Lunch in the West Wing today.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm part of a very brutal cult. It's called Pilots of America...so many meany heads...but yet I'm drawn to it time and time again.
 
He has a certain "glow" about him...just look at those eyes!
 
Everskyward said:
Seriously, we have a rule here. We have tried numerous times to allow reasonable discussion but it always turns into partisan bashing. The Spin Zone, for those who remember it, is gone.

NOTE: Politics and religion and any other topic likely to become highly charged are not allowed, and threads may be deleted or closed if they start or trend, respectively, towards "spin" topics.
Click to expand...

You have a rule against religious dogma, yet cgrab has a signature line saying "I'm a Christian and I'm coming out of the closet. You can't bully me into hiding my beliefs. I know God defined marriage and killing babies is wrong."

If that were in a discussion, would it be allowed? How is that not a violation of the 'no spin zone' rule?

SkyDog58 said:
So whose user icon mocks religions?
Click to expand...

cgrab's mocks islam and was put in place because of his expressed disdain for muslims. I don't know if they are still here, but there have been muslim pilots who have pointed this out in the past. They have probably been run-off.
 
172andyou said:
You have a rule against religious dogma, yet cgrab has a signature line saying "I'm a Christian and I'm coming out of the closet. You can't bully me into hiding my beliefs. I know God defined marriage and killing babies is wrong."

If that were in a discussion, would it be allowed? How is that not a violation of the 'no spin zone' rule?



cgrab's mocks islam and was put in place because of his expressed disdain for muslims. I don't know if they are still here, but there have been muslim pilots who have pointed this out in the past. They have probably been run-off.
Click to expand...
You can hide signatures, or just ignore it. In any case, I don't see how that line slams any other religion. I'm pretty sure we discussed this and rejected it. But there have been others (not many) that we have acted on.
 
creweite said:
I thought we lived in a democracy, but according to the press, Hilary Clinton received more votes than Donald Trump, yet he becomes president. Time to scrap the 18th Century procedure which was fine back then, but outdated now. Why on earth is a simple majority vote not used? Perhaps Trump was right and the election was rigged!!
Click to expand...
This is not the first time we have had a president win without the popular vote. I had to accept a president I didn't want in office in the past that didn't win the popular vote. It's someone else's turn now.
 
wrbix said:
  1. The thought process behind the Electoral College was partly to prevent a demagogue from getting elected by popular vote ..... Hmmm ..... Irony?
  2. As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”.... Hmmm.....Fail?
Click to expand...
The fail would have been the same regardless of the victor this year. It was a choice between two demagogues.
 
Everskyward said:
You can hide signatures, or just ignore it. In any case, I don't see how that line slams any other religion. I'm pretty sure we discussed this and rejected it. But there have been others (not many) that we have acted on.
Click to expand...
That's true of posts too. In fact if someone happens along something I post they can block any of my content in a couple clicks of the mouse if they don't like it. Glad you cleared that up. I've been on eggshells around here for fear of hurting someone's fragile feelings and being banned.
 
ircphoenix said:
Yes. Here in LA they were acting a fool last night. Vandalism downtown. Obstructing traffic. And throwing stuff at police in Santa Ana. In a state that voted for Hillary.

"I hate Pizza Hut! I'm going to go protest Domino's!"
Click to expand...
It's gone too far. Protests are common with each president, but in all reality, what do these folks think they're going to accomplish? The media is part of the issue themselves. If they would stop broadcasting it, the drive wouldn't be as strong IMO.
 
nauga said:
So...first amendment bad, second amendment good, right? The protests I saw (as in personally witnessed, not watched on TV or online) were large and peaceful.

Nauga,
whose angels want to wear his red shoes
Click to expand...

I guess you didn't see thousands of 'people" blocking traffic on the 101 freeway in L.A. for several hours. The police overtime costs and wasted gasoline alone would have fed a lot of homeless.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
That's true of posts too. In fact if someone happens along something I post they can block any of my content in a couple clicks of the mouse if they don't like it. Glad you cleared that up. I've been on eggshells around here for fear of hurting someone's fragile feelings and being banned.
Click to expand...
Courtesy has gone out of style, but that is what we are aiming for here. Remember that when you crap in someone's thread.
 
Mason said:
I guess you didn't see thousands of 'people" blocking traffic on the 101 freeway in L.A. for several hours.
Click to expand...
Keeping in mind that I was responding to mscard's post re: a law and order 'czar', do you think that one group's behavior should be used as a lever to restrict all in their exercise of First Amendment rights?

Nauga,
who doesn't cherry pick the ones he likes
 
GRG55 said:
Apparently not :fingerwag:
Click to expand...
As I said, this is why we can't have nice things...

But this is the internet where courtesy doesn't apply and there are those who try to get away with as much as they can. The thing is, it's the same few people...
 
Everskyward said:
As I said, this is why we can't have nice things...

But this is the internet where courtesy doesn't apply and there are those who try to get away with as much as they can. The thing is, it's the same few people...
Click to expand...

Yep. My in-law's family works that way...same few people.

Come to think of it, my neighbors are the similar...same few people.

You and the other moderators have a thankless task. ;)
 
nauga said:
Keeping in mind that I was responding to mscard's post re: a law and order 'czar', do you think that one group's behavior should be used as a lever to restrict all in their exercise of First Amendment rights?

Nauga,
who doesn't cherry pick the ones he likes
Click to expand...

No.

But stopping traffic, including emergency vehicles, people on their way to the hospital, people just trying to go home after a hard day's work, is not a first amendment right.
 
Everskyward said:
As I said, this is why we can't have nice things...

But this is the internet where courtesy doesn't apply and there are those who try to get away with as much as they can. The thing is, it's the same few people...
Click to expand...

I was just picking on you a little. You're response was funny to me because:

1. You didn't see the humor and thought I was serious

2. You then tried to win the internet and shame me for what is at worst a poor sense of humor.

Whatever. Be all serious if you want too.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I was just picking on you a little. You're response was funny to me because:

1. You didn't see the humor and thought I was serious

2. You then tried to win the internet and shame me for what is at worst a poor sense of humor.

Whatever. Be all serious if you want too.
Click to expand...
Your posting history led me to believe you were serious.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
In this case you were misled. Just a little friendly ribing but thanks for trying so hard to make it to something else.
Click to expand...
I didn't need to try very hard since what you wrote was anything but friendly. I don't care what you write about me, but I'm trying to keep the board civil.
 
Everskyward said:
I didn't need to try very hard since what you wrote was anything but friendly. I don't care what you write about me, but I'm trying to keep the board civil.
Click to expand...
If pointing out the obvious flaw in logic in a humorous manner is deemed unfriendly by you then ..... oh never mind. It's pointless. I think it would be fun to have a drink with you sometime
 
Mason said:
But stopping traffic, including emergency vehicles, people on their way to the hospital, people just trying to go home after a hard day's work, is not a first amendment right.
Click to expand...
I posted that I saw a large, peaceful, well-behaved protest. You posted that you did not. Neither experience means that *all* are peaceful and should be allowed under the First Amendment nor are *all* disruptive and should be stopped in the name of law and order. QED.

Nauga,
whose true political leanings are intentionally vague
 
And another thing(!), is that Carl Rove with the dead bird in post #1?

Nauga,
and the human dispoz-all
 
Lemme go ahead and fix this thread right here, and right now.

We all want a great America. Period. Trump wants a great America. Hillary wants a great America. So do Bernie, Ben Carson, Mike Pence, Chris Christie, Everskyward, Tarheelpilot, Nauga, James, etc.

There are absolutely people in it for the wrong reasons. There are those that go into it for legitimate reasons and get corrupted. But for the most part, the intentions are pure.

The devil is in the details. Some people believe (cheap shot incoming) that we should still be waiting to be trickled on and that the government should lay off everything other than a basic core like defense. We have other people that believe that the government's job is to regulate everything and provide everything from jobs to healthcare to education to consumer goods etc.

Both parties have a lot of good ideas. The problem with both parties is that they're kind of like cable companies. For the most part you're committed to the whole package instead of being able to pick and choose platform planks a la carte when it comes to elections. But the overwhelming majority of Americans tend one way or t'other. They aren't purely committed to one ideology.

For example, my PERSONAL belief is that government has a responsibility to mandate and legislate corporate responsibility. Both socially and fiscally. So I'm kind of a socialist. But I also believe that corporations know how to make money more than the government knows how to legislate corporate success, so they should be left mostly to their own devices. So I'm a capitalist. The reality is that I'm somewhere in between both. And most people are. They trend towards either side of the spectrum, but few people are truly SOLIDLY one way or the other.

The point being that we all want what's best. It's just how we get there that is where we differ. We're all on the same damn team. We just believe in different plays. So we're better served communicating with one another and stealing ideas that work from one another than we are sniping about how MY crappy candidate is better than YOUR crappy candidate or MY belief is an absolute truth while YOUR belief is completely wrong.

The only absolute truth is that everyone hates Nickelback. Whether they like them or not.
 
ircphoenix said:
Lemme go ahead and fix this thread right here, and right now.

We all want a great America. Period. Trump wants a great America. Hillary wants a great America. So do Bernie, Ben Carson, Mike Pence, Chris Christie, Everskyward, Tarheelpilot, Nauga, James, etc.

There are absolutely people in it for the wrong reasons. There are those that go into it for legitimate reasons and get corrupted. But for the most part, the intentions are pure.

The devil is in the details. Some people believe (cheap shot incoming) that we should still be waiting to be trickled on and that the government should lay off everything other than a basic core like defense. We have other people that believe that the government's job is to regulate everything and provide everything from jobs to healthcare to education to consumer goods etc.

Both parties have a lot of good ideas. The problem with both parties is that they're kind of like cable companies. For the most part you're committed to the whole package instead of being able to pick and choose platform planks a la carte when it comes to elections. But the overwhelming majority of Americans tend one way or t'other. They aren't purely committed to one ideology.

For example, my PERSONAL belief is that government has a responsibility to mandate and legislate corporate responsibility. Both socially and fiscally. So I'm kind of a socialist. But I also believe that corporations know how to make money more than the government knows how to legislate corporate success, so they should be left mostly to their own devices. So I'm a capitalist. The reality is that I'm somewhere in between both. And most people are. They trend towards either side of the spectrum, but few people are truly SOLIDLY one way or the other.

The point being that we all want what's best. It's just how we get there that is where we differ. We're all on the same damn team. We just believe in different plays. So we're better served communicating with one another and stealing ideas that work from one another than we are sniping about how MY crappy candidate is better than YOUR crappy candidate or MY belief is an absolute truth while YOUR belief is completely wrong.

The only absolute truth is that everyone hates Nickelback. Whether they like them or not.
Click to expand...
So if I understand you correctly most Americans could be defined as moderates that lean slightly left or right of center. But the only positions being reported or championed are hard line left/right positions that are divisive and unproductive.

Is that an accurate summary of your post?
 
Tarheelpilot said:
So if I understand you correctly most Americans could be defined as moderates that lean slightly left or right of center. But the only positions being reported or championed are hard line left/right positions that are divisive and unproductive.

Is that an accurate summary of your post?
Click to expand...

If everyone were a moderate with only a mild lean, parties wouldn't exist. I would just argue that most people are not pure hardliners in one direction or the other.

I would say that we tend to oversimplify policies and positions based on various litmus test issues for one of the parties or the other, when some or many of the issues some feel strongly about are championed not by their "side" but by the other. Some people are socially conservative and fiscally liberal. Others are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Some people are socially conservative and fiscally conservative, and doves. Some are socially/fiscally conservatives and hawks. But generally speaking, most people aren't cookie cutter one way or another.

I think I would, however, mostly agree with the second part of what you said. With qualification. Not all hard line left/right positions are unproductive. They're divisive almost by definition, though. But even divisive is not necessarily unproductive.

Is that enough qualifiers? =)
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Yes. :biggrin:

To be clear. I think there is a simple majority that are in the moderate center with slight leaning one way or the other..not everyone.

The hardliners are the minority. Just happens they are the loudest
Click to expand...

It's tough. All politics are is the codifying of opinion into law. So it's unbelievably complex. But I don't see much flaw in your statement. I think where we might differ would be just how far out the lean goes. I might think it is more pronounced in either direction than you do, or we might be of the same opinion depending on how we define a lean.

BUT... I'd say damn near everyone has value when it comes to input on how to solve problems... and that the only thing that is absolutely a) pointless b) unproductive and c) infuriating is demonizing the "other" team. We're all the same friggin' team. Maybe since we don't have an existential threat, we don't have as much incentive to recognize that.

I *promise* you that I don't agree with *many* people on here about something as polarizing as immigration. But I also promise you that if me and that person were locked in a room and tasked with creating an immigration policy, we'd be able to craft one that would be far better for the country than if only one of us came up with it. Because, at the end of the day, we're still after the same thing** and we both have ideas and perspectives that the other doesn't have as a result of our own inherent biases.

**(and that thing is more swimsuit models coming into the country)
 
ircphoenix said:
It's tough. All politics are is the codifying of opinion into law. So it's unbelievably complex. But I don't see much flaw in your statement. I think where we might differ would be just how far out the lean goes. I might think it is more pronounced in either direction than you do, or we might be of the same opinion depending on how we define a lean.

BUT... I'd say damn near everyone has value when it comes to input on how to solve problems... and that the only thing that is absolutely a) pointless b) unproductive and c) infuriating is demonizing the "other" team. We're all the same friggin' team. Maybe since we don't have an existential threat, we don't have as much incentive to recognize that.

I *promise* you that I don't agree with *many* people on here about something as polarizing as immigration. But I also promise you that if me and that person were locked in a room and tasked with creating an immigration policy, we'd be able to craft one that would be far better for the country than if only one of us came up with it. Because, at the end of the day, we're still after the same thing and we both have ideas and perspectives that the other doesn't have as a result of our own inherent biases.

(and that thing is more swimsuit models coming into the country)
Click to expand...
I think we are pretty close about how much lean exists.

One thing I'm guilty of is ignoring the hardliners. It has been rare in my personal experience to find hardliners that don't demonize the opposing side. So I just put them on the ignore list. It's not fair but I'm being honest
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I think we are pretty close about how much lean exists.

One thing I'm guilty of is ignoring the hardliners. It has been rare in my personal experience to find hardliners that don't demonize the opposing side. So I just put them on the ignore list. It's not fair but I'm being honest
Click to expand...

One of the guys I have the most fun talking to at work has pretty strong beliefs that contradict mine. We're friends and there is nothing more that I enjoy than tweaking him HARD whenever I can. Drives him up the wall. But that's something that a conversation in person can do whereas behind a computer monitor and a keyboard, me and him would probably want to rip each other's throats out. It's easy to dehumanize an avatar and arial text. Harder to do it when you see each other every day and talk about common interests, ya know?

On these boards I've ignored two people. Because they have zero interest in finding common ground or having a rational exchange of viewpoints. They'd rather just spew nonsense and logical fallacies. But that's what... two people (in theory... I'd put 5 bucks on them being the same person) out of the 100 or so regular posters? Not bad if I can appreciate what 98% of people post on here, whether I agree with it or not.
 
ircphoenix said:
One of the guys I have the most fun talking to at work has pretty strong beliefs that contradict mine. We're friends and there is nothing more that I enjoy than tweaking him HARD whenever I can. Drives him up the wall. But that's something that a conversation in person can do whereas behind a computer monitor and a keyboard, me and him would probably want to rip each other's throats out. It's easy to dehumanize an avatar and arial text. Harder to do it when you see each other every day and talk about common interests, ya know?

On these boards I've ignored two people. Because they have zero interest in finding common ground or having a rational exchange of viewpoints. They'd rather just spew nonsense and logical fallacies. But that's what... two people (in theory... I'd put 5 bucks on them being the same person) out of the 100 or so regular posters? Not bad if I can appreciate what 98% of people post on here, whether I agree with it or not.
Click to expand...
I have several friendships with the same dynamic. The one with the biggest divide in ideology is my German immigrant buddy. He was extreamly proud to have voted this year in his first presidential election after getting his citizenship. That guy has lived through things I only know about from history class. He was ~6 years old during the Berlin airlift and later joined the NATO Luftwaffe as a pilot. He was taught to fly by German WWII pilots. One hell of a guy. Political discussions are fun, compelling and rewarding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top