WWTBAM Bored

silverscreenselect wrote:The similarities between Trump's rallies and Hitler's early rally speeches are startling.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:The similarities between Trump's rallies and Hitler's early rally speeches are startling.

You've lost your ability to present reasoned arguments supported by facts, or heck, even conjecture, to support your positions. You used to be better.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote: Your list doesn't include a single instance where Trump incited violence. In one of the eight "examples," he suggested that, if people see someone preparing an assault, they might "knock the crap out of them." That's defensive.

None of the others have anything to do with inciting future violence. One of the sections even cuts the actual quote short, removing where he specifically says, "DON'T."

Trump often, but not always, semi-sort-of-kind-of walks back his statements at a later point, usually in a tone of voice or accompanied by gestures that indicate to everyone what his real feelings are. That gives literalist commentators the cover they need to say that Trump really wasn't advocating violence while stirring up his followers in exactly the way he intends. The similarities between Trump's rallies and Hitler's early rally speeches are startling.

I would think you had the intelligence to realize this. So, either you're one of Trump's rubes or you're cynical enough not to care.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:The similarities between Trump's rallies and Hitler's early rally speeches are startling.

You've lost your ability to present reasoned arguments supported by facts, or heck, even conjecture, to support your positions. You used to be better.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:The similarities between Trump's rallies and Hitler's early rally speeches are startling.

You've lost your ability to present reasoned arguments supported by facts, or heck, even conjecture, to support your positions. You used to be better.

I'm far from the only person to note the similarities:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/opin ... lying.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 68506.html

https://www.timesofisrael.com/critics-s ... ropaganda/

https://www.salon.com/2018/03/31/how-th ... n-of-1932/

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Me neither. Ask Maxine Waters and Corey Booker. Then ask why anyone would vote for people who advocate that.

You said stuff, Flock, but you didn't answer the questions: How is it someone's civic duty to yell at her senator and his family at a restaurant? Even more incomprehensible, how is it someone's civic duty to follow someone home and throw tomatoes at his house?

I guess I have to be literal.

It is not someone's civic duty to yell at anyone at a restaurant or anywhere else. It is not anyone's civic duty to throw tomatoes at anyone's house because they don't agree with their politics. It is not anyone's civic duty to get in a politician's face and scream expletives at them. In actuality, it is ignorant, rude and destructive behavior, and is not in any way to be equated to civil disobedience. It is totally disrespectful to disrupt public hearings.
Yet there are many, and they seem to be mostly on the left, that seem to think that it is a noble endeavor to do so. And some of those people have been voted into positions of power and urge their constituents to do so. I give you Ms. Waters and Mr. Booker among others.
Since you mentioned that you were part of a 'protest', I wondered if any of your bunch were of that persuasion, or were urged to do something like that by someone who thinks it is a noble endeavor.

I think you know what I meant.

SportsFan68 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:
You said stuff, Flock, but you didn't answer the questions: How is it someone's civic duty to yell at her senator and his family at a restaurant? Even more incomprehensible, how is it someone's civic duty to follow someone home and throw tomatoes at his house?

I guess I have to be literal.

It is not someone's civic duty to yell at anyone at a restaurant or anywhere else. It is not anyone's civic duty to throw tomatoes at anyone's house because they don't agree with their politics. It is not anyone's civic duty to get in a politician's face and scream expletives at them. In actuality, it is ignorant, rude and destructive behavior, and is not in any way to be equated to civil disobedience. It is totally disrespectful to disrupt public hearings.
Yet there are many, and they seem to be mostly on the left, that seem to think that it is a noble endeavor to do so. And some of those people have been voted into positions of power and urge their constituents to do so. I give you Ms. Waters and Mr. Booker among others.
Since you mentioned that you were part of a 'protest', I wondered if any of your bunch were of that persuasion, or were urged to do something like that by someone who thinks it is a noble endeavor.

I think you know what I meant.

Thank you for literal and detailed answer.

You give me more credit than I deserve, Flock. I did not know what you meant -- it was incomprehensible to me.

No, our folks are not persuaded that screaming at officials* and throwing tomatoes at them is civic duty or anything close to it. Here we are: https://durangoherald.com/articles/244092

* We used to have some tea partiers who screamed at officials in town hall meetings and such, but they were usually shushed by others in the audience, and if that didn't work, someone politely asked them to leave. Then they would quiet down or leave.

SportsFan68 wrote:* We used to have some tea partiers who screamed at officials in town hall meetings and such, but they were usually shushed by others in the audience, and if that didn't work, someone politely asked them to leave. Then they would quiet down or leave.

Estonut wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:* We used to have some tea partiers who screamed at officials in town hall meetings and such, but they were usually shushed by others in the audience, and if that didn't work, someone politely asked them to leave. Then they would quiet down or leave.

That is no longer the case. Nowadays, they disrupt until removed and arrested.

Beebs52 wrote:

Estonut wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:* We used to have some tea partiers who screamed at officials in town hall meetings and such, but they were usually shushed by others in the audience, and if that didn't work, someone politely asked them to leave. Then they would quiet down or leave.

That is no longer the case. Nowadays, they disrupt until removed and arrested.

The tea party isn't a thing anymore.

Bob Juch wrote:Chief Justice John Roberts Accused of ‘Cover Up’ for Sitting on Kavanaugh Misconduct Complaints

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/ch ... omplaints/

flockofseagulls104 wrote: According to Judge Henderson's statement, these complaints are pertaining to the statements he made during the confirmation hearings. I'm suuuuuuurrrreeee these complaints are serious and credible and deserve to be heard.

Unless there's something else, or Judge Henderson is misremembering something, I would think this qualifies as fake news.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: According to Judge Henderson's statement, these complaints are pertaining to the statements he made during the confirmation hearings. I'm suuuuuuurrrreeee these complaints are serious and credible and deserve to be heard.

Unless there's something else, or Judge Henderson is misremembering something, I would think this qualifies as fake news.

Any public statements a judge makes, especially in a public forum, deserve scrutiny for possible bias. A judge is not held to the same standards as you or I, regular lawyers, or ordinary politicians. Judge Henderson, a Reagan and Bush 2 appointee, found some of them serious enough to refer to Chief Justice Roberts. But your judgment and knowledge of the law and legal ethics are so much better than hers.

Once again, whenever someone says something you don't like, it's either fake news or Trump derangement syndrome.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: According to Judge Henderson's statement, these complaints are pertaining to the statements he made during the confirmation hearings. I'm suuuuuuurrrreeee these complaints are serious and credible and deserve to be heard.

Unless there's something else, or Judge Henderson is misremembering something, I would think this qualifies as fake news.

Any public statements a judge makes, especially in a public forum, deserve scrutiny for possible bias. A judge is not held to the same standards as you or I, regular lawyers, or ordinary politicians. Judge Henderson, a Reagan and Bush 2 appointee, found some of them serious enough to refer to Chief Justice Roberts. But your judgment and knowledge of the law and legal ethics are so much better than hers.

Once again, whenever someone says something you don't like, it's either fake news or Trump derangement syndrome.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: As usual, the headline that BJ send and the one from the WP implies these are old accusations from his period on the circuit, and the Roberts had been sitting on them for some time. I only found the truth by drilling down to the letter they referred to. This is NOT journalism. This is fake news.

This is more stupid crap from the left. Just grow up.

Beebs52 wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: I guess I have to be literal.

It is not someone's civic duty to yell at anyone at a restaurant or anywhere else. It is not anyone's civic duty to throw tomatoes at anyone's house because they don't agree with their politics. It is not anyone's civic duty to get in a politician's face and scream expletives at them. In actuality, it is ignorant, rude and destructive behavior, and is not in any way to be equated to civil disobedience. It is totally disrespectful to disrupt public hearings.
Yet there are many, and they seem to be mostly on the left, that seem to think that it is a noble endeavor to do so. And some of those people have been voted into positions of power and urge their constituents to do so. I give you Ms. Waters and Mr. Booker among others.
Since you mentioned that you were part of a 'protest', I wondered if any of your bunch were of that persuasion, or were urged to do something like that by someone who thinks it is a noble endeavor.

I think you know what I meant.

Thank you for literal and detailed answer.

You give me more credit than I deserve, Flock. I did not know what you meant -- it was incomprehensible to me.

No, our folks are not persuaded that screaming at officials* and throwing tomatoes at them is civic duty or anything close to it. Here we are: https://durangoherald.com/articles/244092

* We used to have some tea partiers who screamed at officials in town hall meetings and such, but they were usually shushed by others in the audience, and if that didn't work, someone politely asked them to leave. Then they would quiet down or leave.

Sprots. You have not seen nor heard of the protests? I find that odd. You're sharp.

SportsFan68 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:
Thank you for literal and detailed answer.

You give me more credit than I deserve, Flock. I did not know what you meant -- it was incomprehensible to me.

No, our folks are not persuaded that screaming at officials* and throwing tomatoes at them is civic duty or anything close to it. Here we are: https://durangoherald.com/articles/244092

* We used to have some tea partiers who screamed at officials in town hall meetings and such, but they were usually shushed by others in the audience, and if that didn't work, someone politely asked them to leave. Then they would quiet down or leave.

Sprots. You have not seen nor heard of the protests? I find that odd. You're sharp.

Thank you, MsKing. What I found incomprehensible was how it would be someone's civic duty to yell at officials and throw tomatoes at them. I believe it was my failure to comprehend what Flock was saying. As Skoop mentioned a loooooong time ago, it's sometime very difficult to decipher sarcasm in these posts. But maybe it was even more basic than that and not sarcasm that I missed at all. I do appreciate Flock's effort and energy in providing that explanation.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: As usual, the headline that BJ send and the one from the WP implies these are old accusations from his period on the circuit, and the Roberts had been sitting on them for some time. I only found the truth by drilling down to the letter they referred to. This is NOT journalism. This is fake news.

This is more stupid crap from the left. Just grow up.

No, the Washington Post headline said they were complaints about Kavanaugh's testimony. The Law and Crime headline was more vague but didn't imply anything. You chose to interpret it that way so you could label this as "fake news."

And by drilling down, I guess you mean reading the article. I know that's a difficult concept for you to master, but most people manage it.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:Senator Collins is making it obvious that she has always supported Kavanaugh. She's using her announcement just to grandstand an endorsement for him.

I can see why she needed time to announce her decision. She had the White House speechwriters working overtime putting her thoughts together for her.

Bob Juch wrote:The 51 Senators who voted "Yes" represent 143.2 million Americans.
The 49 Senators who voted "No" represent 181.8 million Americans.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:I haven't heard anyone complain about how Gorsuch has acted.

Yet all but 3 Democrats voted against his nomination.

And for all practical purposes, every Republican in the Senate voted against Merrick Garland before ever hearing from him.

silverscreenselect wrote:The Democrats feared that his decisions wouldn't be in the mainstream of current liberal judicial philosophy and they are arguably correct in that.

silverscreenselect wrote:They didn't bring any allegations of sexual assault or things of that nature because Gorsuch, unlike Kavanaugh, did not have anything of that nature in his background.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote: Your list doesn't include a single instance where Trump incited violence. In one of the eight "examples," he suggested that, if people see someone preparing an assault, they might "knock the crap out of them." That's defensive.

None of the others have anything to do with inciting future violence. One of the sections even cuts the actual quote short, removing where he specifically says, "DON'T."

Trump often, but not always, semi-sort-of-kind-of walks back his statements at a later point, usually in a tone of voice or accompanied by gestures that indicate to everyone what his real feelings are. That gives literalist commentators the cover they need to say that Trump really wasn't advocating violence while stirring up his followers in exactly the way he intends.

silverscreenselect wrote:The similarities between Trump's rallies and Hitler's early rally speeches are startling.

silverscreenselect wrote:I would think you had the intelligence to realize this. So, either you're one of Trump's rubes or you're cynical enough not to care.

silverscreenselect wrote:That gives literalist commentators the cover they need to say that Trump really wasn't advocating violence while stirring up his followers in exactly the way he intends.