21 Jun 2012, 8:22 pm
marshall wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Next time spare yourself all the typing and just say "F*ck you, your politics, and your country!".
Sounds like a good idea, minus one thing. This isn't your country. It's everyone else's too, including us "sniveling liberals" who would rather not have your kind giving all Americans a bad name. According to the polls, extreme right-wing partisans like yourself comprise less than 30% of the population. You guys don't single handedly own the title of "patriot".
Quote:
This isn't your country. It's everyone else's too, including us "sniveling liberals.......
.Pretty weak even for you. People do refer to their nation of citizenship as "my country". Same applies to my state, my city, my neighborhood, my street, etc. That evil Raptor did not invent that all by his horrible raptoresque self.
Quote:
.......who would rather not have your kind giving all Americans a bad name.
It might come as a surprise to you but my kind sees your kind as what's giving Americans a bad name.
Quote:
According to the polls, extreme right-wing partisans like yourself comprise less than 30% of the population.
Thank you very much for the complement but I'm afraid I'm by no means an extreme right wing partisan. I personally know some that are and compared to them I'm the sniveling liberal. Given a choice, though, I'd much rather be an extreme right wing partisan any day than an extreme left wing partisan. That poll was probably done by leftist partisans, anyway.
Quote:
You guys don't single handedly own the title of "patriot".
Maybe not but I'd say as a whole the right wing has done more to deserve the title of patriot and are actively doing more to preserve that title than any of you......
21 Jun 2012, 8:57 pm
Raptor wrote:
Quote:
According to the polls, extreme right-wing partisans like yourself comprise less than 30% of the population.
Thank you very much for the complement
Hey! If you're going to steal someone's catch-phrase, at least spell all of the words correctly!
21 Jun 2012, 11:02 pm
marshall wrote:
I'll admit to my own condescension and intolerance. I don't believe in entering a gun fight with a knife or always turning the other cheek.
I meant to reply to this earlier, as it echoes a longstanding argument I've had with Master_Pedant specifically and quite a number of people generally over effective vs ineffective arguing techniques. See, when I see an angry, hyperbolic, profanity and personal attack laden post, my automatic response is to write that person and their opinion off, as clearly they are not in control of their self and/or trying to emotionally manipulate the argument. Think of the difference between reading a professional news article and a tabloid piece; the tone is completely different, and one conveys trust and competence while the other inflames the emotions and feels tawdry and cheap.
I don't think eschewing emotional and overly aggressive argumentation is disarming yourself, rather I think it's more like not using hand grenades at close range. Rage, contempt, condescension, all these things have a way of harming the person using them as much if not more so than the target of them, so I think the person who makes the conscience decision to avoid those things as much as possible is not weaker for it, but stronger.
I try and hold myself to a code of arguing, with varying degrees of success, that avoids overly emotional, hyperbolic, contemptuous or generalizing statements, and I think I do pretty well here for it. It even works well in that when I do inject a bit of emotion into my posts it has much greater impact, as I haven't degraded my "brand" so to speak with frequent petulant outbursts and angry tirades. I'm also much harder to dismiss as a partisan as I don't engage in sweeping tirades and mass generalizations, things that have a tendency to erode both your credibility and impartiality. In my case, I don't aim to be taken as impartial, as I don't think that's possible, but less partial than the people I'm arguing with. Nifty trick, and experience has shown that it drives people much crazier than a brazen personal insult...
22 Jun 2012, 12:31 pm
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
I'll admit to my own condescension and intolerance. I don't believe in entering a gun fight with a knife or always turning the other cheek.
I meant to reply to this earlier, as it echoes a longstanding argument I've had with Master_Pedant specifically and quite a number of people generally over effective vs ineffective arguing techniques. See, when I see an angry, hyperbolic, profanity and personal attack laden post, my automatic response is to write that person and their opinion off, as clearly they are not in control of their self and/or trying to emotionally manipulate the argument. Think of the difference between reading a professional news article and a tabloid piece; the tone is completely different, and one conveys trust and competence while the other inflames the emotions and feels tawdry and cheap.
I don't think eschewing emotional and overly aggressive argumentation is disarming yourself, rather I think it's more like not using hand grenades at close range. Rage, contempt, condescension, all these things have a way of harming the person using them as much if not more so than the target of them, so I think the person who makes the conscience decision to avoid those things as much as possible is not weaker for it, but stronger.
I try and hold myself to a code of arguing, with varying degrees of success, that avoids overly emotional, hyperbolic, contemptuous or generalizing statements, and I think I do pretty well here for it. It even works well in that when I do inject a bit of emotion into my posts it has much greater impact, as I haven't degraded my "brand" so to speak with frequent petulant outbursts and angry tirades. I'm also much harder to dismiss as a partisan as I don't engage in sweeping tirades and mass generalizations, things that have a tendency to erode both your credibility and impartiality. In my case, I don't aim to be taken as impartial, as I don't think that's possible, but less partial than the people I'm arguing with. Nifty trick, and experience has shown that it drives people much crazier than a brazen personal insult...
You don't seem to notice that I resort to contemptuous argument style when it's been made clear that the person I'm arguing with is mentally incapable of reasoned debate. Sorry there's no nicer way to put it but I'm not blessed with extreme patience.
22 Jun 2012, 12:40 pm
marshall wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
I'll admit to my own condescension and intolerance. I don't believe in entering a gun fight with a knife or always turning the other cheek.
I meant to reply to this earlier, as it echoes a longstanding argument I've had with Master_Pedant specifically and quite a number of people generally over effective vs ineffective arguing techniques. See, when I see an angry, hyperbolic, profanity and personal attack laden post, my automatic response is to write that person and their opinion off, as clearly they are not in control of their self and/or trying to emotionally manipulate the argument. Think of the difference between reading a professional news article and a tabloid piece; the tone is completely different, and one conveys trust and competence while the other inflames the emotions and feels tawdry and cheap.
I don't think eschewing emotional and overly aggressive argumentation is disarming yourself, rather I think it's more like not using hand grenades at close range. Rage, contempt, condescension, all these things have a way of harming the person using them as much if not more so than the target of them, so I think the person who makes the conscience decision to avoid those things as much as possible is not weaker for it, but stronger.
I try and hold myself to a code of arguing, with varying degrees of success, that avoids overly emotional, hyperbolic, contemptuous or generalizing statements, and I think I do pretty well here for it. It even works well in that when I do inject a bit of emotion into my posts it has much greater impact, as I haven't degraded my "brand" so to speak with frequent petulant outbursts and angry tirades. I'm also much harder to dismiss as a partisan as I don't engage in sweeping tirades and mass generalizations, things that have a tendency to erode both your credibility and impartiality. In my case, I don't aim to be taken as impartial, as I don't think that's possible, but less partial than the people I'm arguing with. Nifty trick, and experience has shown that it drives people much crazier than a brazen personal insult...
You don't seem to notice that I resort to contemptuous argument style when it's been made clear that the person I'm arguing with is mentally incapable of reasoned debate. Sorry there's no nicer way to put it but I'm not blessed with extreme patience.
i.e. when they have a differing opinion.......
22 Jun 2012, 12:46 pm
Raptor wrote:
visigrunt wrote:
]As for the second matter, I would never claim that my country's government or constitution is perfect. Far from it. Indeed, I think we have committed exactly the opposite constitutional offence in this country, having gone too far to other extreme and having taken far too much authority away from individual legislators. Since I am employed as a public servant I see the nature of decision making in my government every day, and I participate in it. I recognize its shortcomings and its strengths. But most importantly, I recognize that the work that I do, that my department does and my Minister's accountability for it to Parliament is important. Do we make mistakes? Of course we do--a government is, after all, a human thing. But to suggest that government is always wrong, or mostly bad is, I suggest, to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
My point is, once again, to limit, I'll spell it out for you L-I-M-I-T, government control. The less you do the less you chance screwing up and governments are notoriously clumsy. As stated before in this thread I get to experience federal government inefficiency every day from a government contractor standpoint.
Here's a nice example of a right-winger being reasonable and not letting his emotions control him.
22 Jun 2012, 12:52 pm
Raptor wrote:
marshall wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
I'll admit to my own condescension and intolerance. I don't believe in entering a gun fight with a knife or always turning the other cheek.
I meant to reply to this earlier, as it echoes a longstanding argument I've had with Master_Pedant specifically and quite a number of people generally over effective vs ineffective arguing techniques. See, when I see an angry, hyperbolic, profanity and personal attack laden post, my automatic response is to write that person and their opinion off, as clearly they are not in control of their self and/or trying to emotionally manipulate the argument. Think of the difference between reading a professional news article and a tabloid piece; the tone is completely different, and one conveys trust and competence while the other inflames the emotions and feels tawdry and cheap.
I don't think eschewing emotional and overly aggressive argumentation is disarming yourself, rather I think it's more like not using hand grenades at close range. Rage, contempt, condescension, all these things have a way of harming the person using them as much if not more so than the target of them, so I think the person who makes the conscience decision to avoid those things as much as possible is not weaker for it, but stronger.
I try and hold myself to a code of arguing, with varying degrees of success, that avoids overly emotional, hyperbolic, contemptuous or generalizing statements, and I think I do pretty well here for it. It even works well in that when I do inject a bit of emotion into my posts it has much greater impact, as I haven't degraded my "brand" so to speak with frequent petulant outbursts and angry tirades. I'm also much harder to dismiss as a partisan as I don't engage in sweeping tirades and mass generalizations, things that have a tendency to erode both your credibility and impartiality. In my case, I don't aim to be taken as impartial, as I don't think that's possible, but less partial than the people I'm arguing with. Nifty trick, and experience has shown that it drives people much crazier than a brazen personal insult...
You don't seem to notice that I resort to contemptuous argument style when it's been made clear that the person I'm arguing with is mentally incapable of reasoned debate. Sorry there's no nicer way to put it but I'm not blessed with extreme patience.
i.e. when they have a differing opinion.......
I only assume mental incapacity when there has yet to be any evidence to the contrary. It's possible you could prove me wrong some day, but for now I assume you're sole purpose here is to clown around taking potshots at the hordes of "sniveling liberals".
22 Jun 2012, 1:00 pm
marshall wrote:
Raptor wrote:
visigrunt wrote:
]As for the second matter, I would never claim that my country's government or constitution is perfect. Far from it. Indeed, I think we have committed exactly the opposite constitutional offence in this country, having gone too far to other extreme and having taken far too much authority away from individual legislators. Since I am employed as a public servant I see the nature of decision making in my government every day, and I participate in it. I recognize its shortcomings and its strengths. But most importantly, I recognize that the work that I do, that my department does and my Minister's accountability for it to Parliament is important. Do we make mistakes? Of course we do--a government is, after all, a human thing. But to suggest that government is always wrong, or mostly bad is, I suggest, to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
My point is, once again, to limit, I'll spell it out for you L-I-M-I-T, government control. The less you do the less you chance screwing up and governments are notoriously clumsy. As stated before in this thread I get to experience federal government inefficiency every day from a government contractor standpoint.
Here's a nice example of a right-winger being reasonable and not letting his emotions control him.
You call that emotional? Even if it is it's nothing compared to some of your rants...
22 Jun 2012, 1:10 pm
marshall wrote:
Raptor wrote:
marshall wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
I'll admit to my own condescension and intolerance. I don't believe in entering a gun fight with a knife or always turning the other cheek.
I meant to reply to this earlier, as it echoes a longstanding argument I've had with Master_Pedant specifically and quite a number of people generally over effective vs ineffective arguing techniques. See, when I see an angry, hyperbolic, profanity and personal attack laden post, my automatic response is to write that person and their opinion off, as clearly they are not in control of their self and/or trying to emotionally manipulate the argument. Think of the difference between reading a professional news article and a tabloid piece; the tone is completely different, and one conveys trust and competence while the other inflames the emotions and feels tawdry and cheap.
I don't think eschewing emotional and overly aggressive argumentation is disarming yourself, rather I think it's more like not using hand grenades at close range. Rage, contempt, condescension, all these things have a way of harming the person using them as much if not more so than the target of them, so I think the person who makes the conscience decision to avoid those things as much as possible is not weaker for it, but stronger.
I try and hold myself to a code of arguing, with varying degrees of success, that avoids overly emotional, hyperbolic, contemptuous or generalizing statements, and I think I do pretty well here for it. It even works well in that when I do inject a bit of emotion into my posts it has much greater impact, as I haven't degraded my "brand" so to speak with frequent petulant outbursts and angry tirades. I'm also much harder to dismiss as a partisan as I don't engage in sweeping tirades and mass generalizations, things that have a tendency to erode both your credibility and impartiality. In my case, I don't aim to be taken as impartial, as I don't think that's possible, but less partial than the people I'm arguing with. Nifty trick, and experience has shown that it drives people much crazier than a brazen personal insult...
You don't seem to notice that I resort to contemptuous argument style when it's been made clear that the person I'm arguing with is mentally incapable of reasoned debate. Sorry there's no nicer way to put it but I'm not blessed with extreme patience.
i.e. when they have a differing opinion.......
I only assume mental incapacity when there has yet to be any evidence to the contrary. It's possible you could prove me wrong some day, but for now I assume you're sole purpose here is to clown around taking potshots at the hordes of "sniveling liberals".
Could it be that you take yourself too seriously sometimes?
Could it be that you measure mental capacity by someones politics?
Could it be that you sometimes purposely bait potshots?
Something to consider........
22 Jun 2012, 2:40 pm
I don't see any evidence of high level conspiracy here. It's just a botched investigation. ATF under Bush lost 100s of guns for 11 gun mule prosecutions. This one lost over 1,000 iiirc trying to catch higher level guys in Mexico after purchase. Drug police try to do this too but if we couldnt track them doing hand to hands, how will they track them over the border?
The ATF testified that they put GPS trackers on some of them but the batteries died. That's some high powered detective work.
Quote:
The best part is the executive privilege only applies if Obama was involved. By invoking executive privilege he is admitting his involvement by default.
That's not true at all.
22 Jun 2012, 3:20 pm
22 Jun 2012, 3:30 pm
simon_says wrote:
I don't see any evidence of high level conspiracy here. It's just a botched investigation. ATF under Bush lost 100s of guns for 11 gun mule prosecutions. This one lost over 1,000 iiirc trying to catch higher level guys in Mexico after purchase. Drug police try to do this too but if we couldnt track them doing hand to hands, how will they track them over the border?
The ATF testified that they put GPS trackers on some of them but the batteries died. That's some high powered detective work.
That's not true at all.
The ATF testified that they put GPS trackers on some of them but the batteries died.
That's some high powered detective work.Quote:
The best part is the executive privilege only applies if Obama was involved. By invoking executive privilege he is admitting his involvement by default.
That's not true at all.
Quote:
The only bases for the invocation of the privilege are the need to protect secret deliberations and communications intended ultimately for the president that pertain to (a) military, or (b) diplomatic, or (c) sensitive national security matters. Just because two or more people in the White House discussed a matter or reviewed documents does not clothe their discussion or their document review with executive privilege. The conversation or document review must be integral to advising the president on his official duties, and it must fit into one or more of (a) or (b) or (c) above.
The invocation of the privilege can only be made by the president himself. Thus, President Obama will need to articulate and explain into which category--(a) or (b) or (c) above--his claim of privilege falls, and he will need to do so personally, either in person or in writing. The mere request by the attorney general for the president to invoke the privilege does not lawfully invoke it. As of this writing, the president has not yet done this.
When the president invokes the privilege, it is to prevent himself or others in the White House from being compelled to testify or to produce documents before a court or before the Congress. Since only the president can invoke the privilege, he must be aware of the subject matter addressed in the subpoenaed documents and he must know that the subject matter was discussed or the subpoenaed documents were reviewed as part of the process of advising him on running the Executive Branch.
-Judge Andrew Napolitano
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/ ... z1yYXFkRI3
The invocation of the privilege can only be made by the president himself. Thus, President Obama will need to articulate and explain into which category--(a) or (b) or (c) above--his claim of privilege falls, and he will need to do so personally, either in person or in writing. The mere request by the attorney general for the president to invoke the privilege does not lawfully invoke it. As of this writing, the president has not yet done this.
When the president invokes the privilege, it is to prevent himself or others in the White House from being compelled to testify or to produce documents before a court or before the Congress. Since only the president can invoke the privilege, he must be aware of the subject matter addressed in the subpoenaed documents and he must know that the subject matter was discussed or the subpoenaed documents were reviewed as part of the process of advising him on running the Executive Branch.
-Judge Andrew Napolitano
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/ ... z1yYXFkRI3
22 Jun 2012, 3:36 pm
JWC wrote:
simon_says wrote:
I don't see any evidence of high level conspiracy here. It's just a botched investigation. ATF under Bush lost 100s of guns for 11 gun mule prosecutions. This one lost over 1,000 iiirc trying to catch higher level guys in Mexico after purchase. Drug police try to do this too but if we couldnt track them doing hand to hands, how will they track them over the border?
The ATF testified that they put GPS trackers on some of them but the batteries died. That's some high powered detective work.
That's not true at all.
The ATF testified that they put GPS trackers on some of them but the batteries died.
That's some high powered detective work.Quote:
The best part is the executive privilege only applies if Obama was involved. By invoking executive privilege he is admitting his involvement by default.
That's not true at all.
Quote:
The only bases for the invocation of the privilege are the need to protect secret deliberations and communications intended ultimately for the president that pertain to (a) military, or (b) diplomatic, or (c) sensitive national security matters. Just because two or more people in the White House discussed a matter or reviewed documents does not clothe their discussion or their document review with executive privilege. The conversation or document review must be integral to advising the president on his official duties, and it must fit into one or more of (a) or (b) or (c) above.
The invocation of the privilege can only be made by the president himself. Thus, President Obama will need to articulate and explain into which category--(a) or (b) or (c) above--his claim of privilege falls, and he will need to do so personally, either in person or in writing. The mere request by the attorney general for the president to invoke the privilege does not lawfully invoke it. As of this writing, the president has not yet done this.
When the president invokes the privilege, it is to prevent himself or others in the White House from being compelled to testify or to produce documents before a court or before the Congress. Since only the president can invoke the privilege, he must be aware of the subject matter addressed in the subpoenaed documents and he must know that the subject matter was discussed or the subpoenaed documents were reviewed as part of the process of advising him on running the Executive Branch.
-Judge Andrew Napolitano
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/ ... z1yYXFkRI3
The invocation of the privilege can only be made by the president himself. Thus, President Obama will need to articulate and explain into which category--(a) or (b) or (c) above--his claim of privilege falls, and he will need to do so personally, either in person or in writing. The mere request by the attorney general for the president to invoke the privilege does not lawfully invoke it. As of this writing, the president has not yet done this.
When the president invokes the privilege, it is to prevent himself or others in the White House from being compelled to testify or to produce documents before a court or before the Congress. Since only the president can invoke the privilege, he must be aware of the subject matter addressed in the subpoenaed documents and he must know that the subject matter was discussed or the subpoenaed documents were reviewed as part of the process of advising him on running the Executive Branch.
-Judge Andrew Napolitano
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/ ... z1yYXFkRI3
You said this proves he was involved. Your above comment has nothing to do with proving your claim that it establishes that he's involved. There is no question that the matter has been discussed since the news broke.
Even if he incorrectly invoked it in the judgement of a Fox News personality, it doesnt establish involvement in the active program at all. Your claim make no sense.
22 Jun 2012, 3:40 pm
simon_says wrote:
JWC wrote:
simon_says wrote:
I don't see any evidence of high level conspiracy here. It's just a botched investigation. ATF under Bush lost 100s of guns for 11 gun mule prosecutions. This one lost over 1,000 iiirc trying to catch higher level guys in Mexico after purchase. Drug police try to do this too but if we couldnt track them doing hand to hands, how will they track them over the border?
The ATF testified that they put GPS trackers on some of them but the batteries died. That's some high powered detective work.
That's not true at all.
The ATF testified that they put GPS trackers on some of them but the batteries died.
That's some high powered detective work.Quote:
The best part is the executive privilege only applies if Obama was involved. By invoking executive privilege he is admitting his involvement by default.
That's not true at all.
Quote:
The only bases for the invocation of the privilege are the need to protect secret deliberations and communications intended ultimately for the president that pertain to (a) military, or (b) diplomatic, or (c) sensitive national security matters. Just because two or more people in the White House discussed a matter or reviewed documents does not clothe their discussion or their document review with executive privilege. The conversation or document review must be integral to advising the president on his official duties, and it must fit into one or more of (a) or (b) or (c) above.
The invocation of the privilege can only be made by the president himself. Thus, President Obama will need to articulate and explain into which category--(a) or (b) or (c) above--his claim of privilege falls, and he will need to do so personally, either in person or in writing. The mere request by the attorney general for the president to invoke the privilege does not lawfully invoke it. As of this writing, the president has not yet done this.
When the president invokes the privilege, it is to prevent himself or others in the White House from being compelled to testify or to produce documents before a court or before the Congress. Since only the president can invoke the privilege, he must be aware of the subject matter addressed in the subpoenaed documents and he must know that the subject matter was discussed or the subpoenaed documents were reviewed as part of the process of advising him on running the Executive Branch.
-Judge Andrew Napolitano
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/ ... z1yYXFkRI3
The invocation of the privilege can only be made by the president himself. Thus, President Obama will need to articulate and explain into which category--(a) or (b) or (c) above--his claim of privilege falls, and he will need to do so personally, either in person or in writing. The mere request by the attorney general for the president to invoke the privilege does not lawfully invoke it. As of this writing, the president has not yet done this.
When the president invokes the privilege, it is to prevent himself or others in the White House from being compelled to testify or to produce documents before a court or before the Congress. Since only the president can invoke the privilege, he must be aware of the subject matter addressed in the subpoenaed documents and he must know that the subject matter was discussed or the subpoenaed documents were reviewed as part of the process of advising him on running the Executive Branch.
-Judge Andrew Napolitano
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/ ... z1yYXFkRI3
You said this proves he was involved. Your above comment has nothing to do with proving your claim that it establishes that he's involved. He will claim some reason for invoking it and nothing will come of it. He'll say it's dealing with deliberations or security or methods. As it's been used by many other Presidents. There is no question that the matter has been discussed since the news broke.
Even if he incorrectly invoked it in the judgement of a Fox News personality, it doesnt establish involement at all. Your claim make no sense.
By "involved" I meant he knew about it. As, the above quote explains:
Quote:
Just because two or more people in the White House discussed a matter or reviewed documents does not clothe their discussion or their document review with executive privilege. The conversation or document review must be integral to advising the president on his official duties, and it must fit into one or more of (a) or (b) or (c) above.
22 Jun 2012, 3:57 pm
22 Jun 2012, 4:16 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Eric Carmen Rasperries frontman R.I.P. |
15 Mar 2024, 10:28 am |
| TikTok CEO grilled by US Senator |
05 Feb 2024, 3:35 am |
| Texas Megachurch shooting |
16 Feb 2024, 8:00 pm |
| SCOTUS upholds Texas A&M drag show ban |
16 Mar 2024, 7:46 am |
