• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who is to blame for the ballfield shooting?

Quag said:
The present is conmencted to the past, clearly you do not want to understand that
You can take your hyperpartisan BS elsewhere
Click to expand...

LOL

And failing to be persuasive in your argument, you attack. Kind of makes my point.
 
Nebraska Democratic official ousted for allegedly wishing Steve Scalise dead

The chairwoman of the Nebraska Democrats removed a party official from his post Thursday, after a recording surfaced that appeared to capture the official saying he was glad House Majority Whip Steve Scalise was shot and that he wished Scalise died.

Nebraska Democratic Party Chair Jane Kleeb ousted Phil Montag, the volunteer co-chair of the technology's committee, as soon as she heard the recording, the Omaha World-Herald reported.

""As soon as I heard it, I sent it to the (party) officers and then sent an email to Phil Montag informing him I am removing him from his appointed position as Co-Chair of the Technology Committee," Kleeb told the World-Herald. "Wishing a Member of Congress or any individual dead is disgusting and has no place in our party."

Kleeb reported the conversation to law enforcement out of concern it was a genuine threat, she told the paper.

Scalise and four others were shot during a June 14 practice for a congressional baseball game. Scalise is still in the hospital recovering from surgeries performed to address the gunshot."

The recording was made during a conversation between Montag, party official Chelsey Gentry-Tipton and a friend of hers. Gentry-Tipton faced criticism last week for saying the GOP members of Congress crying about the shooting on television were funny because they supported the National Rifle Association’s agenda.

""I'm glad he got shot," Montag says in the recording. "I'm not gonna (expletive) say that in public."

"Well then what are you saying it to us for?" someone else in the recording asks.

"I wish he was (expletive) dead," Montag replies."

He got caught. It doesnt seem anything more than practicing his own version of islamic deception against non democrats. Taqiyya (In his own faith of course)



The dnc lady cut him loose. Maybe they are not all totally insane yet.


Audio: Nebraska Democrat says he's glad Rep. Scalise was shot - Hot Air Hot Air
 
ocean515 said:
LOL

And failing to be persuasive in your argument, you attack. Kind of makes my point.
Click to expand...

Actually I was replying in kind.
You made contradictory statements and appear oblivious to that. I tried to point it out but you obviously have no interest in learning
 
ocean515 said:
I've already determined your words on this topic are worthless, so I guess we've reached a consensus and can move on.

:peace
Click to expand...

You don't want to hear my words because not only are they accurate but they call you out on what you are. Your denial on both issues is not my problem.
 
ocean515 said:
Your challenge is trying to figure out how deeply your own partisanship is distorting history, and what you should do about it.

Did the losing candidate in 2008 start a dark money PAC to attack the President with? Did they call for the Nation to join a Resist movement? Did the President of the previous administration go on the attack against the person voters elected to follow him in office?

Did main stream talking heads, and celebrities go on record calling for Obama's impeachment?

You're extreme partisanship has destroyed your credibility on this issue. As I wrote in a separate response, I view your words as pointless and worthless.

Since you view mine in the same manner, we've nothing more to accomplish.

:peace
Click to expand...

I can easily list things that your side has done that has not occurred on the left... or that your side did first. But, as I said, your blind partisanship prevents you from seeing anything objective, so there is no point in pointing out truth to you. It is you that has no credbility on this issue. It's people like you who allow partisanship to blind themselves from reality who are creating the problems in this country.
 
bubbabgone said:
If I read you right, your distinction between approaches by critics of Obama and of Trump (and Republicans) is that one was personal and the other is about policy.
I'm not sure that examples of each would be conclusive.

But let's say that attacks on Obama were predominantly of a personal nature, like his past associations were/are far Left.
While attacks on Trump and Republicans are predominantly about policy, like Obamacare replacement.

Is that pretty much what you're suggesting?
Click to expand...

Before I answer your question, here is one for you. Are your intentions to discuss this issue reasonably and objectively? If so, I'd be happy to do so with you. If it is to discuss it from a blind partisan place such as ocean did, you'll end up getting the same kinds of ironic posts pointing out your hyperpartisanship and hypocrisy. I mean no disrespect by this question. I just want to know how much effort and what tone to use in our discussion.
 
ocean515 said:
I have already stated that mudslinging is as old as rain.

I'm referring to the present. I'm referring to the volume which has been turned on high by the left.

Did Bush start a dark money organization and go public with attacks after Obama took office? Did McCain?

This is getting pointless.

I'm done.

:peace
Click to expand...

Actually, what's pointless is your hypocrisy. Make a decision. Either mudslinging started when time began, or is started this January. If you wonder why you get called out on hyperpartisan bs, it's because you do stuff like this.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You don't want to hear my words because not only are they accurate but they call you out on what you are. Your denial on both issues is not my problem.
Click to expand...

Accurate in your own mind. Why are you attacking me for having a different opinion? You want to reel in a bit, big guy?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I can easily list things that your side has done that has not occurred on the left... or that your side did first. But, as I said, your blind partisanship prevents you from seeing anything objective, so there is no point in pointing out truth to you. It is you that has no credbility on this issue. It's people like you who allow partisanship to blind themselves from reality who are creating the problems in this country.
Click to expand...

LOL

Me thinks you complain too much....

Says all that needs to be said.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Actually, what's pointless is your hypocrisy. Make a decision. Either mudslinging started when time began, or is started this January. If you wonder why you get called out on hyperpartisan bs, it's because you do stuff like this.
Click to expand...

I never wrote the mudslinging started this January. If you can't control your emotionalism, and refrain from personal attack, I think you are conveying a message that shouldn't be coming from someone in your position.

You might want to chew on that a bit.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
Before I answer your question, here is one for you. Are your intentions to discuss this issue reasonably and objectively? If so, I'd be happy to do so with you. If it is to discuss it from a blind partisan place such as ocean did, you'll end up getting the same kinds of ironic posts pointing out your hyperpartisanship and hypocrisy. I mean no disrespect by this question. I just want to know how much effort and what tone to use in our discussion.
Click to expand...

I was trying to see if I could clarify your position for myself so I know if there's anywhere to go with it.
 
ocean515 said:
Accurate in your own mind. Why are you attacking me for having a different opinion? You want to reel in a bit, big guy?
Click to expand...

You can have a different opinion. And I can attack that opinion. Are you saying that you have done no attacking at all in this interaction?
 
ocean515 said:
I never wrote the mudslinging started this January. If you can't control your emotionalism, and refrain from personal attack, I think you are conveying a message that shouldn't be coming from someone in your position.

You might want to chew on that a bit.
Click to expand...

And what message do you think I'm sending?
 
bubbabgone said:
I was trying to see if I could clarify your position for myself so I know if there's anywhere to go with it.
Click to expand...

OK, that's a reasonable response. Here is my position on the matter. Republicans/conservatives went after Obama from day one, both because of their disagreements with his policies (they are conservatives, he is not... of COURSE they are going to disagree with his policies). Some attacked him, personally because he was a Democrat. I rarely saw any real racist comments come from mainstream right wingers and, generally, reject that argument. Currently, we see Democrats/liberals going after Trump because of disagreements with his policies (they are liberals, he is not... of COURSE they are going to disagree with his policies). We also see some attacking him, personally because he is a Republican. The only difference I see between the two is that Obama did nothing directly to contribute to the personal attacks, whereas Trump, because of how often he says really dumb things, does. Now, that in no way justifies the personal attacks. All they do is detract us from current issues that should really be discussed, such as healthcare, immigration, and the economy. Notice, I didn't mention the whole Russian thing. IMO, that is nearly as much of a stupid witchhunt as trying to impeach Clinton for getting a blowjob from Monica. From my observation this partisan crap has been going on since the US began, and certainly before. The blame game that we see from both sides is a smokescreen so that the side doing the blaming doesn't have to take responsibility for addressing the issue. Who did it first? BOTH. And, also, it doesn't matter. It is up to BOTH to do something about it. And again, I'll say it... anyone who disagrees would prefer to play the partisan blame game and is part of the problem.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You can have a different opinion. And I can attack that opinion. Are you saying that you have done no attacking at all in this interaction?
Click to expand...

Of course I have been defending my perspective. Isn't that what this site is for?

However, you've moved beyond that.

Consider this post of yours:

"You don't want to hear my words because not only are they accurate but they call you out on what you are"​

So what am I Captain?

It's been my experience when someone can't defend, they attack personally.

And that is where you have gone here.

I have no interest in that, and you should know better.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
OK, that's a reasonable response. Here is my position on the matter. Republicans/conservatives went after Obama from day one, both because of their disagreements with his policies (they are conservatives, he is not... of COURSE they are going to disagree with his policies). Some attacked him, personally because he was a Democrat. I rarely saw any real racist comments come from mainstream right wingers and, generally, reject that argument. Currently, we see Democrats/liberals going after Trump because of disagreements with his policies (they are liberals, he is not... of COURSE they are going to disagree with his policies). We also see some attacking him, personally because he is a Republican. The only difference I see between the two is that Obama did nothing directly to contribute to the personal attacks, whereas Trump, because of how often he says really dumb things, does. Now, that in no way justifies the personal attacks. All they do is detract us from current issues that should really be discussed, such as healthcare, immigration, and the economy. Notice, I didn't mention the whole Russian thing. IMO, that is nearly as much of a stupid witchhunt as trying to impeach Clinton for getting a blowjob from Monica. From my observation this partisan crap has been going on since the US began, and certainly before. The blame game that we see from both sides is a smokescreen so that the side doing the blaming doesn't have to take responsibility for addressing the issue. Who did it first? BOTH. And, also, it doesn't matter. It is up to BOTH to do something about it. And again, I'll say it... anyone who disagrees would prefer to play the partisan blame game and is part of the problem.
Click to expand...

Except for your last sentence I don't see much to disagree about with you.
I suspect our disagreement would come if we examine and contrast the content of the expressions of disagreement by all parties, which content would be considered more provocative, and which could be seen to have produced more extreme results.
 
bubbabgone said:
Except for your last sentence I don't see much to disagree about with you.
I suspect our disagreement would come if we examine and contrast the content of the expressions of disagreement by all parties, which content would be considered more provocative, and which could be seen to have produced more extreme results.
Click to expand...

When we have the weak minded acting on inflamed rhetoric, then we have problems. If you happen to say "it's raining frogs...", you have to consider the probability that some few are going to grab a net and run outside in the belief they're going to have frog legs for dinner. It's not possible to cure the weak minded. It is possible to tone down the rhetoric.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
OK, that's a reasonable response. Here is my position on the matter. Republicans/conservatives went after Obama from day one, both because of their disagreements with his policies (they are conservatives, he is not... of COURSE they are going to disagree with his policies). Some attacked him, personally because he was a Democrat. I rarely saw any real racist comments come from mainstream right wingers and, generally, reject that argument. Currently, we see Democrats/liberals going after Trump because of disagreements with his policies (they are liberals, he is not... of COURSE they are going to disagree with his policies). We also see some attacking him, personally because he is a Republican. The only difference I see between the two is that Obama did nothing directly to contribute to the personal attacks, whereas Trump, because of how often he says really dumb things, does. Now, that in no way justifies the personal attacks. All they do is detract us from current issues that should really be discussed, such as healthcare, immigration, and the economy. Notice, I didn't mention the whole Russian thing. IMO, that is nearly as much of a stupid witchhunt as trying to impeach Clinton for getting a blowjob from Monica. From my observation this partisan crap has been going on since the US began, and certainly before. The blame game that we see from both sides is a smokescreen so that the side doing the blaming doesn't have to take responsibility for addressing the issue. Who did it first? BOTH. And, also, it doesn't matter. It is up to BOTH to do something about it. And again, I'll say it... anyone who disagrees would prefer to play the partisan blame game and is part of the problem.
Click to expand...


It is up to BOTH to do something about it.

But it's been here since the beginning? Pffffffffffffft, sure, it will get fixed now. Revisit Bacon's Rebellionand the rebellion in Maryland a year later. This stuff IS your system.
 
humbolt said:
When we have the weak minded acting on inflamed rhetoric, then we have problems. If you happen to say "it's raining frogs...", you have to consider the probability that some few are going to grab a net and run outside in the belief they're going to have frog legs for dinner. It's not possible to cure the weak minded. It is possible to tone down the rhetoric.
Click to expand...

The rhetoric serves exactly who it is designed to serve, asking them to do anything at all is silly. As long as "the people" cooperate and participate in their own subjugation the system will be very comfortable just as it is.
 
Fenton Lum said:
The rhetoric serves exactly who it is designed to serve, asking them to do anything at all is silly. As long as "the people" cooperate and participate in their own subjugation the system will be very comfortable just as it is.
Click to expand...

Some people act on the rhetoric. regardless of what you perceive as the motivation behind the rhetoric.
 
humbolt said:
You are probably right, if you choose to view "the system" in that manner. I don't choose to view such things in that manner.
Click to expand...

Lots of folks choose to ignore where we are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom