Supreme Court of the United States

[chancellor]

This is not good for RJ.

You also lose credibility as soon as you start to name call.

Chancellor is one of the best posters we have, regardless of whether or not we agree with him.

He doesn't need me to defend him, but I want to.

Oh, and I always thought the popcorn was showing interest in watching not celebration.

I am more angered by your constant name calling and adding to the downfall of RJ than any topic that is discussed here.

It's OK. It's a key reason revo and the other mods created this area, so that those who feel the need can vent their spleen in here and not spread it to the other areas of sports bar and fantasy posts. TW, to my knowledge, has not taken such shots at me outside this forum, and I have no issue with him doing so in here.

B-Fly, in his later post is also correct, as you are relative to the popcorn smiley, and I should have been more clear. B-Fly is correct that given past results with certain of those on the left (to be clear, not B-Fly) has given me a freer attitude relative to celebrating schadenfreude of the left, and he has politely and firmly expressed his displeasure with me doing so. You are; however, correct in this case, that my entertainment value will be in watching the political kabuki theater that is to follow the next couple days on both sides. I believe frae is again correct in his assessment, though I'm not as confident in the outcome but I am sure the camera posing is going to be something to behold.

[frae]

Heitkamp is a no.
The intrigue continues

A little surprised she is the first one to come out with an answer. Obviously I think privately she would want to be a no, but politically if none of the undecided Republicans are voting with her. I still think Flake and Collins will wind up being Yes votes. Murkowski could vote no, but Pence would break the tie.

[Mithrandir]

Not that anyone really cares about this but....

Just about every poster here brings intelligent and thought-provoking information and opinion to the discussions. That being said, I apparently more than others, understand the vitriolic responses that Teen Wolf often posts. I have no issue with the way he addresses others. And I say that because he has faced some serious issues in his life and when someone else seems to mock or make light of those situations, in general, and not directly at him, he reacts in a very passionate way. In fact, when reading some of the posts on here that he is reacting too, I sort of silently cheer him on.

Whatever.

[baldgriff]

I believe frae is again correct in his assessment, though I'm not as confident in the outcome but I am sure the camera posing is going to be something to behold.

Which is where comes in handy.....

[baldgriff]

A little surprised she is the first one to come out with an answer. Obviously I think privately she would want to be a no, but politically if none of the undecided Republicans are voting with her. I still think Flake and Collins will wind up being Yes votes. Murkowski could vote no, but Pence would break the tie.

Is it possible that this scenario becomes a somewhat "brokered deal" - Pence breaks the tie and then its all Trumps fault? This scenario would likely play well for the Dem's so I doubt it would happen, but it would be an interesting twist.

[gcstomp]

not just you Mith. Teenwolf to me is not over the line at all. We live in freaky times where every day is another "unprecedented" crossing the line by a sham President, and now a sham SC nominee. If you cant get worked up now, under this admin of cruelty and ignorance, then there exists no time until the aliens land and eat your shoes.

Trump was not the winner of a free and fair election, he benefited from the largest pool of turned off electorate who chose to stay home, along with help from FBI who made a couple of partisan decisions that tilted a few percentage points, as well as Putin, though despite even today Mueller announcing yet more russian indictments you will get people poo poohing that. And of course HRC not visiting 3 key states. It took a confluence of unlikely events to result in someone winning who he himself had no expectation to win, his not releasing his tax returns when that money trail alone would have disqualified him is some clown stuff....

Anyhoo, I used to have more energy and would in past sound much like Teenwolf voice. I very much align with many of his views, and I am glad someone still has energy to howl at moon. I think he has been boxed in as some kind of off the scale responder and is scolded in what to me is an insulting way. Chance years ago issued a way worse, way more personal attack on me when I was more active in these type of threads, and again I never made a direct personal attack, and time and again I have received one towards me. I was fine with it, I did not ask and certainly did not want or get an apology, we all are just trying to be honest. I can tell you no board monitor came to my defense. So what I am saying is Teenwolf, you are a way bigger percent of the audience than you hear, and I appreciate you still have it in you to get riled over daily outrages.

[Sour Masher]

It's OK. It's a key reason revo and the other mods created this area, so that those who feel the need can vent their spleen in here and not spread it to the other areas of sports bar and fantasy posts. TW, to my knowledge, has not taken such shots at me outside this forum, and I have no issue with him doing so in here.

B-Fly, in his later post is also correct, as you are relative to the popcorn smiley, and I should have been more clear. B-Fly is correct that given past results with certain of those on the left (to be clear, not B-Fly) has given me a freer attitude relative to celebrating schadenfreude of the left, and he has politely and firmly expressed his displeasure with me doing so. You are; however, correct in this case, that my entertainment value will be in watching the political kabuki theater that is to follow the next couple days on both sides. I believe frae is again correct in his assessment, though I'm not as confident in the outcome but I am sure the camera posing is going to be something to behold.

I applaud you Chance, for this post. It is intellectually consistent of you in a way I think few people are capable of being. You have expressed, like TW, DMT, and others on both sides of political issues, a belief that politics are a dirty business with high stakes. It isn't new or wrong to get dirty and rough and insulting when talking about them. So, it makes sense to me that you would not cry foul at TW's post directed at you. You know it is how the game has always been played, and you are okay with playing by those rules. I disagree that it should be that way, but I respect that you are not the type to say, "let 'em play" but then cry foul when that play style leads to someone bumping you in the paint.

[Teenwolf]

I applaud you Chance, for this post. It is intellectually consistent of you in a way I think few people are capable of being. You have expressed, like TW, DMT, and others on both sides of political issues, a belief that politics are a dirty business with high stakes. It isn't new or wrong to get dirty and rough and insulting when talking about them. So, it makes sense to me that you would not cry foul at TW's post directed at you. You know it is how the game has always been played, and you are okay with playing by those rules. I disagree that it should be that way, but I respect that you are not the type to say, "let 'em play" but then cry foul when that play style leads to someone bumping you in the paint.

I agree, i was kinda blown away at the levelheadedness in response to my anger. I appreciate it, and I understand the slight difference between cheering for your party vs cheering for sexual predators. I'm glad he made the distinction, as it alleviates my personal resentment.

[Sour Masher]

not just you Mith. Teenwolf to me is not over the line at all. We live in freaky times where every day is another "unprecedented" crossing the line by a sham President, and now a sham SC nominee. If you cant get worked up now, under this admin of cruelty and ignorance, then there exists no time until the aliens land and eat your shoes.

Trump was not the winner of a free and fair election, he benefited from the largest pool of turned off electorate who chose to stay home, along with help from FBI who made a couple of partisan decisions that tilted a few percentage points, as well as Putin, though despite even today Mueller announcing yet more russian indictments you will get people poo poohing that. And of course HRC not visiting 3 key states. It took a confluence of unlikely events to result in someone winning who he himself had no expectation to win, his not releasing his tax returns when that money trail alone would have disqualified him is some clown stuff....

Anyhoo, I used to have more energy and would in past sound much like Teenwolf voice. I very much align with many of his views, and I am glad someone still has energy to howl at moon. I think he has been boxed in as some kind of off the scale responder and is scolded in what to me is an insulting way. Chance years ago issued a way worse, way more personal attack on me when I was more active in these type of threads, and again I never made a direct personal attack, and time and again I have received one towards me. I was fine with it, I did not ask and certainly did not want or get an apology, we all are just trying to be honest. I can tell you no board monitor came to my defense. So what I am saying is Teenwolf, you are a way bigger percent of the audience than you hear, and I appreciate you still have it in you to get riled over daily outrages.

I find myself walking a fine line on this, myself. On the one hand, I have often been one of the people calling for more civility and less personal attacks in these threads. On the other hand, I have, on occasion, pushed back on the sensitivity some here sometimes display by what I'd describe as simply strong disagreement about issues, not even ad hominem attacks. I would agree that TW sometimes gets the Rashard Wallace treatment, because he does have a rep for the personal attacks, but a lot of times, all he is doing is attacking the wrongness of an idea, but still getting called for the foul (I'm really beating this basketball analogy to death in these last two posts).

I will say that I too agree with most of TW's points, but sometimes I think the way he expresses them are counterproductive to actually convincing people to change their mind. Your posts are aligned the same way in terms of content/ideas, but I can't recall you every explicitly calling another poster a POS or racist, etc. I'm surprised Chance attacked you personally too. That certainly undercut the argument made by Gregg, JJ, etc that things are much more uncivil now than they used to be. In fact, the creation of this sub-forum has been fascinating in that regard, because it seems to have allowed some folks that were calling for more niceness and politeness to take off their kid-gloves. My perception of JJ, for instance, has changed since the sub-forum was created. He is always so civil and helpful outside this space, and was one of the people telling everyone to play nice. His posting style is certainty different in this now officially designated "rough" area.

[cardboardbox]

is it time to pivot back to RUSSIA! yet?

[cardboardbox]

but I can't recall you every explicitly calling another poster a POS or racist, etc.

pretty sure he's called me racist many times.

[Sour Masher]

I agree, i was kinda blown away at the levelheadedness in response to my anger. I appreciate it, and I understand the slight difference between cheering for your party vs cheering for sexual predators. I'm glad he made the distinction, as it alleviates my personal resentment.

I want to repeat what I just posted--I agree with you most of the time, and I admire your passion. And I think sometimes your rep colors how people see your responses. Sometimes, for me, it is about avoiding playing into conservative stereotypes about progressives and how they deliver their messages. I think it is more rhetorically effective, like with the cops debate, to stick to attacking behaviors than people. Folks get less defensive that way, so are maybe more open to new ideas.

[Sour Masher]

pretty sure he's called me racist many times.

Must have missed those. It didn't make you open to new ideas, did it? Not a good idea, to me, to go there, unless you are 100% sure you are talking to a racist and not someone whose ideas you don't agree with.

[cardboardbox]

Chance did? That wold surprise me. That is who I was referring to in the quote you pulled.

ah, no of course not.

[Sour Masher]

ah, no of course not.

Sorry, got confused. I edited my post. Wasn't talking about Chance with that one. Point remains that it is better to attack ideas than people when we don't fully know who the people are.