Michale

I'll echo Ron Fournier 's words..

Radical Debate Advice for Hillary Clinton: Tell the Truth
http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/89140/radical-debate-advice-hillary-clinton-tell-truth

Look at John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Chris Christie, etc. at least as far as being elected to their first term in office. Americans are very forgiving the first time.

21 most consequential Clinton scandals, ranked from most important
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/12/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-scandals-ranked-from-/

You were saying? :D

Michale

I thought ya might like that? :D

Michale

The 'Gun Control' Farce
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/10/13/the_gun_control_farce_128394.html

The issue of gun control wouldn't BE an issue if we take politics out of the equation and just concentrate on the facts..

Michale

While I can't speak to RD, I have known Liz for almost a decade..

If she can handle me for that long, NOTHING would faze her! :D

Michale

Yea, you're probably right... Because I wouldn't have to.. Ya'all would be all over it like stink on rice... Or white on shit.. One of those..

But it is undeniable that, once ya'all DID bring it up, I would be completely in agreement with ya'all....

Hence the disconnect... :D

Michale

And you would not have even brought it up...

If there is disconnect, you suffer from it equally.

Please impose the Facebook Civility and Decorum Data Mining Project on CW.com ASAP before Richard and Liz are compelled to vacate.

If it had been a GOP'er who had an insecure private bathroom closet homebrew email server and used that insecure private bathroom closet homebrew email server EXCLUSIVELY for SecState duties???

Ya'all would have gone absolutely APE SHEET and condemned that GOP'er to hell and back...

The only difference between that scenario and now is that we would all be on the same exact page...

Michale

And when you can't find anything, make it up.

So, you don't think that a US SecState using an insecure private bathroom closet homebrew email server EXCLUSIVELY is any big deal?

SERIOUSLY!!???

Michale

Yea... "NO evidence of either criminality OR malfeasance on the part of Hillary Clinton"

Riiiight..

Michale

The Senate and House investigations were the same, eh?

But like with all crooks, A leads to B and B leads to C....

And when you can't find anything, make it up.

I refer you to comment #110

Exactly.

But it was ALL the SAME investigation...

ALL of them have found NO evidence of either criminality OR Malfeasance on the part of Hillary Clinton regarding the incident.

Yea.. IN BENGHAZI...

But like with all crooks, A leads to B and B leads to C....

I refer you to comment #110

Michale

"The other interesting thing is neither you nor your WSJ opinion piece mentioned that this is what? the seventh or eighth investigation in to Benghazi?

Actually, it's the 2nd, by why let facts stand in your way..."

Actually Michale, you are WRONG. This is now the EIGHTH investigation into Benghazi.

Here is the list for your edification:

1.) Senate Intelligence Committee

Report released: January 15, 2014

2.) House Republicans’ Interim Report

Report released: April 23, 2013

3.) Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee

Report released: Dec. 31, 2012

4.) House Armed Services Committee

Report released: Feb. 10, 2014

5.) House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

Report released: Sept. 16, 2013

(This was the one chaired by Darrell Issa.)

6.) House Committee on Foreign Affairs

Report released: Feb. 7, 2014

7.) House Intelligence Committee

Report released: July 31, 2014

ALL of them have found NO evidence of either criminality OR Malfeasance on the part of Hillary Clinton regarding the incident.

Yes..

The Democrats Witch Hunt over the Abu Ghraib all comes down to a purely political agenda..

Exactly..

Michale

And anyone who DOESN'T believe that such an action is serious as shit serious is either a few fries short of a happy meal or is serving a partisan agenda...

Michale

So it does come down to purely political agenda. Got it.

[citation required]

Yaawn... Sure there was :D

Armed Services Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee, Intelligence Committee, and Oversight and Government Reform Committee all investigated Benghazi...

The Batman mass shooter had a choice of a dozen different theaters showing BATMAN that night. The closest one was only 3 mins away.. The LARGEST theater (more victims) was 7 mins away.. He choose the Cinemark that was over 30 mins away because it was the ONLY ONE that was a GUN FREE ZONE...

Ah yes, this chestnut. The first was an Hispanic theater, the movie was in Spanish. The second did not offer the tactical requirements the shooters notes specified, that is all the exits were in high traffic areas of a mall. He was caught and thoroughly investigated for the court case. There is no indication in his writings or words that a gun free zone had anything to do with his choice.

Statistically speaking, in a gun free zone with no armed civilians, the average death count is 9... In a crowd-based shooting that allows conceal carry, the average death count is 3....

You do the math...

Lies, dam lies and statistics. With a sample size of "one, possibly two" (which were you using, by the way?) I don't find your math convincing...

OK, so we are in agreement..

The Democrat Party has absolutely NO ROOM to complain about GOP Witch Hunts...

As to me not complaining??

That's because it's RIDICULOUS to hold hearings after hearings about nothing more than college hazing in a foreign prison..

But it's serious as shit serious when our SecState creates her own insecure bathroom closet MailServ and passes highly classified intel THRU that insecure bathroom closet MailServ...

Nothing partisan about it..

Just common sense...

Michale

Several mass shooters DID indicate that they choose Gun Free Zones specifically..

Regardless, it's a documented fact that, since 1950, ALL but one, possibly two mass shootings were in Gun Free Zones..

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..

At the expense of more gun related deaths than the preventing of mass shootings would save...

There is empirical evidence to support my position..

There is none to support your claim of more gun related deaths...

Yawn. There were four previous investigations in the house alone. But I see you don't let facts get in your way...

Yaawn... Sure there was :D

Hmm, do you a guide of when it's OK and when it is not?

No.. No Guide... Just common sense and political agnosticity...

For example.. If a Party complains and whines and bitches and moans about politicizing an issue where Americans are killed.....

It's PROBABLY not a good idea for that Party to blatantly STATE that they will be politicizing an issue where MORE Americans are killed...

When all is said and done, here are the facts.

You and the entirety of the Left **DO NOT** have ANY idea to combat crowd-based mass shootings..

The idea of getting rid of Gun Free Zones is a PROVEN idea that has been PROVEN to work in minimizing or eliminating crowd-based mass shootings...

The Batman mass shooter had a choice of a dozen different theaters showing BATMAN that night. The closest one was only 3 mins away.. The LARGEST theater (more victims) was 7 mins away.. He choose the Cinemark that was over 30 mins away because it was the ONLY ONE that was a GUN FREE ZONE...

Statistically speaking, in a gun free zone with no armed civilians, the average death count is 9... In a crowd-based shooting that allows conceal carry, the average death count is 3....

You do the math...

"These are the facts... And they are undisputed..."
-Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

Michale

Yes, exactly. Why is it that you, an alleged political agnostic, scream to high heaven when a D does it but wholeheartedly jump on the bandwagon when an R does it? Seems like your political agnosticism is more alleged than real...

And yet no study of mass shooters has found that common denominator was thought about by the shooters.

Unlike you Lefties who just whine and cry about useless regulations and bans,

Back that up. When did I say anything like that.

*MY* idea would actually prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings..

At the expense of more gun related deaths than the preventing of mass shootings would save...

Yup, political agenda...

Actually, it's the 2nd, by why let facts stand in your way...

Yawn. There were four previous investigations in the house alone. But I see you don't let facts get in your way...

Glass houses.. Stones...

So it's OK in some situations when your political agenda is furthered but it's hypocrisy when others do it... Hmm, do you a guide of when it's OK and when it is not?

You mean like all the 9/11 investigations, the Iraq War investigations, the Terrorists/CIA/Black Sites investigations??

Are those the kinds of witch hunts you are referring to??

Michale

Please change that to read:

Unlike THE Lefties who just whine and cry about useless regulations and bans, *MY* idea would actually prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings..

I'm trying... :D

Michale

If it's nothing but a fishing expedition, why does Hillary CONSTANTLY lie about it and then make up new stories when the lies are proven???

Doesn't sound like a fishing expedition to any normal American w/ more than 2 brain cells to rub together..

Michale

None whatsoever..

Except for the fact that I *ADMIT* it..

Does anyone here?? Nope.. :D

Get rid of Gun Free Zones...

Why is it you bring this up only after mass shootings?

Because the FACTS clearly show that, next to guns, a Gun Free Zone is the common denominator..

Unlike you Lefties who just whine and cry about useless regulations and bans, *MY* idea would actually prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings..

Has nothing to do with a partisan agenda and EVERYTHING to do with BTDT facts..

The other interesting thing is neither you nor your WSJ opinion piece mentioned that this is what? the seventh or eighth investigation in to Benghazi?

Actually, it's the 2nd, by why let facts stand in your way...

Irregardless of THAT, how many Iraq War or Tortured Terrorists investigations were there??

Glass houses.. Stones...

Not to mention the email server thing is becoming such a blatant fishing expedition...

Of course you would say that..

NO SecState in the HISTORY of the country has ever so blatantly exposed this country to danger.. A country that has no diplomatic secrets is a country that won't last the day...

But to the Hysterical Left, it's nothing but a fishing expedition...

But College Hazing at an Iraqi prison??

Now THAT'S something REALLY serious!!! :^/

The partisanship is as blatant as it is nauseating..

Michale

You always seem to find a right wing justification for your claims. Any difference?

And what about your hypocrisy? Your first post on this board about the mass shooting (and most mass shootings in the past) was to further your political agenda. Right after criticizing the left for proposing gun control you post:

Get rid of Gun Free Zones...

Why is it you bring this up only after mass shootings?

The other interesting thing is neither you nor your WSJ opinion piece mentioned that this is what? the seventh or eighth investigation in to Benghazi? Lets face it if the left was witch hunting to the point they had to start new investigations every time they did not get the answers they wanted you would be screaming to high heavens about it, but when a -R- is before their name...

Also, if the first investigation had found the desired dirt on Hillary would there have been multiple more investigations?

The first investigation and maybe the second if there was extenuating circumstances was completely justified regardless of the political parties involved, each one after that is purely political. Not to mention the email server thing is becoming such a blatant fishing expedition...

I am sure you can find some Left Wing justification for the claim..

But here are some facts that are completely unarguable.

1. McCarthy said absolutely NOTHING about politicizing the Benghazi hearings.

2. Democrats have gone on witch hunts as well.

3. Democrats whining about GOP politicizing and then turn right around and blatantly STATE they will politicize an issue is the ultimate in hypocrisy...

Michale

Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject under discussion..

Which is EXACTLY why it SHOULD be dismissed and trivialized in the context of the subject at hand..

It's as if Republicans used a crowd-based mass shooting to get rid of some aspect of TrainWreckCare they didn't like??

Would ya'all be saying, "W.T.F.!!??"

Especially when you very well know that those flags were only raised in the first place by some southern state governments in protest to and to show their utter disdain for, the ending of official government sanctioned segregation.

I know nothing of the sort..

But WHAT does that have to do with the subject of crowd-based mass shootings??

Not a damn thing..

*THAT* is my point...

Also, for some reason my repeated attempts to post something regarding the Benghazi House committee keep getting lost. I wanted to cite a NY Times article and provide a link that comes to a completely opposite conclusion from the one Michale cited.

Try using TinyURL instead of the link..

Barring that, break up up the comment by paragraph..

Michale

""Wouldn't it be nice if we could ban a historical battle flag"
-Democrats"

That's a great way to dismiss and trivialize the legitimate concerns of a large block of minority Americans concerning what is a very painful wound for them. Especially when you very well know that those flags were only raised in the first place by some southern state governments in protest to and to show their utter disdain for, the ending of official government sanctioned segregation.

Regarding the Republican House Benghazi committee...

Of course, the FACTS say different..
"We don't need no stinkin' facts!!!"

You know, I can cite another article that supports an entirely different and completely opposite conclusion. An excerpt from that article in the NY Times states:

"Now, 17 months later — longer than the Watergate investigation lasted — interviews with current and former committee staff members as well as internal committee documents reviewed by The New York Times show the extent to which the focus of the committee’s work has shifted from the circumstances surrounding the Benghazi attack to the politically charged issue of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state."

When I tried to include the link for this article, my entire post disappeared. You might want to look into that C.W.

By the way, so much for your supposed "FACTS" Michale.

Regarding the Republican House Benghazi committee...

Of course, the FACTS say different..
http://www.wsj.com/article_email/the-real-benghazi-investigation-1444345572-lMyQjAxMTA1OTA1OTQwNTk0Wj
But here in Weigantia...
"We don't need no stinkin' facts!!!"

You know, I can cite another article that supports an entirely different and completely opposite conclusion. An excerpt from that article in the NY Times states:

"Now, 17 months later — longer than the Watergate investigation lasted — interviews with current and former committee staff members as well as internal committee documents reviewed by The New York Times show the extent to which the focus of the committee’s work has shifted from the circumstances surrounding the Benghazi attack to the politically charged issue of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state."

When I tried to include the link for this article, my entire post disappeared. You might want to look into that C.W.

By the way, so much for your supposed "FACTS" Michale.

Remember the "assault weapon" ban?? Even though there is NO SUCH THING as an "assault weapon", they were banned in 1994 based on all sorts of promises how it would end or put a severe dent in gun violence...

The results??

A dismal dismal failure...

That illustrates the EXACT problem with Democrat's gun regulations... They don't do ANY good because the problem is NOT guns in and of themselves...

I can prove that beyond ANY doubt to anyone who has a semblance of an open mind..

Michale

Obama will be the only person sticking to Iran deal
http://nypost.com/2015/10/11/obama-will-be-the-only-person-sticking-to-iran-deal/

Who could have POSSIBLY predicted this outcome..

Who could have predicted that Iran wouldn't have to do a thing and would reap the benefits of $400 million a month??

Who could have predicted that Iran would not have to stop ONE centrifuge or get rid of ONE ounce of nuclear material to get all sorts of trade contracts worth BILLIONS to Iran???

Who could have predicted that Iran would use there new wealth to be even MORE violent and MORE de-stabilizing in the region??

Who could have predicted that??

Oh... wait....

Michale

Happy Thanksgiving... :D

Michale

I think it's safe to say Hillary was more politically active than any First Lady up to that point..

While she was not an elected politician, it's pretty clear that she had considerable political power..

or a politician dealing with something the she herself instigated, like John Kennedy having his mistress visit him at the White House while he was President.

Ahhh, but we're not talking about Bills "bimbo eruptions" (if anyone is offended by the term, blame Hillary)..

We're talking about the brutal and vicious attacks on Bill's mistresses..

Those WERE instigated by Hillary...

And, in the here and now, seeing Hillary come out with videos supporting women who have been the victims of sexual assaults!???

I am amazed that Hillary didn't turn to fire from the blatant and jaw-dropping hypocrisy...

Hillary has been getting a pass from the Left for over 25 years...

Michale

I was thinking the very same thing. Sensible gun control does not equal gun ban ... not now, not ever.

And yet, whenever the Left starts talking guns, the UK and Australia are inevitably mentioned..

And what is unique to the UK and Australia??

Gun bans...

So, while it's easy to say that ya'all aren't talking about banning guns, the facts clearly show that, for the Left, the implication is there, the desire is there...

JM,

Having said that, even both the Supreme Court and Justice Scalia agree that the Second Amendment DOES allow for gun "regulation" and that regulation is NOT the same as a BAN. I think any discussion can certainly start from that point.

And we DO have gun regulation..

And the facts clearly show that gun regulation in and of itself DOES NOT WORK to curtail gun violence..

But, before I offer the facts that PROVE this, let's make sure we're on the same page.

The issue before us is crowd-based mass shootings. Before we move OFF this issue into general gun violence, can we agree that the Left does not have ANY plan, ANY law or ANY idea that will prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings..

Can we agree on that and move on??

Michale

Of course, the FACTS say different..
http://www.wsj.com/article_email/the-real-benghazi-investigation-1444345572-lMyQjAxMTA1OTA1OTQwNTk0Wj
But here in Weigantia...
"We don't need no stinkin' facts!!!"

I can just as easily post my own link to an article that comes to the exact OPPOSITE conclusion regarding the Benghazi committee:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/12/us/politics/clinton-emails-became-the-new-focus-of-benghazi-inquiry.html

The article makes several interesting points, including; the Benghazi investigation has now gone on longer than the Watergate investigation, and the focus of the committee’s work has shifted from the circumstances surrounding the Benghazi attack to issue of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State.

So much for "FACTS" Michale.

I was thinking the very same thing. Sensible gun control does not equal gun ban ... not now, not ever.

This is a classic red herring and straw man argument that some use in an attempt to escape a real discussion about what can be done to decrease these types of massacres and to deal with the consequences of America's gun culture, especially during an era of a dysfunctional media and political culture. Not an easy challenge to meet, to be sure!

"As far as general gun violence, we need to start from a common point.
There will never ever, ever NEVER EVER be a gun ban here in the United States.."

I think we can all agree that's a given Michale. The repeal of the Second Amendment is never going to be a real world political possibility. Just like a repeal of the 14th Amendment guarantee of birthright citizenship, despite what Trump might think, is ever going to realistically happen either. In both, cases, regarding gun bans or immigration, it just ISN'T.

Having said that, even both the Supreme Court and Justice Scalia agree that the Second Amendment DOES allow for gun "regulation" and that regulation is NOT the same as a BAN. I think any discussion can certainly start from that point.

"Very well said, Richard, on all counts! :)"

I must say that I too, think that both Elizabeth and Richard made excellent statements on the subject as well. Very well reasoned and thought out that I can heartily agree with also. Well done guys.

"No, it's not my opinion that Hillary viciously attacked Bill's mistresses..

It's documented fact..."

That's cute Michale, but not what I was referring to. I was saying that it was only your opinion that that was Hillary's first political pass from the American people as an elected official. She was neither an elected official in her own right at the time, or a politician dealing with something the she herself instigated, like John Kennedy having his mistress visit him at the White House while he was President. She was it seems to me, collateral damage dealing with the fallout from here husband's actions, not her own. Now, if the American people do decide to support her for President, then you could make a case for the whole State Dept. e-mail server controversy being here first political pass from the public, and there I would agree with you.

I completely agree...

On the flip side, however, the vehemence that permeates national politics cannot help but affect the participants here...

This because completely obvious when national Democrats starting referring to Republicans as "terrorists" and "hostage takers" and such memes permeated the streets and alleys of Weigantia..

For better or for worse, Weigantia is an offshoot of the national dialogue..

Sure we can be better about it.. We can argue passionately about practically any subject and still sit down to a beer afterwards...

It's called basic human respect.. And yea, there are outliers that put such sentiments to the test.. But I honestly feel that such outliers make us stronger as a community..

Michale

Imagine if Bush had gone to the potium in a presser and said, "We must politicize the war against terrorists"...

The Left would have lost their frakin' minds...

Am I wrong???

Michale

But when you look at "politicizing" in the context of Democrats whining and crying about alleged "politicizing" of the Benghazi hearings, you can understand the reaction, I am sure...

Unfortunately, guns are a political issue in the US and I don't see how you talk about guns or gun violence or the second amendment or common sense gun control legislation etc. without politicizing it. Obama didn't politicize gun violence - it's always been politicized. If Americans wish to come to terms with this issue, then y'all are just going to have to admit it's a political issue and it needs to be dealt with politically.

I completely agree..

If you take away the politics of the gun issue, there is NO issue..

I have said that many many times..

There is no need, whatsoever, for you to demonize President Obama over this.

I disagree... If Obama were open to REAL solutions to crowd-based mass shootings, then you would have a point.

But he's not.. He is solely interested in scoring political points for the Democrat Party.. This is blatantly obvious because he is demonizing the Right over the issue...

If Obama can demonize the right, then I can surely demonize Obama...

Right???

But it's unlikely that a Republican POTUS would politicize the issue...

Because Republicans have REAL solutions to the particular problem that Obama brought up..

Michale

As for President Obama's politicizing of gun violence in the US ...

It's probably high time that we had a good discussion here about the gun culture in the US and what it has brought about. Obama's response to the latest massacre - or the third or fourth or fifth latest - in Roseburg was, in my view, completely understandable and even overdue.

Unfortunately, guns are a political issue in the US and I don't see how you talk about guns or gun violence or the second amendment or common sense gun control legislation etc. without politicizing it. Obama didn't politicize gun violence - it's always been politicized. If Americans wish to come to terms with this issue, then y'all are just going to have to admit it's a political issue and it needs to be dealt with politically.

There is no need, whatsoever, for you to demonize President Obama over this. He has had to be consoler-in-chief to too many families since he took office and the next president, Republican or Democrat, will have to face families who have been victimized by gun violence like in Roseburg as well.

But I think Liz's comments were prompted by by vehemence against Obama for blatantly politicizing (and STATING he was politicizing) the Roseburg shootings.

No, Richard was right. I was really referring, at that moment, to the comments at this site, in general, and yours and Al's, in particular. I'm just sick and tired of all of it, coming in the form of comments here or with the political process in the US in general. It doesn't solve anything and doesn't come close to understanding
what the real problems and issues of the day are or to what we all really think would be the best way forward on any of them.

And irregardless of all THAT, I will do better to be better...

I really believe that this site is one of the best, if not THE best, blogs on the internets for the possibilities it provides for a real good discussion about any number of issues. I've been a regular participant in only a couple or three such blogs and this one has always been my favourite - for the people it attracts and for the fun way we have been known to talk about things, from time to time.

If we all stick to the issues and what we believe to be the best way to go about solving them - agreeing and disagreeing with each other and with our political leaders - and trying to persuade using rational arguments without the mean-spiritedness and name calling and pitting D's against R's and I's etc. then I think this would really be a unique discussion/debate site, worthy of it's exceptional host.

Fair enough...

In my comment #10 to the "Program Note" CW posting (http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/10/01/program-note-52/), I did offer a concrete solution that I don't think ended up being much different that a flavor of what I think you were suggesting.

So, when you suggest that no plan offered would work are just "wouldn't it be nice" laws, what would be the criteria for such an evaluation that either side could objectively consider as a place to start? Now, if you say, well, if it reduces deaths, then I'll say, fine, let's try the proposal and see if empirically it does so.

We first must agree on which problem we are trying to address.. I ran into this on a DISCUS discussion...

The problem with trying to decide the problem is that the problem always morphs from the Press Conference problem to a different problem that is, allegedly, an easier problem to solve... :D

Did ya get that??

What I mean by that is that the Press Conference problem was crowd-based mass shootings.. That's what prompted this latest round of soul-searching. That's what ALWAYS prompts these rounds of soul-searching...

But that's not the problem the Left wants to address with their ideas for laws.. And the reason being is because the Left CAN'T address the Press Conference problem.. So they invariably try to change the subject to a problem the Left THINKS it can address...

So, we have to decide whether we want to address the crowd-based mass shooting problem or the general gun violence problem..

Word of warning though. NOTHING the Left has in their arsenal will prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings..

The only thing that will help in THOSE kinds of instances are the ideas coming from the Right..

As far as general gun violence, we need to start from a common point.

There will never ever, ever NEVER EVER be a gun ban here in the United States..

If we can agree on that, then we can have a fruitful discussion..

Yes, and even contact sports have rules for being out-of-bounds and have an ethic of sportsmanship. Indeed, while we're on the subject, you don't (or aren't supposed to) see refs penalize an offending team by letting the other do it back.

While I get your point, I have known sports officials (and court judges) who will penalize one side and then look for an opportunity
to do the same to the other side just to be "fair"...

Not exactly what you are referring to but I thought I would throw it out there... :D

But my point is bringing up the issue is that the argument for "mean spiritedness" loses a lot of it's potency if it's not equally applied. It's the same as when many here rail against big money in elections. If you don't rail against the Partys equally, it comes across as nothing more than partisan attacks when, in reality, it could be so much more...

We're not playing kill-the-carrier, especially when we're all just a bunch of armchair quarterbacks on some website when you get right down to it. In fact, it's when we disagree most passionately, that following a code of civility are most needed.

Agreed...

Now, I'd like to get back to trying to solve the world's problems from my desk chair via obscure comments using a pseudonym on a wonky political internet blog that I doubt any actual political leader with actual power actually reads.

Here, here.. Well said.. :D

If you want to call out someone for inappropriate or misrepresentative arguments, I'm right there with you. When you start behaving uncivilly yourself, you lost me regardless of the substance of your argument. Yellow card.

It's easier to turn the other cheek knowing comments like this are coming.. Thank you...

I don't think @Elizabeth Miller was claiming that only Republicans were mean-spirited, I think they she was characterizing how she thought comments on this site were. If we start looking at comments by politicians, especially chairs of national party organizations, we're all gonna get dirty.

Troo... Expecting civility from politicians is a fool's errand

File it under the "Wouldn't It Be Nice" category.. :D

But I think Liz's comments were prompted by by vehemence against Obama for blatantly politicizing (and STATING he was politicizing) the Roseburg shootings. I realize that Obama felt he was being "cutsey" but I bet if every Weigantian was honest with themselves, they would admit that it was a bonehead thing to say...

I admit that my animosity towards Obama for that was a bit overboard.. It's one of those times where I make a post at night and wake up in the morning regretting the tone...

Irregardless of that, I do feel that everyone should condemn such action...

And irregardless of all THAT, I will do better to be better...

Michale

I don't think @Elizabeth Miller was claiming that only Republicans were mean-spirited, I think they she was characterizing how she thought comments on this site were. If we start looking at comments by politicians, especially chairs of national party organizations, we're all gonna get dirty.

Actually, just so you know, after your and my initial back-and-forth, I did attempt to reply to several of your later posts in FTP #364. Unfortunately after an hour or so (yes, I spent way too much time on an internet site), I submitted two posts that ended up never displaying. Don't know why, so I guess I'm left with "the dog ate my homework". Sorry, no way you could have known that, but after losing that much time on a post, I gave up.

In my comment #10 to the "Program Note" CW posting (http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/10/01/program-note-52/), I did offer a concrete solution that I don't think ended up being much different that a flavor of what I think you were suggesting.

So, when you suggest that no plan offered would work are just "wouldn't it be nice" laws, what would be the criteria for such an evaluation that either side could objectively consider as a place to start? Now, if you say, well, if it reduces deaths, then I'll say, fine, let's try the proposal and see if empirically it does so.

Just sayin', I thought your challenge was met head on (though thanks for acknowledging what you did!). You might not agree it was reasonable or would reduce gun violence deaths -- fair enough -- but I thought it was reasonable and would likely reduce mass murder gun violence deaths.

The rest of this comment post has to do with civility: 

@altohon [#67]

For the record, Michale was right to call you out in his #70. Frankly, I thought he was reasonably restrained when he did so. Yours was a personal attack (and not your first one) and didn't contribute usefully to the discussion. If you want to call out someone for inappropriate or misrepresentative arguments, I'm right there with you. When you start behaving uncivilly yourself, you lost me regardless of the substance of your argument. Yellow card.

@Michale [71]
Politics is a contact sport...

Yes, and even contact sports have rules for being out-of-bounds and have an ethic of sportsmanship. Indeed, while we're on the subject, you don't (or aren't supposed to) see refs penalize an offending team by letting the other do it back.

We're not playing kill-the-carrier, especially when we're all just a bunch of armchair quarterbacks on some website when you get right down to it. In fact, it's when we disagree most passionately, that following a code of civility are most needed.

@Elizabeth Miller [@69, @72].

Right there with you, sister. @Michale has always treated me with respect on this site and I enjoy sparing with him. But when @altohone or @michale are just lobbing rhetorical flash bombs (whether in general or at each other), this site loses something. When any of us vilifies the other political side, we've lost something.

@all
So, at the risk of being pompous as hell (sorry!), sometimes things should be said out loud:
I won't promise that my posts will always make sense, but I promise I'll try. I won't promise the facts I represent will always be found to be accurate, but I promise you that I believe them to be and that I objectively researched them before I posted them (or will say if I haven't).I will promise I will treat you individually and listen and respond to your posts civilly.I promise I won't assume you side with or represent an argument that I haven't seen you write or defend.I promise I won't assume you're partisan and only want to win an argument just to say you won, but rather will assume you intend a good-faith effort to discuss and debate in hopes of finding common-ground or to educate yourselves or others.I promise not to assume that if you don't reply right way, that it means you somehow lost the argument; I'll assume you got busy with real life or wanted to think on the topic more before responding.I promise that even when you write passionately that if I respond, I'll try to find the best part of your argument and genuinely respond to that (i.e., the only one-of-us-gets-to-be-insane-at-a-time rule).I promise to tell you if you changed my mind or if you convince me a fact I represented earlier is found to be wrong and I promise to trust that you'll do the same.

In short, pull a yellow card on me if you ever see me go out of bounds or behave with poor sportsmanship.
Now, I'd like to get back to trying to solve the world's problems from my desk chair via obscure comments using a pseudonym on a wonky political internet blog that I doubt any actual political leader with actual power actually reads.

- Richard

DNC Chair: Republicans Are Saying ‘Yeah, Let’s Kick Women … Out Of This Country’ [VIDEO]
http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/11/dnc-chair-republicans-are-saying-yeah-lets-kick-women-out-of-this-country-video/

This is great for the Hysterical side of the Party..

But does BS like this really accomplish anything beyond more divisions and more polarization??

NOTE: I tried to find a comparable one from the GOP side of things.. Maybe you can find one to put in.. :D

Michale

Of course, the FACTS say different..

http://www.wsj.com/article_email/the-real-benghazi-investigation-1444345572-lMyQjAxMTA1OTA1OTQwNTk0Wj

But here in Weigantia...

"We don't need no stinkin' facts!!!"

:D

While in the second case, in the Oregon shootings, it is meant to galvanize actions by recalcitrant politicians not for personal political gain but to implement policies that "might" make things better for Americans, and in any case which a majority of the people in poll after poll has shown, despite Michale's opinion to the contrary, to be widely popular and supported.

Yea, widely popular and supported by Democrats..

But would the prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings??

NO THEY WOULD NOT...

So, why are they even being discussed??

Because they are nothing but "Wouldn't It Be Nice For Democrats" laws...

Michale

I am ALWAYS ready to do that. You KNOW that..

But when dealings with the likes of Biga and his ilk, can I really be blamed for being a tad testy at times??

I am ALL about rationally discussing the issues and challenges facing us in the here and now..

I have spent almost a week BEGGING people to give me some laws that will prevent or help prevent mass shootings.. The only rational response came from RD but wasn't what I had asked for. Basically the ONLY thing coming from the Left are "Wouldn't It Be Nice" Laws..

A crowd-based mass shooting in Charleston kills 9 christians..

"Wouldn't it be nice if we could ban a historical battle flag"
-Democrats

If ya'all don't have a solution, then acknowledge that, I can drop it and we move on...

I mean, honestly Liz.. Didn't you cringe, JUST a little, when Obama said that we must "politicize" crowd-based mass shooting tragedies??

ESPECIALLY when the ENTIRE week before hand was Democrats and Left Wingers whining and crying and bitching about how the REPUBLICANS were (so-called) "politicizing" Benghazi...

I mean, honestly... Didn't you roll your eyes a LITTLE??

If ya want the rancor and meanness out of politics, or more accurately, out of Weigantia, then it seems to me that it behooves ya'all to reign in people who CAN'T have discussions WITHOUT rancor and meanness and name-calling and insults...

I'm willing to do my part.. :D

Michale

Politics is a contact sport...

But if the goal is to minimize the meanness, doesn't it behoove one to make sure one's own house is clean first??

Something about stones and glass houses??

Obama and Hillary et al are all but claiming that Republicans *WANT* mass shootings and gun murder tragedies..

If that is not "mean spiritedness" what is??

Michale

At worse, I am personally attacked and called childish names..

Pathetic wingnut troll.
And, the truth I state about what you write is not a personal attack. Nor is it opinion. It's just fact.
You prove it every day.

I rest my case... :D

Michale

The point, Michale, is that many of the comments posted on this site are very mean-spirited and your comments are a perfect example of this exceedingly unproductive form of discussion.

I may be giving away one of my trade secrets here... But, what the hell.. We're all friends..

The way to avoid this "trap" is to acknowledge the shortcomings of your own party when ya'all want to slam the opposing Party..

For example...

"Yea, I know the Democrat Party really REALLY sucks in the mean-spiritedness department, but those Republican morons really take the cake!!"

Something like that and I would be hard pressed to have any kind of decent argument in response..

But by ignoring ya'alls own Party's culpability, ya'all leave me a VERY fertile debate/argument.. :D

Michale

Prove me wrong (to borrow a phrase) you wingnut troll.

"Thank you for your concession that you have no logical or rational rebuttal and must therefore respond with immature personal attacks and childish name-calling. Your concession of my superiority is appreciated, albeit irrelevant...

You made the claim... Now you back it up"

I take it you can be counted on to follow your own words?
Right?
Right?

Or, are you unaware that I borrowed the phrase from you?
You have no idea how much I enjoy having you point out your own hypocrisy.
Pathetic wingnut troll.
And, the truth I state about what you write is not a personal attack. Nor is it opinion. It's just fact.
You prove it every day.

A

But thank you for addressing the blatant hypocrisy of the Democrat Party over Benghazi and Roseburg.. You said, pretty much what I expected, but at least you had the moral courage to stand up and be counted for your beliefs, morally whacked though they may be.. :D

Michale

Hay, ya'all brought up the mean-spiritedness, not me...

Now that you have to acknowledge your own Party's culpability, all of the sudden, you want to move on??

Sure.. By all means.. Move on... :D

Michale

No, it's not my opinion that Hillary viciously attacked Bill's mistresses..

It's documented fact...

:D

Michale

Actually it's not...

That's your partisan opinion unsupported by any facts whatsoever..

While in the second case, in the Oregon shootings, it is meant to galvanize actions by recalcitrant politicians not for personal political gain but to implement policies that "might" make things better for Americans, and in any case which a majority of the people in poll after poll has shown, despite Michale's opinion to the contrary, to be widely popular and supported.

NO PROPOSED laws supported by Democrats would do ANYTHING to prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings...

NONE... ZERO... ZIP... NADA..

The ONLY ideas by Democrats are "Wouldn't It Be Nice Laws"... Like banning a historical battle flag..

If you think there is a good idea that would prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings, you have a golden opportunity to shut me up on the issue. :D

Now, there ARE some good ideas on the Right that WOULD prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings...

Will Democrats entertain those??

Nope..

Ergo, it's nothing but a crass attempt to use a tragedy to further a partisan, unnecessary and useless political agenda...

Obama might as well gone to the mic and said, "We're making sure we don't let this tragedy go to waste.."

The simple fact is, Democrats don't mind politicizing a tragedy as long as THEY are the ones doing the politicizing...

Benghazi and Roseburg proved that beyond ANY doubt..

Michale

"I mean, if ya'all are going to complain about the "mean spiritedness" in politics without acknowledging your OWN Party's contributions to that mean spiritedness, then it simply comes across as nothing but MORE partisan mean spiritedness..."

Did I ever specifically accuse the Republican Party as being solely responsible? I will in fact, gladly concede that there is plenty of responsibility to spread around for the sad state of affairs we currently find ourselves in regarding political discourse in this country. Does that satisfy you Michale so that we can now move on?

"Hillary had her "first time" 20 years ago when she viciously attacked Bill Clinton's mistresses..."

In your opinion.... :-)

"Why is it bad, evil, wrong, abhorrent for the GOP to "politicize" 4 deaths at the hands of terrorists in Benghazi.....

But it's perfectly acceptable for the Democrat Party to
"politicize" the execution of 9 christians by a psycho scumbag in Oregon??"

Because regarding the Benghazi probe, its sole purpose was to conduct a cynically targeted attack on a specific politician for the express purpose by the political opposition of damaging that politician for their own political gain, without actually trying to discover any actual implementable remedies that might mitigate any
shortcomings regarding real world security or other issues.

While in the second case, in the Oregon shootings, it is meant to galvanize actions by recalcitrant politicians not for personal political gain but to implement policies that "might" make things better for Americans, and in any case which a majority of the people in poll after poll has shown, despite Michale's opinion to the contrary, to be widely popular and supported.

Am I wrong??

Michale

OK... Let's look at this..

What would you attribute such hostility too??

Could it possibly be when one political party refers to members of the other political party as "terrorists" and "arsonists" and "hostage takers"??

Could THAT have anything to do with the mean-spiritedness that you and Liz are referring to??

Hmmmmmm???

Michale

How can a Democrat win if 60% of the country think that the presumptive Democrat candidate is a liar???

I stand corrected.. :D

Michale

Mistaken intel on a nuclear program. Confirmed intel on CWMDs..

Yes I do. For many reasons. They may think shes is dishonest, but she still has wide support. She is still better than any Republican alternative.

In your opinion...

Her support is sinking fast and there is no end in sight..

Look at John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Chris Christie, etc. at least as far as being elected to their first term in office. Americans are very forgiving the first time.

Hillary had her "first time" 20 years ago when she viciously attacked Bill Clinton's mistresses...

Michale

That's because you completely ignore my points..

How can a Democrat win if 60% of the country think that the presumptive Democrat candidate is a liar???

All you do is the exact same thing you accuse me of...

Ignoring my points and talking over you...

The problem is practically everyone here doesn't even ADDRESS any of my points...

At best, my points are ignored..

At worse, I am personally attacked and called childish names..

But hay, I'll be yer huckleberry...

We'll go shot for shot. You make a point... I'll address it.. Then I'll make a point.. And YOU address it.

OK??

Michale

"Bush never politicized 9/11 or the response."

What would you call the second Iraq War then, when Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11?

"Do you HONESTLY believe that Hillary can win the popular vote??
When over SIXTY PERCENT think she is a liar??"

Yes I do. For many reasons. They may think shes is dishonest, but she still has wide support. She is still better than any Republican alternative. There is a disconnect between people supporting a candidate for their policies, and giving them a pass on their personal character. Look at John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Chris Christie, etc. at least as far as being elected to their first term in office. Americans are very forgiving the first time.

"Vote early and vote often... Get dead people to vote Dem.. Get dogs to vote Dem.. Etc etc etc :D"

That statement makes for great anecdote, but you have no real world proof to support it. Just like Reagan's statement in the 80's about "Welfare Queens." If demagoguery is all you got, then you have already lost the argument.

This directly ties into the point that Elizabeth was making about the mean-spiritedness creeping into American politics which has been going on for many years now, and recently seems to be getting much worse.

"And if the popular vote had ANY relevance in our elections, then you would have a point..

But it doesn't so you don't..."

Michale, this whole thread between you and I started because you made the statement about how inevitable you thought it was going to be that the next President was going to be a Republican. I pointed out to you how unlikely that would be simply given the Electoral College math as it actually exists in the real world. You then proceeded to criticize me for somehow supporting an undemocratic way of electing candidates I like when it is in my favor, because I am a "Liberal Democrat" when that was not what I was doing at all. I actually think, like many Americans, that we should do away with the Electoral College, but no matter. So I tried a different tack. Again, to point out to you how difficult it would be to elect a Republican President, I pointed out the remarkable and unprecedented string of popular vote victories Democrats have continued to have recently. Since, the Electoral College generally follows popular vote totals and only twice in history has not, that I know of, in declaring the winner, this is not a point without ANY relevance as you so cavalierly declare.

Have you ever noticed Michale that when someone else counters a statement you have made, you suddenly become very dismissive of the whole argument you yourself was trying to make in the first place?

Before, I issued a challenge. Anyone who could give me a SINGLE suggestion for laws that could prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings, I would drop the issue forevermore..

No one could..

So, I'll give ya'all another opportunity to shut me up on this issue..

Just answer me one question..

Why is it bad, evil, wrong, abhorrent for the GOP to "politicize" 4 deaths at the hands of terrorists in Benghazi.....

But it's perfectly acceptable for the Democrat Party to
"politicize" the execution of 9 christians by a psycho scumbag in Oregon??

Anyone??

Michale

As opposed to Democrats whose hatred of Bush was so deep that they would side with Al Qaeda against this country...

What's your point again??

Michale

No one advocated that the answer to "everything" is force...

On the other hand, in the here and now, the Left advocates that the answer to everything is diplomacy...

Like it or not, we live in a dangerous world.. A world filled with psychotics and scumbags who won't care if we bow and say "pretty please" and if we make calls to "politicize" tragedies..

Didn't the Left go positively ape shit over the Benghazi Hearings because, according to the Left, those hearings were "politicizing" 4 deaths in a foreign land due to terrorist action??

Yet, not a peep from the Left when our PRESIDENT explicitly STATES IN PLAIN ENGLISH that we must "politicize" when 9 people are gunned down in cold blood, just for being christian...

So, if I understand the Left correctly..

Republicans politicize tragedies = BAD

Democrats politicize tragedies = GOOD

Got it... :^/

Yea.. Absolutely NO hypocrisy there!!

Michale

I think America crapped it's pants in fear after 9/11.

When so many think the only answer to everything is force, it's a sure sign we're afraid.

-David

I'm sorry and good luck!

I am sorry as well..

But somethings transcend politics..

There are some lines that should NEVER be crossed...

And politicizing a crowd-based mass shooting to score political points??

THAT is one of those lines that should NEVER be crossed...

And ESPECIALLY not blatantly STATING that the line is being crossed..

This is right up there with the Democrat Party failing to support Bush in the Counter Terrorism policies that they later whole-heartedly embraced under Obama...

Another reason to despise the Democrat Party...

Michale

I'm sorry and good luck!

Unlike the Democrats, Bush never politicized 9/11 or the response. Bush was quoted as specifically STATING that politics was NOT to be mentioned..

Bush has more integrity in his little pinky nail than Obama has in his entire body...

Michale

"Keep on steppin'..."
-Nick Fury, CAPTAIN AMERICA-WINTER SOLDIER

Michale

No they were not Liz and let me tell you why..

Even before they bodies were cold and counted, Obama said

"We have to politicize this tragedy"

He flat out STATED that he was using the tragedy to push an unpopular and COMPLETELY useless agenda...

Now, I have to ask.. If you were one of those families who just lost a loved one and, while the bodies were still warm, the POTUS gets on the air and says that we have to use this tragedy to push our agenda..??

Would YOU welcome him??

I am surprised that no one there spit in his face..

Because THAT is what he deserved..

Michale

That's just sad, Michale because, I know you really believe that. Even during the darkest days of the Bush/Cheney administration, I was still rooting for them to make the country better ... despite the many signs of incompetence and misguided policies.

Your personal favourite has been the favourite of many Americans since the very moment President Obama and Vice President Biden were sworn into office in 2009.

I may as well live in an alternate universe. Maybe I do.

When and how did America become so self-destructive, and Americans so defeatist? Can it be traced back to 9/11 and the response to it? Did it only begin in earnest on the day Obama/Biden took office?

I meant to ask you, how did the family members of the victims of the massacre welcome President Obama? Were they appreciative of his time to be with them at this terrible time?

[President Obama] is not welcome in Roseburg..

As an outsider looking in who tries to keep herself reasonably informed, I am deeply troubled by what appears to be an increasing mean-spiritedness that is characterizing the thinking of many Americans. While this may be only a minority of the nation, their essentially fear-based politics does seem to be a growing phenomenon than can become a very destructive force, if it hasn't already become so.

It has become too sad to watch and discouraging to the extreme and certainly not something I want to be a part of, here or anywhere else.

Here’s What Was Waiting for President Obama When He Arrived in Roseburg in Aftermath of School Shooting
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/10/09/heres-what-was-waiting-for-president-obama-when-he-arrived-in-roseburg-in-aftermath-of-school-shooting/

I tried to warn him....

He is not welcome in Roseburg..

My personal favorite...

United We Stand, Obama We Fail

Michale

:D

I have some choice juicy new information about the Iran deal??

Hillary speaks out against it..

It violates Federal Law...

Etc etc etc.. :D

Michale

Which?? :D

Michale

Do you HONESTLY believe that Hillary can win the popular vote??

When over SIXTY PERCENT think she is a liar??

I mean, honestly...

Haven't we learned out lesson on voting for a POTUS *SOLELY* to break a glass ceiling??

Sure, a black person can be POTUS.. But THIS black person is an incompetent moron...

Sure, a woman can be POTUS.. But THAT woman is a liar, a cheat and a conniving rhymes with witch...

Michale

And, if Hillary is the Dem Candidate??

Then she is your champion...

Am I wrong?? :D

Ok, let's go THERE then, if you insist Michale. How about the fact that Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 most recent Presidential elections, including Al Gore?

And if the popular vote had ANY relevance in our elections, then you would have a point..

But it doesn't so you don't...

Besides, there is always the vaunted Democrat process..

Vote early and vote often... Get dead people to vote Dem.. Get dogs to vote Dem.. Etc etc etc :D

Michale

"I am also constrained to point out that your "champion" Hillary has dropped TEN POINTS in less than a week.."

Who said I was backing Hillary? If you check my previous posts, I believe you will find that I supported Bernie.

"Iddn't it funny how you Lefties whine and complain about alleged GOP gerrymandering, yet BRAG about the Electoral stacking.."

Ok, let's go THERE then, if you insist Michale. How about the fact that Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 most recent Presidential elections, including Al Gore?

Hardly the word I would use.