everyone’s hard earned dollars was disgusting. i used to be the kid talking about being a social liberal and fiscal conservative.
instead i actually quite appreciate a good tax. i’m slipping further and further into leftism.
|
On February 02 2018 04:54 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 04:51 Sermokala wrote:On February 02 2018 04:01 Emnjay808 wrote:
i wish there was a tag next to each person's name so i know whos conserv and whos lib. that way i know whos arguing with who. Yes lets just have one side get stars and the other side (insert nazi symbol here for shock effect). That was a great way to identify people and separate them. How about far left = 5 stars, far right = 5 lightning bolts, and you get something in between based on where else you fall on that spectrum?
Can I get six stars, a lightning bolt and a hammer & sickle?
|
Kwark is fiscally on the conservative side of things.
When it comes to social issues he's mostly on the left imo.
But I get the feeling that the first is important to him whereas the 2nd is perhaps something that should be "obvious" according to him and not something that determines wether you're to the right or left. Not sure if he'd agree with that judgement but that's what I think about him when he's posting.
|
I completely missed that “I thought Democrats were into civil rights, even including criminals on trial?” comment. Is that something people were not into?
Also, civil rights violations against a citizen would be raised as a defense at trial. Not by a congress member through a memo. That isn’t the venue to bring that defense.
Kwark is EU conservative, or as I like to put it: Conservatives that and don’t hate government.
|
So, news just came out that the memo is going to be redacted in some way. But Wray's and Rosenstein's main complaint about the memo was not lack of redaction. They claimed the memo lied by omission about the events it covers in order to create "a false narrative."
@Danglars: How do you feel about the fact that the vote to release the Nunes memo was purely partisan and the vote to not release the Dem's memo was also purely partisan? You cannot in good faith claim to "want it all released" unless you also support the release of the Dem's memo and the release of the original FISA application and the applications for extension of the FISA warrant.
Do 2 votes along party lines to release information favorable to the Narrative and block any information that would unfavorable look like proper bipartisan oversight to you, or does it look like pure partisan hackery?
|
On February 02 2018 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 01:25 IyMoon wrote:
Lets get it going guys!
What should we place on odds?
Is it a ban bet? Paypal someone something? Who gets to be the ref? (It 100% should be GH) I approve this message Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 02:20 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 02:14 Leporello wrote:
Hooray for partisan memo day! I can't wait for Nunes to expose the FBI's troubling behavior of spying on Russians and Russo-Americans like Carter Page to the public. This just in: American citizens can be "Russo-Americans" undeserving of constitutional protections like the Fourth Amendment against spying. I thought Democrats were into civil rights, even including criminals on trial? Maybe I'm relying on outdated assumptions about Democrats. Americans that deal with Russians get put on the gangplank these days. You don't need me to remind you why this is gross do you? I know you feel silly for this now. Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 04:47 Plansix wrote:
Seems accurate. Though Kwark and Modoo are filthy centrist according to some. Come on, Kwark self-identifies as a coinservative (typo that I'm keeping). The US political spectrum is FUBAR.
Kwark seems to identify as conservative while also saying the American version of conservatism is a bastardization of sorts. I think he's much more fond of the European definition of conservative.
|
On February 02 2018 05:07 TheLordofAwesome wrote:So, news just came out that the memo is going to be redacted in some way. But Wray's and Rosenstein's main complaint about the memo was not lack of redaction. They claimed the memo lied by omission about the events it covers in order to create "a false narrative." @Danglars: How do you feel about the fact that the vote to release the Nunes memo was purely partisan and the vote to not release the Dem's memo was also purely partisan? You cannot in good faith claim to "want it all released" unless you also support the release of the Dem's memo and the release of the original FISA application and the applications for extension of the FISA warrant. Do 2 votes along party lines to release information favorable to the Narrative and block any information that would unfavorable look like proper bipartisan oversight to you, or does it look like pure partisan hackery?
The narrative seems to be that spying on Carter Page was a political act aimed at Trump.
Paul Ryan just lied his ass off saying this is strictly about FISA, although they're certainly trying to throw FISA under the bus. This is about Trump-Russia. And it's a lie that the FBI is objecting simply to the lack of redactions, and not to the very premise of the memo.
The memo is rhetorical. And the rhetoric is fundamentally false. The FBI will have to respond. It sucks more than usual to be Carter Page today.
|
On February 02 2018 05:07 TheLordofAwesome wrote:So, news just came out that the memo is going to be redacted in some way. But Wray's and Rosenstein's main complaint about the memo was not lack of redaction. They claimed the memo lied by omission about the events it covers in order to create "a false narrative." @Danglars: How do you feel about the fact that the vote to release the Nunes memo was purely partisan and the vote to not release the Dem's memo was also purely partisan? You cannot in good faith claim to "want it all released" unless you also support the release of the Dem's memo and the release of the original FISA application and the applications for extension of the FISA warrant. Do 2 votes along party lines to release information favorable to the Narrative and block any information that would unfavorable look like proper bipartisan oversight to you, or does it look like pure partisan hackery?
Yes, I want them all released. I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about this stance.
|
On February 02 2018 05:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 02 2018 01:25 IyMoon wrote:
Lets get it going guys!
What should we place on odds?
Is it a ban bet? Paypal someone something? Who gets to be the ref? (It 100% should be GH) I approve this message On February 02 2018 02:20 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 02:14 Leporello wrote:
Hooray for partisan memo day! I can't wait for Nunes to expose the FBI's troubling behavior of spying on Russians and Russo-Americans like Carter Page to the public. This just in: American citizens can be "Russo-Americans" undeserving of constitutional protections like the Fourth Amendment against spying. I thought Democrats were into civil rights, even including criminals on trial? Maybe I'm relying on outdated assumptions about Democrats. Americans that deal with Russians get put on the gangplank these days. You don't need me to remind you why this is gross do you? I know you feel silly for this now. On February 02 2018 04:47 Plansix wrote:
Seems accurate. Though Kwark and Modoo are filthy centrist according to some. Come on, Kwark self-identifies as a coinservative (typo that I'm keeping). The US political spectrum is FUBAR. Kwark seems to identify as conservative while also saying the American version of conservatism is a bastardization of sorts. I think he's much more fond of the European definition of conservative.
With the exception of a very strange few, such as Nigel Farge, UK conservatives seem to have a distaste for US conservatives.
Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear fame is rather conservative in British press. Hated Bush. Loved Obama. Generally speaking.
|
I do not believe you ever commented on the memo drafted by the democrats and asking for everything to be released was mostly centered around FBI documents. Everything would imply the democrat’s memo, but understand if folks were not sure.
|
On February 02 2018 04:18 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 04:07 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 02:56 IyMoon wrote:On February 02 2018 02:46 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 02:27 Adreme wrote:On February 02 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 02:17 Leporello wrote:
If Danglars went for 1/100th of the effort for Donald Trump's tax returns as does for FBI agent's private text-messages, we'd know we're a functioning republic. In this episode, Leporello confuses documents Trump is not compelled by law to release, with House oversight of the demotion of a top FBI official on a major case. Private citizens and government workers charged with investigating criminal lawbreaking and invested with power to do so. Easy to confuse, right? In this episode the lesson is that all those unwritten rules that were unwritten because they thought no one would be brazely corrupt enough to defy might need to be written down now because it turns our there are people that corrupt. Corrupt enough to defy unwritten rules? Sounds like an angry persons that doesn’t like someone breaking with tradition. But sure, agitate for a law. I think it could be safe to say that it was an unwritten rule that you should keep rat shit out of food you sell to people. But god damn then people kept letting rat shit get into the food and so now we have the FDA. Unwritten rules get broken all the time and then you create laws around it because you can't trust people anymore I wouldn’t bring up something with actual written rules for health and public safety. If you knowingly sell food contaminated with rat shit, you’re legally liable. If you refuse to release your private tax returns to the public, you get no legal consequences (though maybe the voting public goes with your opponent because of it). But i am sure that law was not always there. Which was the point being made by lyMoon. Unwritten Rule ---> People are assholes ---> written rule necessary. Illustrated with the historical (not current) example of rat shit in food. Also, i find it really strange that you, the self-proclaimed conservative, have absolutely no problem with breaking tradition and proclaim that in a way that basically describes tradition as worthless. (Funnily enough, only when Trump does it. Other people breaking tradition by, for example, shrouding a statue, is absolutely horribly disgusting to you) I must say that it is very hard to take you serious as a person with a position other than "win at any cost". What you think about any issue is completely unrelated to the issue itself, and only related to the people involved. If someone is described as conservative, republican, or anything else along those lines, you will be on that side of the argument. If someone is described as a democrat, you will be on the other side. It does not matter at all what the argument is about. If a democrat and a republican were arguing about the french ice hockey league, you would defend the position of the latter to the death without any second thought.
The tradition is to guilt and cajole the rich Republican into releasing it, so they can be the subject of class warfare bullshit both from money earned and taxes paid. I think Harry Reid’s acknowledged and proud lies about Romney’s taxes in the 2012 election show just how worthwhile that tradition is. He’s kind of the forerunner of Democratic ethics today ... when asked about his lie, he said “Romney didn’t win, did he?”
In some ways, conservatives in America are a misnomer. Government has been steadily growing throughout my lifetime and my parents lifetimes. I want to change that. Under one definition, the true conservatives today want to keep that trend going ... greater spending, regulation, and control of government (most recently in the Health Insurance field). So that’s going to come into conflict with many areas where I feel traditions enduring from the time of the founding are under assault by liberals. So that’s a word of caution for you. Don’t turn off your brain because one aspect of an issue is traditional, any more than its traditional to talk big about Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and then do nothing.
|
On February 02 2018 04:54 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 04:51 Sermokala wrote:On February 02 2018 04:01 Emnjay808 wrote:
i wish there was a tag next to each person's name so i know whos conserv and whos lib. that way i know whos arguing with who. Yes lets just have one side get stars and the other side (insert nazi symbol here for shock effect). That was a great way to identify people and separate them. How about far left = 5 stars, far right = 5 lightning bolts, and you get something in between based on where else you fall on that spectrum?
an opportunity to reintroduce the hammer and sickle and you passed?! i'm disappointed.
lightning bolts are appropriate. alternatives are a wolfhead or just plain swastikas.
|
On February 02 2018 05:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 04:18 Simberto wrote:On February 02 2018 04:07 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 02:56 IyMoon wrote:On February 02 2018 02:46 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 02:27 Adreme wrote:On February 02 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2018 02:17 Leporello wrote:
If Danglars went for 1/100th of the effort for Donald Trump's tax returns as does for FBI agent's private text-messages, we'd know we're a functioning republic. In this episode, Leporello confuses documents Trump is not compelled by law to release, with House oversight of the demotion of a top FBI official on a major case. Private citizens and government workers charged with investigating criminal lawbreaking and invested with power to do so. Easy to confuse, right? In this episode the lesson is that all those unwritten rules that were unwritten because they thought no one would be brazely corrupt enough to defy might need to be written down now because it turns our there are people that corrupt. Corrupt enough to defy unwritten rules? Sounds like an angry persons that doesn’t like someone breaking with tradition. But sure, agitate for a law. I think it could be safe to say that it was an unwritten rule that you should keep rat shit out of food you sell to people. But god damn then people kept letting rat shit get into the food and so now we have the FDA. Unwritten rules get broken all the time and then you create laws around it because you can't trust people anymore I wouldn’t bring up something with actual written rules for health and public safety. If you knowingly sell food contaminated with rat shit, you’re legally liable. If you refuse to release your private tax returns to the public, you get no legal consequences (though maybe the voting public goes with your opponent because of it). But i am sure that law was not always there. Which was the point being made by lyMoon. Unwritten Rule ---> People are assholes ---> written rule necessary. Illustrated with the historical (not current) example of rat shit in food. Also, i find it really strange that you, the self-proclaimed conservative, have absolutely no problem with breaking tradition and proclaim that in a way that basically describes tradition as worthless. (Funnily enough, only when Trump does it. Other people breaking tradition by, for example, shrouding a statue, is absolutely horribly disgusting to you) I must say that it is very hard to take you serious as a person with a position other than "win at any cost". What you think about any issue is completely unrelated to the issue itself, and only related to the people involved. If someone is described as conservative, republican, or anything else along those lines, you will be on that side of the argument. If someone is described as a democrat, you will be on the other side. It does not matter at all what the argument is about. If a democrat and a republican were arguing about the french ice hockey league, you would defend the position of the latter to the death without any second thought. The tradition is to guilt and cajole the rich Republican into releasing it, so they can be the subject of class warfare bullshit both from money earned and taxes paid. I think Harry Reid’s acknowledged and proud lies about Romney’s taxes in the 2012 election show just how worthwhile that tradition is. He’s kind of the forerunner of Democratic ethics today ... when asked about his lie, he said “Romney didn’t win, did he?” In some ways, conservatives in America are a misnomer. Government has been steadily growing throughout my lifetime and my parents lifetimes. I want to change that. Under one definition, the true conservatives today want to keep that trend going ... greater spending, regulation, and control of government (most recently in the Health Insurance field). So that’s going to come into conflict with many areas where I feel traditions enduring from the time of the founding are under assault by liberals. So that’s a word of caution for you. Don’t turn off your brain because one aspect of an issue is traditional, any more than its traditional to talk big about Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and then do nothing.
The tradition dates back to the 1970s and Democrat candidates have all been as wealthy as Republican candidates. The tradition started with Nixon, who did it willingly to prove that he was paying all of his taxes to the IRS. Since then it has been about the candidate earning the trust of the American people and disclosing their assets and who they might be doing business with.
This narrative you have created is not reality in any way, especially if you think folks like John Kerry got a leg up by releasing his tax returns(hint, his super wealthy wife did not help him)
|
|
|
On February 02 2018 04:43 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
So what do y'all think of my categorization of your posting? Feel free to complain about my conservative bias or liberal bias or Liquid bias!
It sounds good if you look at it from an american standard, but that's not really a compliment. I've been meaning for a little while to write a way too long post about the left, the right, why I think I can make a credible argument that the US has them wrong and why it matters, and this is perhaps the right context to write it. I'll get to it when I'm back from work.
|
On February 02 2018 05:45 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 04:54 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2018 04:51 Sermokala wrote:On February 02 2018 04:01 Emnjay808 wrote:
i wish there was a tag next to each person's name so i know whos conserv and whos lib. that way i know whos arguing with who. Yes lets just have one side get stars and the other side (insert nazi symbol here for shock effect). That was a great way to identify people and separate them. How about far left = 5 stars, far right = 5 lightning bolts, and you get something in between based on where else you fall on that spectrum? an opportunity to reintroduce the hammer and sickle and you passed?! i'm disappointed. lightning bolts are appropriate. alternatives are a wolfhead or just plain swastikas.
Don't worry, I picked up the slack as the other useful idiot/Russian troll:
On February 02 2018 05:02 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 04:54 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2018 04:51 Sermokala wrote:On February 02 2018 04:01 Emnjay808 wrote:
i wish there was a tag next to each person's name so i know whos conserv and whos lib. that way i know whos arguing with who. Yes lets just have one side get stars and the other side (insert nazi symbol here for shock effect). That was a great way to identify people and separate them. How about far left = 5 stars, far right = 5 lightning bolts, and you get something in between based on where else you fall on that spectrum? Can I get six stars, a lightning bolt and a hammer & sickle?
On February 02 2018 06:02 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 04:43 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
So what do y'all think of my categorization of your posting? Feel free to complain about my conservative bias or liberal bias or Liquid bias!
It sounds good if you look at it from an american standard, but that's not really a compliment. I've been meaning for a little while to write a way too long post about the left, the right, why I think I can make a credible argument that the US has them wrong and why it matters, and this is perhaps the right context to write it. I'll get to it when I'm back from work.
It doesn't really matter that they "get it wrong" (from your perspective) though. The established American politics is almost as solidly established as the established Russian politics. It's simply the reality they have to contend with, for better or worse. The only thing you can do as an outsider is take it into account when conversing with Americans. Telling them they're wrong is pointless what with the whole perspective thing.
|
On February 02 2018 06:06 a_flayer wrote:
It doesn't really matter that they "get it wrong" though. The established American politics is almost as solidly established as the established Russian politics. It's simply the reality they have to contend with, for better or worse. The only thing you can do as an outsider is take it into account when conversing with Americans. Telling them they're wrong is pointless what with the whole perspective thing.
You're making a good argument that the difference shouldn't be dismissed, and I agree that it shouldn't. I don't think you're making a very good argument that it doesn't matter though, and you say yourself "for better or worse". I happen to think it's for worse, and to such a level that I believe it becomes extremely important, perhaps one of the biggest issues in the US from my perspective.
|
On February 02 2018 06:15 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2018 06:06 a_flayer wrote:
It doesn't really matter that they "get it wrong" though. The established American politics is almost as solidly established as the established Russian politics. It's simply the reality they have to contend with, for better or worse. The only thing you can do as an outsider is take it into account when conversing with Americans. Telling them they're wrong is pointless what with the whole perspective thing.
You're making a good argument that the difference shouldn't be dismissed, and I agree that it shouldn't. I don't think you're making a very good argument that it doesn't matter though, and you say yourself "for better or worse". I happen to think it's for worse, and to such a level that I believe it becomes extremely important, perhaps one of the biggest issues in the US from my perspective.
Well, sure, but I was talking about the list and your comments that the left-right division was nonsense within that context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
