|
|
Post by steveinthecity on Jan 16, 2021 19:19:41 GMT -8
I did see that. Whatever her true intent may have been, she chose her words poorly(and used poor judgement imo). She didn’t outright say “harass”, but to tell people to approach other’s essentially anyplace they’re seen in public and to “create a crowd” pretty much seems to me like she’s giving a blueprint to her supporters and saying “make this happen anyway you see fit”. It was over the top and I believe unnecessary. Passions already run high and it takes little to set some people off. As for different standards, yes, I don’t think that’s been in question, although it used to be much harder to see biases or the overt ones were confined to places like American Spectator or Mother Jones. For the article linked, it’s no surprise that Ms. Waters didn’t get pushback from her colleagues, as that’s the norm, but I suspect privately she was admonished by higher ups and explained the damage she may have caused the party, the cause, and her own fortunes going forward. I do make a distinction between the Water’s incident and the “Stop The Steal” speech, movement, and it’s enablers. my reply to your post: i understand looking at al sides. however, your opinions of the utterings of maxine waters are very naïve. she has certainly and consciously, with complete understanding of what she was doing, incited people to violence, she has done this on a continuous basis. her true intent was to intimidate and harm the sitting president, members of the cabinet, and other congress persons and senators. she made this clear on radio and tv interviews. your position is she chose her words poorly and used poor judgment and what her intent "may have been"? you have a problem identifying her bias, yet she has accused cabinet members, congress persons and senators of being racist and makes a point of repeating these themes to her constituency, to the level of 2 riots incited by her hate speech in her own district. "water's "incident"? that is a strange choice of description for her actions and speeches and you think there has been a question about standards? no, it is not the norm to not get push back for such actions. you suspect she was admonished. fine, then when did that happen, because her hate speeches never stopped nor did her call to violence toward other government officials stop. in the past 2 weeks, she made the same demand of the public. in your reply, i detect a clear bias. this is a national sitting elected official, that advocated violence and enthusiastically supported another certain person that publicly stated having thoughts to blow up the white house, and publicly endorsed another person that publicly stated the president should be assassinated, and endorsed destroying the property of other elected officials and cabinet members. i have always taken the position "respect the uniform and not the man". i am neither a republican or a democrat. i am an american. every american must condemn such actions of an elected congress person or senator or potus or vpotus. i ask you....should she not be impeached? what is the distinction, pray tell, because i do not detect any, and find both offensive to the american people. concerning this violence thing: a sitting elected national congress person, in line to be potus described violence in this manner: "..it was a beautiful thing...". this was to describe the violent and destructive and death caused by the supposed protests that became riots in hong kong. exactly how does one make a distinction concerning this? maybe it is racial, since it was asians? maybe it was to encourage a riot and a war? when you can present a logical distinction, please email it to nancy pelosi. while you are doing so, email it to the present chairman of the senate. after all, he condemned the violence in hong kong. then again, his wife is asian. might that be the distinction, or might he have been sending a message to dial things down to avoid war? why is there even a question that there are different standards, and this should not be accepted on any level by any american. The Maxine Waters situation is one I’m obviously not well versed in. Yes there is a bias. I’ve disliked her for quite some time, so more than likely I barely paid attention when this happened. I remember some shenanigans regarding election money/contributions a decade or so back, and for the longest time I’d see her as a guest on random news programs appearing (coming across) somewhat hostile in her remarks, and I recall(maybe the past summer) her telling black voters how they need to vote as though they couldn’t figure it out for themselves. There might have some Al Sharpton added to the mix at one point. She just struck me as unpleasant. I was asked to comment on a linked article, which I did my best to do. If you look back, I made no mention of it until asked about it in a subsequent post. I don’t comment on things when I believe the better course of action is to read or listen, and absorb more information on a subject. There’s obviously a great deal more to the big picture on Ms. Waters than what is presented in that short article, and I’m certainly open to learning about it. Also, I seriously don’t recall her name being mentioned in any news I’ve watched the past few weeks. Regarding her remarks about Hong Kong and supporting violence towards colleagues or destruction of property is certainly unacceptable to me, and events I should probably read more about. The comment about “standards” was regarding news media and how each media outlet(resource) chooses to cover the news(at least I took it that way). Standards for individual conduct should be consistent across the board for our elected officials, if that’s what you saw being asked. |
|
|
|
Post by barry on Jan 17, 2021 12:41:01 GMT -8
I did, and I agree somewhat. But my point is that nothing he said made a difference that day. It would have happened anyway. Did you see the Maxine Waters link I posted earlier? What is your opinion on what she said? Do you think there may be two standards in the media? I did see that. Whatever her true intent may have been, she chose her words poorly(and used poor judgement imo). She didn’t outright say “harass”, but to tell people to approach other’s essentially anyplace they’re seen in public and to “create a crowd” pretty much seems to me like she’s giving a blueprint to her supporters and saying “make this happen anyway you see fit”. It was over the top and I believe unnecessary. Passions already run high and it takes little to set some people off. As for different standards, yes, I don’t think that’s been in question, although it used to be much harder to see biases or the overt ones were confined to places like American Spectator or Mother Jones. For the article linked, it’s no surprise that Ms. Waters didn’t get pushback from her colleagues, as that’s the norm, but I suspect privately she was admonished by higher ups and explained the damage she may have caused the party, the cause, and her own fortunes going forward. I do make a distinction between the Water’s incident and the “Stop The Steal” speech, movement, and it’s enablers. I respect your opinion. I'm against political violence of any kind. But it's hard to understand why so many Democrats accepted or made excuses for the political violence earlier in 2020. Burning down cities, attacking police stations, taking territory by force. The Left fanned those flames for months. |
|
|
|
Post by barry on Jan 17, 2021 12:45:37 GMT -8
I did, and I agree somewhat. But my point is that nothing he said made a difference that day. It would have happened anyway. Did you see the Maxine Waters link I posted earlier? What is your opinion on what she said? Do you think there may be two standards in the media? Agreed that it may have happened anyway.
The reason I was asking if they were going to identify all the people involved is to see how many 'John Sullivans' there were in that crowd. I have a hard time believing there weren't active, aggressive, organized protesters storming that building. It wasn't just a bunch of pitchfork wielding farmers IMO.
And they may have done it for several reasons, including to make Trump look bad. Yes, there is a double standard in the media and everywhere else.
It's all a shell game and once you get reasonably good at seeing through the shell game things take on a very different shape.
We had a debate on the Russia investigation on the CGC boards in the Watercooler 4 years ago (believe it or not, the moderators allowed it at the time)
I kept saying (and I'm paraphrasing) 'there's no proof that Trump was involved in Russian collusion, the US do it to other countries anyway, let them sort it out internally at the highest positions of authority and just treat the president like the president'
I was told that I was a fool by many 'important, prominent' board members.  And now? Guess what....it's starting to look like it was all just a smear campaign by Clinton.
Do you think any of them will apologize or say they were wrong?
Most people are so biased and twisted that they don't even know what unbiased looks like. I genuinely weep for our future, not because one elected official or another is in office but because the general public don't realize full of lies everything is and how misled they are.
I spoke to a politician a couple of years ago who gave me this advice: Don't vote for the party you want or the person you like the most or the laws you want the most, vote for the person you trust the most.
Those people NEVER make it into office.
The Steele dossier. |
|
|
|
Post by steveinthecity on Jan 17, 2021 13:45:31 GMT -8
I did see that. Whatever her true intent may have been, she chose her words poorly(and used poor judgement imo). She didn’t outright say “harass”, but to tell people to approach other’s essentially anyplace they’re seen in public and to “create a crowd” pretty much seems to me like she’s giving a blueprint to her supporters and saying “make this happen anyway you see fit”. It was over the top and I believe unnecessary. Passions already run high and it takes little to set some people off. As for different standards, yes, I don’t think that’s been in question, although it used to be much harder to see biases or the overt ones were confined to places like American Spectator or Mother Jones. For the article linked, it’s no surprise that Ms. Waters didn’t get pushback from her colleagues, as that’s the norm, but I suspect privately she was admonished by higher ups and explained the damage she may have caused the party, the cause, and her own fortunes going forward. I do make a distinction between the Water’s incident and the “Stop The Steal” speech, movement, and it’s enablers. I respect your opinion. I'm against political violence of any kind. But it's hard to understand why so many Democrats accepted or made excuses for the political violence earlier in 2020. Burning down cities, attacking police stations, taking territory by force. The Left fanned those flames for months. As in my reply to parker1865, there was a good deal of background or context that I wasn’t aware of regarding Ms. Waters. I also don’t agree with violence, wanton vandalism, or destruction of property. As for accepting or making excuses, I’d think in the majority of cases this is similar to conduct you see commonly among any political party, social club, athletic team, fraternity, family, etc. in that individuals don’t want to throw another member(colleague, whatever) under the bus for fear of being ostracized from the group or thought disloyal. Unfortunately Politics tends to reveal or magnify this behavior regularly. |
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Jan 17, 2021 14:55:01 GMT -8
Hey Barry, what's up? Would we know you from the CGC Board? |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jan 17, 2021 16:16:03 GMT -8
I respect your opinion. I'm against political violence of any kind. But it's hard to understand why so many Democrats accepted or made excuses for the political violence earlier in 2020. Burning down cities, attacking police stations, taking territory by force. The Left fanned those flames for months. As in my reply to parker1865, there was a good deal of background or context that I wasn’t aware of regarding Ms. Waters. I also don’t agree with violence, wanton vandalism, or destruction of property. As for accepting or making excuses, I’d think in the majority of cases this is similar to conduct you see commonly among any political party, social club, athletic team, fraternity, family, etc. in that individuals don’t want to throw another member(colleague, whatever) under the bus for fear of being ostracized from the group or thought disloyal. Unfortunately Politics tends to reveal or magnify this behavior regularly. You know, I could be wrong so correct me if I am but it's my understand that the Right is the party of law and order.
Someone else told me that when I said to them that the Right owns the majority of guns in the US and that things could get scary because they do. They replied to me and said that the Right doesn't want to go around breaking laws.
Consversely, whenever we discussed the riots and the BLM protests last year in the Watercooler in regards to the pandemic / Covid it was given a free pass but what I assume (and rightfully so) are all Left wingers.
These CGC board members were absolutely insistent on condemning ANY sort of gathering to fight Covid at any cost but as soon as the protests started those board members either started downplaying the size of the protests (namisgr really seems to have trouble with being honest with himself on this one as he didn't think there were millions protesting) or excusing the protests (Jaybuck did) because it was their 'constitutional right'. 
The double standard was ridiculous considering people's rights to work for a living were being trampled but BLM rights weren't.
There are probably bad apples on both sides but the Democrats DIDN'T seem to worry too much about looting and violence and riot while it was happening for their cause but are now putting all of their focus on the Capitol protest.
Again, I'm not deeply versed in American politics but what I've gleaned from the last 4 years is that any lie that can be profited from will be used to it's fullest extent and I just watched 4 years of fabricated smears about Russian collusion, two impeachments (one which probably affected the way the pandemic was dealt with) and countless lies being manufactured or blown out of context by the media.
Hard for me to sympathize with them after seeing all of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Jan 17, 2021 16:38:53 GMT -8
Again, I'm not deeply versed in American politics... Get back to us when you are! |
|
|
|
Post by steveinthecity on Jan 17, 2021 18:46:32 GMT -8
Again, I'm not deeply versed in American politics... Get back to us when you are! What if in turn, he asks us to learn the Canadian Provinces and their Capitals? No way I’m prepared for that. |
|
|
|
Post by steveinthecity on Jan 17, 2021 19:27:36 GMT -8
You know, I could be wrong so correct me if I am but it's my understand that the Right is the party of law and order. Someone else told me that when I said to them that the Right owns the majority of guns in the US and that things could get scary because they do. They replied to me and said that the Right doesn't want to go around breaking laws. The comment about being the “party of law and order” seems silly to me. What would be the default characterization of anyone not affiliated with the Right be then? Maybe someone calls themselves that, but it sounds like sloganeering used to get a cheer while giving a speech. Here’s a stat regarding firearm ownership by party. As for the comment about “breaking laws”, I’d say it’s a safe bet the Right, Left, Center, Up, or Down all adhere and break laws equally. I hear what you’re saying about the protests, but it is a protest, and that’s kind of the sticking point and can’t be compared directly to going to work or even gathering folks for a motorcycle rally. The protests could have possibly been better contained, but you can’t really stop them. I believe some of the behavior of the protestors was foolish(being maskless, vandalizing property, etc.), but barring some immediate danger the protesters might have been in, I don’t think you could stop it without causing a backlash more troublesome than the protests themselves. I think some strong voices behind BLM could have calmed the crowds, but maybe not. I never understood the mindset of looting or breaking windows or any of that. I realize it gets attention and I guess it’s better than stoning people.  |
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Jan 18, 2021 4:46:25 GMT -8
Get back to us when you are! What if in turn, he asks us to learn the Canadian Provinces and their Capitals? No way I’m prepared for that. Hmmm, I think I could hack it. My years of being a big hockey fan would give me an advantage. Man do I hate Montreal! |
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Jan 18, 2021 7:56:10 GMT -8
You know, I could be wrong so correct me if I am but it's my understand that the Right is the party of law and order. Someone else told me that when I said to them that the Right owns the majority of guns in the US and that things could get scary because they do. They replied to me and said that the Right doesn't want to go around breaking laws. The comment about being the “party of law and order” seems silly to me. What would be the default characterization of anyone not affiliated with the Right be then? Maybe someone calls themselves that, but it sounds like sloganeering used to get a cheer while giving a speech. Here’s a stat regarding firearm ownership by party. As for the comment about “breaking laws”, I’d say it’s a safe bet the Right, Left, Center, Up, or Down all adhere and break laws equally. I hear what you’re saying about the protests, but it is a protest, and that’s kind of the sticking point and can’t be compared directly to going to work or even gathering folks for a motorcycle rally. The protests could have possibly been better contained, but you can’t really stop them. I believe some of the behavior of the protestors was foolish(being maskless, vandalizing property, etc.), but barring some immediate danger the protesters might have been in, I don’t think you could stop it without causing a backlash more troublesome than the protests themselves. I think some strong voices behind BLM could have calmed the crowds, but maybe not. I never understood the mindset of looting or breaking windows or any of that. I realize it gets attention and I guess it’s better than stoning people. maybe stoning would be better. la has a 780% increase in shootings, i think. the chart, iirc, was commissioned by the dnc, via a pac. 2 guesses who the pac donor was. it was timed to be an election week news blitz, as an election ploy. it is dubious, at best. no public information gathering by any federal agency exists for such info. now, part of the "statistica" info source was fbi data, but it was horribly on purpose interpreted. a poll, whether by landline phone, email. cell phone, internet, etc., can not be and is not reliable on any level, and ertainly not for any statistical sampling analysis. how could this possibly be anywhere near accurate? i saw it when certain news media outlets posted it with blahblah breaking news gotcha headlines. math is hard. if one adds the blue totals, 97% of the population owns a weapon. if one adds the black totals, 134% live in a gun household, or: 64% of people live in a household where there is a weapon and they are republican, and 31% are democrat, and 39% are independent. so, 70% of people live in a household with a weapon and the household is not republican. or:? or: 50% of the population owns a gun, and.....? the real problem is people believe this means something. i don't think so. |
|
|
|
Post by barry on Jan 18, 2021 8:17:43 GMT -8
Hey Barry, what's up? Would we know you from the CGC Board? I doubt it. |
|
|
|
Post by barry on Jan 18, 2021 8:23:06 GMT -8
The comment about being the “party of law and order” seems silly to me. What would be the default characterization of anyone not affiliated with the Right be then? Maybe someone calls themselves that, but it sounds like sloganeering used to get a cheer while giving a speech. Here’s a stat regarding firearm ownership by party. As for the comment about “breaking laws”, I’d say it’s a safe bet the Right, Left, Center, Up, or Down all adhere and break laws equally. I hear what you’re saying about the protests, but it is a protest, and that’s kind of the sticking point and can’t be compared directly to going to work or even gathering folks for a motorcycle rally. The protests could have possibly been better contained, but you can’t really stop them. I believe some of the behavior of the protestors was foolish(being maskless, vandalizing property, etc.), but barring some immediate danger the protesters might have been in, I don’t think you could stop it without causing a backlash more troublesome than the protests themselves. I think some strong voices behind BLM could have calmed the crowds, but maybe not. I never understood the mindset of looting or breaking windows or any of that. I realize it gets attention and I guess it’s better than stoning people. maybe stoning would be better. la has a 780% increase in shootings, i think. the chart, iirc, was commissioned by the dnc, via a pac. 2 guesses who the pac donor was. it was timed to be an election week news blitz, as an election ploy. it is dubious, at best. no public information gathering by any federal agency exists for such info. now, part of the "statistica" info source was fbi data, but it was horribly on purpose interpreted. a poll, whether by landline phone, email. cell phone, internet, etc., can not be and is not reliable on any level, and ertainly not for any statistical sampling analysis. how could this possibly be anywhere near accurate? i saw it when certain news media outlets posted it with blahblah breaking news gotcha headlines. math is hard. if one adds the blue totals, 97% of the population owns a weapon. if one adds the black totals, 134% live in a gun household, or: 64% of people live in a household where there is a weapon and they are republican, and 31% are democrat, and 39% are independent. so, 70% of people live in a household with a weapon and the household is not republican. or:? or: 50% of the population owns a gun, and.....? the real problem is people believe this means something. i don't think so. If it was reliable it might say more about the difference between rural and urban lifestyles than anything else. What would snowmobile ownership look like? |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jan 18, 2021 8:36:53 GMT -8
You know, I could be wrong so correct me if I am but it's my understand that the Right is the party of law and order. Someone else told me that when I said to them that the Right owns the majority of guns in the US and that things could get scary because they do. They replied to me and said that the Right doesn't want to go around breaking laws. The comment about being the “party of law and order” seems silly to me. What would be the default characterization of anyone not affiliated with the Right be then? Maybe someone calls themselves that, but it sounds like sloganeering used to get a cheer while giving a speech. Here’s a stat regarding firearm ownership by party. As for the comment about “breaking laws”, I’d say it’s a safe bet the Right, Left, Center, Up, or Down all adhere and break laws equally. I hear what you’re saying about the protests, but it is a protest, and that’s kind of the sticking point and can’t be compared directly to going to work or even gathering folks for a motorcycle rally. The protests could have possibly been better contained, but you can’t really stop them. I believe some of the behavior of the protestors was foolish(being maskless, vandalizing property, etc.), but barring some immediate danger the protesters might have been in, I don’t think you could stop it without causing a backlash more troublesome than the protests themselves. I think some strong voices behind BLM could have calmed the crowds, but maybe not. I never understood the mindset of looting or breaking windows or any of that. I realize it gets attention and I guess it’s better than stoning people. I think the 'party of law and order' comment came from the riots and protests that were allowed to rage in Democrat regions but not so much in Republican regions.
That was a large part of the socio-political conflict last summer, that some regions did not seem to want to quash the rioting while others did and now those same regions are calling for extreme prosecution of the Capitol riots.
If how the FBI operated the Russian investigation is any indication of whether true justice is the goal I don't have much faith in justice being served in this investigation.
What is happening is that the curtain is being pulled back to uncover the corruption in all areas and the entire world is watching. I said it for a month and will say it again, this does not bode well for people who love and think they live in a true democracy. I don't have the blind faith that many seem to have.
My point about mentioning the protests in regards to Covid is that in the CGC Watercooler there was ABSOLUTELY a free pass given to the protests by certain boardies who are obviously led by their political leanings rather than their logic....which was surreal and hypocritical considering how strongly super spreader events were condemned by the same people, to the point that people's livelihoods needed to be shut down...and yet pretzel logic excuses were made to excuse the BLM protests.
|
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Jan 18, 2021 8:39:34 GMT -8
 agreed. or barbecue grills. or teslas. or who owns body harnesses for carrying the baby around the neighborhood. or a coffee card account at sheetz.
|
|
And now? Guess what....it's starting to look like it was all just a smear campaign by Clinton. 
agreed. or barbecue grills. or teslas. or who owns body harnesses for carrying the baby around the neighborhood. or a coffee card account at sheetz.