Steve Scalise Shot

[poed]

so its agreed

BLACK police officers should serve only BLACKS

WHITE police officers should serve only WHITES

GAY police officers should serve only GAY PEOPLE

CUNT police officers should serve only CUNTS

etc

And therefor also agree, those on welfare and who pay NO TAXES shouldnt be protected at all cause they dony PAY the salaries etc, and shouldnt be allowed to walk the streets as they dont pay for it

RIGHT?

 

[HisArpy]

Wow, you really do believe, "I was just following orders" is justification for whatever law someone wants to pass.

I guess that doesn't apply to you.
And the above doesn't include your posts where you cheered on party line hate.

You won't find any posts by me in this thread where I've mentioned party or political persuasion.
In fact, you'll find few to none on this entire forum, where I've painted either party with the broad brush that you frequently employ. You should take your own advice if you don't want to continue being a hypocrite.

This post is a perfect example of selective reading and comprehension. You list my failings as a weapon against me yet choose to ignore my attempt to return to being nice.

From post #481

As for me, I am attempting to reduce and eventually eliminate the foul language I have been using in order to return to some level of civility. Please, everyone, do me the courtesy of reciprocating. It will help me succeed in this endeavor of returning to humanity rather than remaining a foul mouthed cretinous troll.

I can't say I didn't deserve it. So I won't.

As for the other, YES I believe in "following orders". We are not anarchists. We are a nation of laws. We follow the laws. We obey the laws.

We don't do it our way and then try to force everyone else to go along with our vision.

What we get when we do that is something like: "Well, we have to pass it to know what's in it". Regardless of how much "good" you think you will do with that method, it's still the wrong thing to do. Because it's force not leadership.

 

[Peregrinator]

Who was Hillary Clinton before her "evolution?" Alex...

As far as I can tell, she's been an asshole all her life. I've been referring to her as "the most divisive person in American politics" since the 08 campaign at least. I started calling her "the queen of privilege" during this last mess. She's flipped and flopped and generally been a weathervane throughout her political career.

And your post has nothing whatsoever to do with mine. People in this thread were talking about how "the left" were making the cop's choice of partners an issue. I pointed out that Scalise had made numerous legislative, official acts that make people's choices of partner "an issue." Fucking guy wants to ammend the Constitution over peopl's choice of partners. I can think of few more tyrranical acts than that.

Why you bring ip an irrelevant also-ran is pretty obvious, though. As usual, confronted with clear, factual evidence that a Republican does something that runs counter to your claimed Libertarian principles, as well as counter to your broad-brush assertion of what "the left" does, you deflect with "but Clinton." Why not just own that Scalise is guilty of overreach and move along?

The man certainly did NOT deserve to be shot by some lunatic asshole, but he absolutely HAS been, through his career, guilty of attempts to control people's choices in a matter that you and I both think shouldn't be government business at all. A Constitutional ammendment, ffs.

Since you quoted that piece of shit, I will say again, for the record, in all caps, NO ONE SHOULD BE SHOT OVER POLICY.

 

[HisArpy]

As far as I can tell, she's been an asshole all her life. I've been referring to her as "the most divisive person in American politics" since the 08 campaign at least. I started calling her "the queen of privilege" during this last mess. She's flipped and flopped and generally been a weathervane throughout her political career.

And your post has nothing whatsoever to do with mine. People in this thread were talking about how "the left" were making the cop's choice of partners an issue. I pointed out that Scalise had made numerous legislative, official acts that make people's choices of partner "an issue." Fucking guy wants to ammend the Constitution over peopl's choice of partners. I can think of few more tyrranical acts than that.

Why you bring ip an irrelevant also-ran is pretty obvious, though. As usual, confronted with clear, factual evidence that a Republican does something that runs counter to your claimed Libertarian principles, as well as counter to your broad-brush assertion of what "the left" does, you deflect with "but Clinton." Why not just own that Scalise is guilty of overreach and move along?

The man certainly did NOT deserve to be shot by some lunatic asshole, but he absolutely HAS been, through his career, guilty of attempts to control people's choices in a matter that you and I both think shouldn't be government business at all. A Constitutional ammendment, ffs.

Since you quoted that piece of shit, I will say again, for the record, in all caps, NO ONE SHOULD BE SHOT OVER POLICY.

Ok I get your argument. But, what would you have a congressman do? Take a vote on the popularity of a bill he hasn't drafted yet? Or follow the results of some Quinnipac poll of a "random sampling" of 1000 people over the internet for something that will affect the lives of millions??

The point to Congress is that it's a gathering of representatives of the States who discuss American policy to determine what is working and what isn't. They then discuss changes to those policies in order to make thing go smoother.

This requires that they propose things that may sound dumb. But without the proposals, we have stasis in areas that NEED changing. Some of those things may sound basic in hindsight but where would we be without all those gay marriage bans had they NOT been enacted. Would we recognize gay marriage today without all the conversation? Probably not. The same with Equal Rights. And that particular conversation is STILL going on.

We are supposed to talk, not fight. We learned that lesson in the years between 1861 and 1865. Somewhere along the line we've forgotten it.

 

[Wrong Element]

I keep reading poed as pwned.

Poed is an anagram for dope, is an synonym for "Exactly how big can an Ignore list get?"

 

[Disgustipated]

Poed is an anagram for dope, is an synonym for "Exactly how big can an Ignore list get?"

I have been reading like he got "poed". Like Edgar Allan, like dead, which is about right.

 

[adrina]

I've been reading it as PO'd - pissed off.

 

[adrina]

We are supposed to talk, not fight. We learned that lesson in the years between 1861 and 1865. Somewhere along the line we've forgotten it.

... your Congressional representatives are there to do whatever they can to obstruct his agenda.

That's called politics. And THAT is what the Right did for the last 8 years.

But, that's not what the Left is doing. Is it?

So... we're supposed to talk, but our representatives are supposed to obstruct...

How does that work exactly?

You're focusing on parties. Not government. That's the problem. And it's not just you.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

As far as I can tell, she's been an asshole all her life. I've been referring to her as "the most divisive person in American politics" since the 08 campaign at least. I started calling her "the queen of privilege" during this last mess. She's flipped and flopped and generally been a weathervane throughout her political career.

And your post has nothing whatsoever to do with mine. People in this thread were talking about how "the left" were making the cop's choice of partners an issue. I pointed out that Scalise had made numerous legislative, official acts that make people's choices of partner "an issue." Fucking guy wants to ammend the Constitution over peopl's choice of partners. I can think of few more tyrranical acts than that.

Why you bring ip an irrelevant also-ran is pretty obvious, though. As usual, confronted with clear, factual evidence that a Republican does something that runs counter to your claimed Libertarian principles, as well as counter to your broad-brush assertion of what "the left" does, you deflect with "but Clinton." Why not just own that Scalise is guilty of overreach and move along?

The man certainly did NOT deserve to be shot by some lunatic asshole, but he absolutely HAS been, through his career, guilty of attempts to control people's choices in a matter that you and I both think shouldn't be government business at all. A Constitutional ammendment, ffs.

Since you quoted that piece of shit, I will say again, for the record, in all caps, NO ONE SHOULD BE SHOT OVER POLICY.

I guess you haven't been following the conversation too closely and have jumped to all the wrong conclusions.

The reason I reacted to yet another one of those posts on his voting record is that the Left here made the cops sexual orientation an issue as an attack on the Congressman. The fact of the matter is, a very large segment of America objected to the change in the definition of marriage over imaginary rights and a specious subset of tax and other consequences, all of which could have been remedied by civil unions. It was even the majority opinion in California for the longest time. There is no reason to attack this man because he represented his constituency.

The Left did.

This argument, control people's lives is no more than another emotional appeal, the same kind of emotional appeals that led to the shooting and because people such as yourself are engaging in discussion like this, will not cool the red-hot hatred of the SJW crowd. You give them legitimacy with false argumentation.

 

[Peregrinator]

Ok I get your argument. But, what would you have a congressman do? Take a vote on the popularity of a bill he hasn't drafted yet? Or follow the results of some Quinnipac poll of a "random sampling" of 1000 people over the internet for something that will affect the lives of millions??

The point to Congress is that it's a gathering of representatives of the States who discuss American policy to determine what is working and what isn't. They then discuss changes to those policies in order to make thing go smoother.

This requires that they propose things that may sound dumb. But without the proposals, we have stasis in areas that NEED changing. Some of those things may sound basic in hindsight but where would we be without all those gay marriage bans had they NOT been enacted. Would we recognize gay marriage today without all the conversation? Probably not. The same with Equal Rights. And that particular conversation is STILL going on.

We are supposed to talk, not fight. We learned that lesson in the years between 1861 and 1865. Somewhere along the line we've forgotten it.

Someday, I'm going to remember how to spell "amendment."

I understand your point as well. And the need for dialog. I guess if I were a Congressman, I'd probably take the line that the government has no business telling consenting adults what to do in the bedroom. I think I was really responding to this idea that it's only one side that brings this stuff up; when you have leaders of the opposite side proposing legislation, saying it's only the one side talking about it is just patently false.

I saw your comment about keeping his job as well, and I think it's valid; in order to do anything at all, a legislator has to first...be a legislator. It's a tragic aspect of the system that they're constantly under the gun of losing the job. I guess that's one argument for term limits. Similar to a second-term president, a term-limited legislator could just do what he thinks is the right thing and not worry about votes and donors. Not sure it's enough to convince me, but it has some validity.

This discussion also gets into the philosophical one of whether we elect representatives to simply parrot our own ideas, or because we think they, like judges, are qualified to decide what's best for the republic. Maybe that's worth a whole thread.

And to your last, yes, yes, a thousand times yes! It sickens me to see the violent rhetoric and imagery, from either side. Even the "monkey" imagery of the Bush years was offputting, let alone the violence and racism directed at Obama and now the violence directed at Trump and Republicans. And of course then we get the hyperpartisanship, one side saying "Oh yeah? What about this bad thing your side did/said?" "Clinton was worse! Bush was worse! Obama was worse!" One of the reasons I lost interest in political discussions here was the predictable responses. I knew, when I posted that about Scalise's record, that someone would "But Clinton!" at me. And I could have posted a list of five to ten members it was likely to be. The same is true of the lefties, as you no doubt realize.

 

[Peregrinator]

I guess you haven't been following the conversation too closely and have jumped to all the wrong conclusions.

The reason I reacted to yet another one of those posts on his voting record is that the Left here made the cops sexual orientation an issue as an attack on the Congressman. The fact of the matter is, a very large segment of America objected to the change in the definition of marriage over imaginary rights and a specious subset of tax and other consequences, all of which could have been remedied by civil unions. It was even the majority opinion in California for the longest time. There is no reason to attack this man because he represented his constituency.

The Left did.

This argument, control people's lives is no more than another emotional appeal, the same kind of emotional appeals that led to the shooting and because people such as yourself are engaging in discussion like this, will not cool the red-hot hatred of the SJW crowd. You give them legitimacy with false argumentation.

I agree with this: "There is no reason to attack this man..." with the proposal of a friendly amendment that we end the sentence right there, full stop. There is no reason to attack this man.

In fact, I also think that bringing up the cop's stuff is a sort of silly thing to do. My point wasn't that the left was making a good argument by bringing it up. My point was that Scalise, too, had brought it up, in the kind of distant, abstract, non-personal way. Policy level. But there is something powerful in the idea that she saved his life and is also a person he's been trying to repress, whether it's because his constituents told him to, or because he thinks repressing people like her is important or valuable or good for the republic or moral or...whatever his reasons might be. What happened in this discussion is the focus narrowed from a demographic to an individual. Scalise proposed legislation affecting "gay people," and then had his life saved by "a gay person."

It's not an emotional appeal to say that legislation governing a thing the government should play no part in is overreach. It's a statement of principle. I believe the gov should play no part on marriage. Scalise proposed not just a law but a goddam Constitutional amendment to define a government restriction on marriage. That's not appeal to emotion. I mean, shit, do YOU think the Constitution needs an amendment for that? What the hell, man? I kinda like it the way it is, no need to infringe personal liberties.

PS I hope your family and you are well. Frog Princess must be like 12 years old or something now, huh? How are the dachshunds?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

There is no way that the shooter knew there was anyone other than "Republicans" there.


Any discussion of his voting, her sexuality or the damage baseball does by cutting down trees to create fields has zero to do with the level of vituperative discourse, which on the Left, be it the politicians, the press or the entertainment industry has become dominant.

 

[Peregrinator]

I see it on both sides; you choose to see the heaps of examples from one side as illustrative and from the other side as "cherry picked."

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

On a more personal note:

"PS I hope your family and you are well. Frog Princess must be like 12 years old or something now, huh? How are the dachshunds?"

Princess (and the Queen) voted for Trump.



Princess has already totaled her first car, but she fell asleep on the way home as she is doing what we all did, burning her candle at both ends, working three jobs, keeping up with school and having a very active social life.

The dachshunds are doing as well as can be considering their age, but the mini-dachs is having severe respiratory problems and may have to be put down sooner than later. Of course, thanks to the bird feeder and my trusty .22, I am keeping them well fed with squirrel meat.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I see it on both sides; you choose to see the heaps of examples from one side as illustrative and from the other side as "cherry picked."

No I choose to see results.


Which side has resorted to violence again.


Remember? "Tin soldiers of Nixon coming, Bill Ayers is bombing away..."

 

[Peregrinator]

Hah. Good to hear there's no tragedies other than one aging dog. Comes to us all.

Squirrels need to eat, too, ya wierdo

 

[Peregrinator]

No I choose to see results.


Which side has resorted to violence again.


Remember? "Tin soldiers of Nixon coming, Bill Ayers is bombing away..."

I agree that in the last few years there's been more actual violence by left against right than the opposite. The right tends to specialize in things like proposing Constitutional amendments that attempt to prevent people from pursuing happiness and electing presidents who think wminent domain is "great." That's a kind of violence, but not one that fits the narrower definition.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Hah. Good to hear there's no tragedies other than one aging dog. Comes to us all.

Squirrels need to eat, too, ya wierdo

Yeah, but we live in an oak forest.

Once they start going for the easy food, they stop being squirrels, stop fighting for territory and winter food supplies and begin to attack and destroy the bird feeder. So, according to Darwin, I am culling the stupid and lazy more quickly than the elements and the wild squirrels will.

 

[HisArpy]

I don't think a separate thread about "whether our representatives are supposed to do the things we want or not" will get much traction. And honestly I don't think a national conversation on term limits for Congress is something we need to be talking about because there's a 50/50 chance anything we do to change things will really screw it up worse. the system works. It's messy but THAT kind of messy I can deal with.

I believe what is happening in politics today is that a lot of people forgot the purpose of debate. Instead, they think it's an argument and THEY have to "win" it.

Debate is not about winning. It's about determining the best course to take. To do that you have to start with 2 equal premises. This. That. Then you sit down and lay out your facts (not lies) and salient points (not rhetoric) and give rational and logical thoughts (not pleas for emotional responses) on why the way you want to go is better. Then the other guy gets to do the same. At the end of the conversation everyone knows the subject, the FACTS, the reasons behind each idea and they get to choose which way to go based on that.

But that's not what's happening now.

Instead, we've got lies and denials and fingerpointing and hate and political terrorism masquerading as some sort of debate conversation. And that's just plain wrong.

The Left is constantly saying that the Right is creating the violence and that it justifies their acts. Yet, if you look, there's almost no violence from the Right. Yes, there are a FEW instances, but really, what harsh goading language FORCED someone to pick up a torch and burn down a building? And if you look, I mean REALLY LOOK, at who is committing the violence you won't see the faces of the Right very often.

"They cling to guns, and religion..." Yes. Conservatives tend do that. Because just like in martial arts, THE SCHOLAR controls the warrior. Where is the scholar for the Left? All I see are warriors urging war.

 

[Peregrinator]

Yeah, but we live in an oak forest.

Once they start going for the easy food, they stop being squirrels, stop fighting for territory and winter food supplies and begin to attack and destroy the bird feeder. So, according to Darwin, I am culling the stupid and lazy more quickly than the elements and the wild squirrels will.

Then what of dachshunds who get fat on dead squirrels?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I agree that in the last few years there's been more actual violence by left against right than the opposite. The right tends to specialize in things like proposing Constitutional amendments that attempt to prevent people from pursuing happiness and electing presidents who think wminent domain is "great." That's a kind of violence, but not one that fits the narrower definition.

Not one thing you mentioned prevented anyone for the pursuit of happiness.


"Happiness" in now, nor it has ever been a right.


Everyone was willing to give the gay community every opportunity to be happy, to give them equal protection under the law and to let them have their bedroom privacy and way of life; what most of us were fighting, "though politics" and not through violence, was the Left which wants to destroy language, condemn customs and reorder the lives of everyone else who does not adhere to their Nihilism in order to create a Utopia here on earth. Every time the succeed, the succeed in creating a Dystopia.

No one on the right has a problem with gays anymore (with a few outliers, like Muslims), but what we do have a problem with is the endemic use of group politics that is being employed to suppress and control individual rights.

Example: The RIGHT to be married? Where does and who does the lonely, unhappy single man or woman go to sue over being denied their RIGHT TO BE MARRIED?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Then what of dachshunds who get fat on dead squirrels?

The only thing they ever seem to get fat on is leftovers and we cut them out of their diet once they started getting older and were no longer running it off.

Plus



The big dachshund will not eat dog food unless she is starving. So, even though she will let the obnoxious little dachshund kick her out of a dog bed, when it comes to squirrel, she always ends up with it.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I don't think a separate thread about "whether our representatives are supposed to do the things we want or not" will get much traction. And honestly I don't think a national conversation on term limits for Congress is something we need to be talking about because there's a 50/50 chance anything we do to change things will really screw it up worse. the system works. It's messy but THAT kind of messy I can deal with.

I believe what is happening in politics today is that a lot of people forgot the purpose of debate. Instead, they think it's an argument and THEY have to "win" it.

Debate is not about winning. It's about determining the best course to take. To do that you have to start with 2 equal premises. This. That. Then you sit down and lay out your facts (not lies) and salient points (not rhetoric) and give rational and logical thoughts (not pleas for emotional responses) on why the way you want to go is better. Then the other guy gets to do the same. At the end of the conversation everyone knows the subject, the FACTS, the reasons behind each idea and they get to choose which way to go based on that.

But that's not what's happening now.

Instead, we've got lies and denials and fingerpointing and hate and political terrorism masquerading as some sort of debate conversation. And that's just plain wrong.

The Left is constantly saying that the Right is creating the violence and that it justifies their acts. Yet, if you look, there's almost no violence from the Right. Yes, there are a FEW instances, but really, what harsh goading language FORCED someone to pick up a torch and burn down a building? And if you look, I mean REALLY LOOK, at who is committing the violence you won't see the faces of the Right very often.

"They cling to guns, and religion..." Yes. Conservatives tend do that. Because just like in martial arts, THE SCHOLAR controls the warrior. Where is the scholar for the Left? All I see are warriors urging war.

That is something that Lit has taught me in spades...

And that saying spades is racism, but a reference to cards or Sam Spade.

That last bit is a bit spot on. The guiding principle of a Martial Artist is Bunbu itchi (Pen and Sword in accord) but the guiding principle of a (lesser) intellectual is the control of the lives of others (Hoffer). They have no real power other then the power to incite others to violence in order to undo a society of meritocracy to go back to a comforting time of a ruling elite that relied upon the intellectual to guide and counsel them. Economics be damned! Societal position is the Cat's pajamas (boi).

 

[THECPKID]

When we will ever learn?

 

[Peregrinator]

I don't think a separate thread about "whether our representatives are supposed to do the things we want or not" will get much traction. And honestly I don't think a national conversation on term limits for Congress is something we need to be talking about because there's a 50/50 chance anything we do to change things will really screw it up worse. the system works. It's messy but THAT kind of messy I can deal with.

I believe what is happening in politics today is that a lot of people forgot the purpose of debate. Instead, they think it's an argument and THEY have to "win" it.

Debate is not about winning. It's about determining the best course to take. To do that you have to start with 2 equal premises. This. That. Then you sit down and lay out your facts (not lies) and salient points (not rhetoric) and give rational and logical thoughts (not pleas for emotional responses) on why the way you want to go is better. Then the other guy gets to do the same. At the end of the conversation everyone knows the subject, the FACTS, the reasons behind each idea and they get to choose which way to go based on that.

But that's not what's happening now.

Instead, we've got lies and denials and fingerpointing and hate and political terrorism masquerading as some sort of debate conversation. And that's just plain wrong.

The Left is constantly saying that the Right is creating the violence and that it justifies their acts. Yet, if you look, there's almost no violence from the Right. Yes, there are a FEW instances, but really, what harsh goading language FORCED someone to pick up a torch and burn down a building? And if you look, I mean REALLY LOOK, at who is committing the violence you won't see the faces of the Right very often.

"They cling to guns, and religion..." Yes. Conservatives tend do that. Because just like in martial arts, THE SCHOLAR controls the warrior. Where is the scholar for the Left? All I see are warriors urging war.

Well, maybe it's worth finding out. Next time I have a rainy, couch-y type day. I was supposed to be out hiking as a fitness test/proof for the SAR team today, but got bogged down this morning.

You're preaching to the choir with the rest of your post, more or less. I think we agree on most of that. You might find this thread interesting: http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=302551&highlight=Finite+infinite+games

As far as the violence from the left, I do see a troubling trend there. I don't use violence to solve problems, personally, and I don't think anyone should, whether it's an angry child or a nation looking to expand its energy supply.

There are scholars on the left. Hell, Ish's thread about Camille Paglia's piece is an example. The left is rife with non-violent and pacifist theorists. But yeah, in the street mob, maybe less so.

Anyway, gotta run and get some shit done. Nice chatting!