President Joe Biden

Grace T. said:
The quotes, from which members of her own party and the Jewish community took offense, posted above in several news sources.

I think it's actually kind of funny that not only did you go off the road into the forest on the main point (that this sets a horrible precedent for the future regardless of the nature of the statement), but just because you wanted to try and one up me in a rhetorical debate on a minor side point, you find yourself in a position of defending Omar's comments, for which she herself was forced to apologize. Nice own goal.
Click to expand...

You supported your "horrible precedent" idea with empty handwaving. I disagree that it sets a precedent. Removing her from committee assignments after the Republicans failed to clean their own house (and Minority Leader McCarthy even said that the party caucus gave her a standing ovation) is about the lightest in the spectrum of appropriate responses to her behavior.

I expect her to pick up t's self-assigned role of daily crazy tweets until even the GOP has had enough of her.
 
espola said:
You supported your "horrible precedent" idea with empty handwaving. I disagree that it sets a precedent. Removing her from committee assignments after the Republicans failed to clean their own house (and Minority Leader McCarthy even said that the party caucus gave her a standing ovation) is about the lightest in the spectrum of appropriate responses to her behavior.

I expect her to pick up t's self-assigned role of daily crazy tweets until even the GOP has had enough of her.
Click to expand...
My response is the rs will use the precedent (however you think of the remarks, rightly or wrongly) on people like the squad or Maxine waters when they take power.
 
Grace T. said:
My response is the rs will use the precedent (however you think of the remarks, rightly or wrongly) on people like the squad or Maxine waters when they take power.
Click to expand...

Maybe the current crop of rs will. It seems you know them better than I do. Standing ovation for MTG? Imagine that.

I think this situation demonstrates how far off-base a Representative has to be to be called out.
 
espola said:
Maybe the current crop of rs will. It seems you know them better than I do. Standing ovation for MTG? Imagine that.

I think this situation demonstrates how far off-base a Representative has to be to be called out.
Click to expand...

your argument basically amounts to that she is “uniquely bad”. “Uniquely bad” is in the eye of the beholder. Omar is uniquely bad in some Jewish circles. The rs will use it now that the precedent is set...perhaps limited to those on the d side that are viewed by rs as uniquely bad. And as our other poster red has pointed out there’s a lot of bad to go around in congress for both sides. Retaliation could follow on retaliation with each time the circle of what is uniquely bad growing. I wouldnt be surprised we get to a point where alleged racists/socialists get routinely thrown off committees. Limiting principles are hard in a knife fight
 
Grace T. said:
your argument basically amounts to that she is “uniquely bad”. “Uniquely bad” is in the eye of the beholder. Omar is uniquely bad in some Jewish circles. The rs will use it now that the precedent is set...perhaps limited to those on the d side that are viewed by rs as uniquely bad. And as our other poster red has pointed out there’s a lot of bad to go around in congress for both sides. Retaliation could follow on retaliation with each time the circle of what is uniquely bad growing. I wouldnt be surprised we get to a point where alleged racists/socialists get routinely thrown off committees. Limiting principles are hard in a knife fight
Click to expand...

Show me anyone, Democrat or Republican, as crazy as she is.
 
espola said:
Show me anyone, Democrat or Republican, as crazy as she is.
Click to expand...
You are missing the point again. Any objective reality is irrelevant. There are plenty of people though that are viewed by someone across the aisle as “uniquely bad”. And once you open the door it’s foolish to think it won’t be used again.
 
Grace T. said:
You are missing the point again. Any objective reality is irrelevant. There are plenty of people though that are viewed by someone across the aisle as “uniquely bad”. And once you open the door it’s foolish to think it won’t be used again.
Click to expand...

The door has been open since Congress first convened. MTG is the first to have supported the assassination of government officials, unless you count the Democrats who were thrown out early in the Civil War.
 
Grace T. said:
You are missing the point again. Any objective reality is irrelevant. There are plenty of people though that are viewed by someone across the aisle as “uniquely bad”. And once you open the door it’s foolish to think it won’t be used again.
Click to expand...

have to admire someone who would post "Any objective reality is irrelevant" as a debating point.
 
Grace T. said:
i think there is one too but a. Most people get it wrong (but think they are right) and b. Sometimes it isn’t relevant.
Click to expand...

Republicans (especially those in Congress) now must face the objective reality that they have publicly supported a lunatic who threatens violence against the government they say they want to control. As long as they allow MTG to spout her evil from a seat in Congress, they risk losing their whole party's relevance in national elections. There have been other objectively real political party crises in our history--

--Nixon's Southern Strategy in which many racist Democrats decided they were no longer wanted in their party and so became Republicans (probably winning Nixon the 1968 election)
--The Dixiecrats who were repulsed by Truman's civil rights progress (things like ending segregation in the military, for example) and ran their own slate of candidates, winning 39 electoral votes in 1948, The Democratic Party stomped out the last embers of that revolt by the 1952 election.
--The 1856 breakup of the Whig Party, in which the abolitionists could no longer support the party compromise positions on slavery and then formed what we now call the Republican Party.
 
espola said:
Republicans (especially those in Congress) now must face the objective reality that they have publicly supported a lunatic who threatens violence against the government they say they want to control. As long as they allow MTG to spout her evil from a seat in Congress, they risk losing their whole party's relevance in national elections. There have been other objectively real political party crises in our history--

--Nixon's Southern Strategy in which many racist Democrats decided they were no longer wanted in their party and so became Republicans (probably winning Nixon the 1968 election)
--The Dixiecrats who were repulsed by Truman's civil rights progress (things like ending segregation in the military, for example) and ran their own slate of candidates, winning 39 electoral votes in 1948, The Democratic Party stomped out the last embers of that revolt by the 1952 election.
--The 1856 breakup of the Whig Party, in which the abolitionists could no longer support the party compromise positions on slavery and then formed what we now call the Republican Party.
Click to expand...

-The Mongols believed in the objective reality where they had the right to ransack the world and kill civilians
-The Crusaders and the Caliphates believed in an objective reality where their God commanded to them to win the holy land
-The US held an objective reality in Manifest Destiny entitling them to displace anyone from coast to coast that stood in their way
-The Spanish Empire held an objective reality where it had the right to conquer and convert in the name of God
-The British Empire believed in an objective reality where they had a white man's burden to civilize the world
-The Confederacy believed in an objective reality where slavery was a moral good.
-The Russian Communists believed in an objective reality where they could build a worker's paradise
-The Nazis believed in an objective reality where they were the master race and subhumans existed.
-The segregationalists believed in their objective reality that whites were better than blacks.
-The Chinese believe in an objective reality where all Uighurs are a terrorism problem that need to be reeducated or exterminated
-And you seemingly believe in an objective reality where the behavior of Omar (not to mention the rest of the squad) is a.o.k.

Human beings are really bad at objective realities. Watch Rashomon. It will enlighten.
 
Grace T. said:
-The Mongols believed in the objective reality where they had the right to ransack the world and kill civilians
-The Crusaders and the Caliphates believed in an objective reality where their God commanded to them to win the holy land
-The US held an objective reality in Manifest Destiny entitling them to displace anyone from coast to coast that stood in their way
-The Spanish Empire held an objective reality where it had the right to conquer and convert in the name of God
-The British Empire believed in an objective reality where they had a white man's burden to civilize the world
-The Confederacy believed in an objective reality where slavery was a moral good.
-The Russian Communists believed in an objective reality where they could build a worker's paradise
-The Nazis believed in an objective reality where they were the master race and subhumans existed.
-The segregationalists believed in their objective reality that whites were better than blacks.
-The Chinese believe in an objective reality where all Uighurs are a terrorism problem that need to be reeducated or exterminated
-And you seemingly believe in an objective reality where the behavior of Omar (not to mention the rest of the squad) is a.o.k.

Human beings are really bad at objective realities. Watch Rashomon. It will enlighten.
Click to expand...

Believing in commands from a god is, by definition, not objective reality.

Your other examples are only opinions, some of which I have never heard before.

Show me where I have said "the behavior of Omar (not to mention the rest of the squad) is a.o.k."
 
espola said:
Believing in commands from a god is, by definition, not objective reality.

Your other examples are only opinions, some of which I have never heard before.

Show me where I have said "the behavior of Omar (not to mention the rest of the squad) is a.o.k."
Click to expand...

If you are finally saying what Omar said is not o.k., I'll take you at your word. But so far there's just been a lot of defending her from you. But if you really believe that, please say so.

As to the rest, you are missing the point that it's all opinion and belief since you can never be sure of what is objective truth. An objective truth may exist, we just can't be 100% sure anything ever hits that mark. If you don't believe in a divine arbiter, that makes it even more likely because that means there is no "referee" beyond your idea of what's right (which BTW is why atheists make some of the worst totalitarians....their version of the truth to them is the only version of the truth and all other opposition must be stamped out).

I further point out that the believe in no divine being is also not an objective reality because there is no way to tell whether one exists or does not exist.
 
Grace T. said:
If you are finally saying what Omar said is not o.k., I'll take you at your word. But so far there's just been a lot of defending her from you. But if you really believe that, please say so.

As to the rest, you are missing the point that it's all opinion and belief since you can never be sure of what is objective truth. An objective truth may exist, we just can't be 100% sure anything ever hits that mark. If you don't believe in a divine arbiter, that makes it even more likely because that means there is no "referee" beyond your idea of what's right (which BTW is why atheists make some of the worst totalitarians....their version of the truth to them is the only version of the truth and all other opposition must be stamped out).

I further point out that the believe in no divine being is also not an objective reality because there is no way to tell whether one exists or does not exist.
Click to expand...

I don't know whether I agree with your opinion about Omar being anti-semitic because you have failed to state what you mean by that.

As for belief in an invisible deity, which one should I pick out? The non-mystical wing of Buddhism has a certain rational appeal, but I think if I were forced into a choice I would go with a fertility goddess cult where everyone gets stoned and has uninhibited sex at every service. "Today's hymn is Love the One You're With, revealed to us by the prophet Stephen."
 
espola said:
I don't know whether I agree with your opinion about Omar being anti-semitic because you have failed to state what you mean by that.

As for belief in an invisible deity, which one should I pick out? The non-mystical wing of Buddhism has a certain rational appeal, but I think if I were forced into a choice I would go with a fertility goddess cult where everyone gets stoned and has uninhibited sex at every service. "Today's hymn is Love the One You're With, revealed to us by the prophet Stephen."
Click to expand...
You can certainly state whether you support Omar’s statements (which many felt were antisemetic) or denounce them.

As to a deity whatever floats your boat. For all we know South Park got it right and the “correct” answer is Mormon, the opposite of not only your desired orgy, but also your curmudgeon persona...wouldn’t that be funny “Mormon, the correct answer was Mormon”.
 
Grace T. said:
You can certainly state whether you support Omar’s statements (which many felt were antisemetic) or denounce them.

As to a deity whatever floats your boat. For all we know South Park got it right and the “correct” answer is Mormon, the opposite of not only your desired orgy, but also your curmudgeon persona...wouldn’t that be funny “Mormon, the correct answer was Mormon”.
Click to expand...

Back a ways up the thread you responded with "there is at least one antisemitic equivalent: Omar".

What did you mean by that?
 
espola said:
Back a ways up the thread you responded with "there is at least one antisemitic equivalent: Omar".

What did you mean by that?
Click to expand...
I’ll answer yours but please answer mine: her comments ok?

that there’s lots of folks that think the remarks were antisemetic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top