Sign in to follow this  
A guy in the Chesapeake

An example of proper decorum

Recommended Posts

Listened to an NPR interview with Democratic Senator George Mitchell.   It struck me that even though He and Pres Bush  were occasionally at odds, that they maintained a respectful consideration for one another, and each's perspective.   THIS is the kind of interaction that I would like to see, while we relegate the trash talking to the locker rooms where it belongs.   


https://www.npr.org/2018/12/02/672675441/revisiting-george-h-w-bushs-domestic-policies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Listened to an NPR interview with Democratic Senator George Mitchell.   It struck me that even though He and Pres Bush  were occasionally at odds, that they maintained a respectful consideration for one another, and each's perspective.   THIS is the kind of interaction that I would like to see, while we relegate the trash talking to the locker rooms where it belongs.   


https://www.npr.org/2018/12/02/672675441/revisiting-george-h-w-bushs-domestic-policies

Interaction on a political level or interaction on a political website?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Interaction on a political level or interaction on a political website?

Why not both?   I think that one follows the other, and it doesn't matter which goes first as long as SOMEONE starts trying to treat those they disagree with respectfully.   I think that the idea that political wins are more important than anything else has truly degraded everything - and that they only thing necessary to fix that is to start treating each other a little better.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitchell and Bush and others like them were of a different time and place and generation.  That America no longer exists.  Perhaps, just perhaps, with Romney joining the Senate some semblance of respect and dignity may return. I am not hopeful given the cast of characters that currently populates the world's most deliberative body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, jerseyguy said:

Mitchell and Bush and others like them were of a different time and place and generation.  That America no longer exists.  Perhaps, just perhaps, with Romney joining the Senate some semblance of respect and dignity may return. I am not hopeful given the cast of characters that currently populates the world's most deliberative body.

I understand, and unfortunately agree. Sen Mitchell was asked whether or not he thought a return to that style of discourse was likely, and he said that he was "hopeful".  I think that unless the voting public starts to care more about our collective futures then smackdown soundbites, it's unlikely to change. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I have no problems with people who have differing opinions.  I actually think most people are open to discussion of topics in which their is differing opinions.  It makes for good conversation.

The problem does not arise because their is a difference of opinion, but rather when that opinion is based on fiction at best, and yet presented as fact.  This fiction is argued as absolute fact, and those who present the fiction get upset when informed their arguments have no merit.

Or put it another way, I have no problem respecting a person or his/her opinion, but don't piss down my back and tell me its raining.  That person appears a fool for lying, and earns none of my respect.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, obviously, don't care much about decorum.

when Senators feel free to be quoted as saying 

"If they were in a Democratic administration, I would be all over them for being in the pocket of Saudi Arabia.”

source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/04/gop-senators-come-out-say-it-trump-administration-is-covering-up-khashoggis-killing/

I don't think an emphasis on politeness will help. it's quite literally gilding a turd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I, obviously, don't care much about decorum.

when Senators feel free to be quoted as saying 

source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/04/gop-senators-come-out-say-it-trump-administration-is-covering-up-khashoggis-killing/

I don't think an emphasis on politeness will help. it's quite literally gilding a turd.

You've got a point - but, think about this:  If there was a bit more personal respect - do you think that those attitudes would prevalent?   

It's not just a matter of politely saying " You're a fucking asshole " - it's deeper than that, a respect for opposing opinions, recognizing that different circumstances can make opposite interpretations of something BOTH right, and realizing that the disagreement doesn't necessarily warrant treating the person with whom you disagree as an enemy to be vanquished.   Thoughts? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You've got a point - but, think about this:  If there was a bit more personal respect - do you think that those attitudes would prevalent?   

It's not just a matter of politely saying " You're a fucking asshole " - it's deeper than that, a respect for opposing opinions, recognizing that different circumstances can make opposite interpretations of something BOTH right, and realizing that the disagreement doesn't necessarily warrant treating the person with whom you disagree as an enemy to be vanquished.   Thoughts? 

The idea that compromise is bad seems to have taken over politics on both sides. One of the great things about Bush was that he was willing to put his reelection at risk for what he believed was the good of the country. He raised taxes against his campaign promises because he believed that this was the right thing for the country.  I don't see this level of consideration from either side of the aisle right now. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 It struck me that even though He and Pres Bush  were occasionally at odds, that they maintained a respectful consideration for one another, and each's perspective.  


https://www.npr.org/2018/12/02/672675441/revisiting-george-h-w-bushs-domestic-policies

Except when he (Mitchell) didn't :

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-11-09/news/mn-1455_1_gains-tax

Bush-Congress Relations Worsen Rapidly : Administration: The capital gains fight is seen as the main cause of the split. The rancor has spread to other issues.

November 09, 1989

....

Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) characterized a capital gains proposal as a "Holy Grail" for which the President chose to sacrifice his entire relationship with Congress. In Mitchell's view, the rancor engendered by the lengthy capital gains fight has spilled over into congressional dealings with the White House on most other issues.

"It's obviously very difficult to conduct business in a cooperative manner in this atmosphere," Mitchell said recently.

Just 10 months ago, Bush stood on the steps of the Capitol for his inauguration and pledged to forge a new spirit of cooperation with Congress. "The American people . . . did not send us here to bicker," Bush declared.

As a former member of the House and the presiding officer of the Senate during his eight years as vice president, Bush knew better than most of his predecessors how easily members of Congress can sometimes be swayed by a little personal attention from the President.

To that end, he has frequently invited members of Congress to the White House, called them on the telephone for personal chats and even dined regularly in the House dining room with old friends.

As a result, even Bush's most persistent critics, including Mitchell, concede that his courtesy and consideration for members of Congress have made him personally more popular on Capitol Hill than many of his predecessors. "I like the President personally," Mitchell noted.

For a while, Bush's strategy for courting Congress appeared to be working beautifully. Until just recently, in fact, Democrats were complaining that their leaders had been mesmerized by the President's congenial style. It was not until those complaints reached a fever pitch that Mitchell, Foley and other Democratic leaders began to criticize the President in a way that satisfied most rank-and-file Democrats.

Gibes Aimed at Bush

Now, Mitchell makes almost daily speeches attacking some aspect of the President's policy. And Foley gets in an occasional gibe at the President, although he usually calls on Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) to issue the more partisan statements.

...

In private, GHW characterized Mitchell as "the most partisan man in Washington."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You've got a point - but, think about this:  If there was a bit more personal respect - do you think that those attitudes would prevalent?   

It's not just a matter of politely saying " You're a fucking asshole " - it's deeper than that, a respect for opposing opinions, recognizing that different circumstances can make opposite interpretations of something BOTH right, and realizing that the disagreement doesn't necessarily warrant treating the person with whom you disagree as an enemy to be vanquished.   Thoughts? 

If the person is so bad faith in their professed views how can you personally respect them? That was the reason for the quote I produced - Graham is explicit in advertising he doesn't act in good faith, his views are contingent on the party line. As one of the House impeachment managers he spoke nobly of honesty and character and values and the danger of lying - and now is a toady to the most dishonest character free politician in decades if not a century or two. In such a bad faith environment calls for "decorum" and "respect" are weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, J28 said:

Except when he (Mitchell) didn't :

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-11-09/news/mn-1455_1_gains-tax

Bush-Congress Relations Worsen Rapidly : Administration: The capital gains fight is seen as the main cause of the split. The rancor has spread to other issues.

November 09, 1989

....

Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) characterized a capital gains proposal as a "Holy Grail" for which the President chose to sacrifice his entire relationship with Congress. In Mitchell's view, the rancor engendered by the lengthy capital gains fight has spilled over into congressional dealings with the White House on most other issues.

"It's obviously very difficult to conduct business in a cooperative manner in this atmosphere," Mitchell said recently.

Just 10 months ago, Bush stood on the steps of the Capitol for his inauguration and pledged to forge a new spirit of cooperation with Congress. "The American people . . . did not send us here to bicker," Bush declared.

As a former member of the House and the presiding officer of the Senate during his eight years as vice president, Bush knew better than most of his predecessors how easily members of Congress can sometimes be swayed by a little personal attention from the President.

To that end, he has frequently invited members of Congress to the White House, called them on the telephone for personal chats and even dined regularly in the House dining room with old friends.

As a result, even Bush's most persistent critics, including Mitchell, concede that his courtesy and consideration for members of Congress have made him personally more popular on Capitol Hill than many of his predecessors. "I like the President personally," Mitchell noted.

For a while, Bush's strategy for courting Congress appeared to be working beautifully. Until just recently, in fact, Democrats were complaining that their leaders had been mesmerized by the President's congenial style. It was not until those complaints reached a fever pitch that Mitchell, Foley and other Democratic leaders began to criticize the President in a way that satisfied most rank-and-file Democrats.

Gibes Aimed at Bush

Now, Mitchell makes almost daily speeches attacking some aspect of the President's policy. And Foley gets in an occasional gibe at the President, although he usually calls on Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) to issue the more partisan statements.

...

In private, GHW characterized Mitchell as "the most partisan man in Washington."

Being respectful != agreement on everything  - Attacking policy?  Proposing counters?  Those are both things that SHOULD happen, accompanied by strong debate.  Doing so in a manner that doesn't create personal animus that in turn poisons every comment or conversation?  Maintaining dignity and respect?  Those too can and SHOULD remain considerations even in the most heated of discussions. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

If the person is so bad faith in their professed views how can you personally respect them? That was the reason for the quote I produced - Graham is explicit in advertising he doesn't act in good faith, his views are contingent on the party line. As one of the House impeachment managers he spoke nobly of honesty and character and values and the danger of lying - and now is a toady to the most dishonest character free politician in decades if not a century or two. In such a badfaith environment calls for "decorrum" and "respect" are weapons.

To the 1st?  Yeah - you're right.  To the second?  I disagree - I think that a return to decorum and respect would correct the bad-faith behavior, or at least give the electorate enough information to ID those folks and vote 'em out.  Of course, before THAT happens, the electorate has to prefer individuals who are more about doing what's right for the country than their ability to denigrate their partisan opponents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

To the 1st?  Yeah - you're right.  To the second?  I disagree - I think that a return to decorum and respect would correct the bad-faith behavior, or at least give the electorate enough information to ID those folks and vote 'em out.  Of course, before THAT happens, the electorate has to prefer individuals who are more about doing what's right for the country than their ability to denigrate their partisan opponents. 

That won't stop bad faith actors like the legislature in Wisconsin, now will it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

That won't stop bad faith actors like the legislature in Wisconsin, now will it?

Nor the ones in FL - or any other myriad of examples that one could pull up to support the counter.  I'll contend that we'd see fewer instances of that kind of behavior if the focus was more on the good of the country, and the trust that used to exist between parties is slowly restored.  There are damn few absolutes - but, there are definitely "more right" decisions that we can make. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Nor the ones in FL - or any other myriad of examples that one could pull up to support the counter.  

Florida is stripping newly elected politicians of power because they are of the opposing party? Do tell. I'm sure there's an equivalent to Michigan and North Carolina too.

As long as people fall back to the false equivalency bullshittery there's no incentive for anyone to change on their side of the aisle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

As long as people fall back to the false equivalency bullshittery there's no incentive for anyone to change on their side of the aisle.

So - if you don't think that respect and decorum are appropriate objectives, what DO you advocate for?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about ethics and a duty to the nation instead of lining ones own pockets and duty to party and contributors?

It ain't about respecting a political difference, it's about contempt for scum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So - if you don't think that respect and decorum are appropriate objectives, what DO you advocate for?  

to the degree they matter to me they are byproduct of a working process not objectives in and of themselves. I don't see a positive correlation between superficial decency  decorum and ethical behavior there is if anything, an inverse relation, as was reminded to me this week when a podcast discussed the early career of fraudster Charles Keating - anti-porn and decency crusader. The word "fuck" was bad, but defrauding people out of millions, not really that big a deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

to the degree they matter to me they are byproduct of a working process not objectives in and of themselves. I don't see a positive correlation between superficial decency  decorum and ethical behavior there is if anything, an inverse relation, as was reminded to me this week when a podcast discussed the early career of fraudster Charles Keating - anti-porn and decency crusader. The word "fuck" was bad, but defrauding people out of millions, not really that big a deal.

I understand your sentiment - but, will argue that decorum and respect shouldn't be superficial - and that maintaining those requires a constant vigilance. 

So - I agree that decorum and respect in and of themselves aren't the ultimate objective, but, will also say that the ultimate objective, being able to peacefully coexist and govern ourselves, is damn near impossible without them. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So - if you don't think that respect and decorum are appropriate objectives, what DO you advocate for?  

I don't really care if they like or respect each other.

I want them to represent the voters in their district, not their Corporate Con$tituent$.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
4 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

to the degree they matter to me they are byproduct of a working process not objectives in and of themselves. I don't see a positive correlation between superficial decency  decorum and ethical behavior there is if anything, an inverse relation, as was reminded to me this week when a podcast discussed the early career of fraudster Charles Keating - anti-porn and decency crusader. The word "fuck" was bad, but defrauding people out of millions, not really that big a deal.

I understand your sentiment - but, will argue that decorum and respect shouldn't be superficial - and that maintaining those requires a constant vigilance. 

So - I agree that decorum and respect in and of themselves aren't the ultimate objective, but, will also say that the ultimate objective, being able to peacefully coexist and govern ourselves, is damn near impossible without them. 

 

Manners are the lubrication in the machinery of human interaction.

I was raised to be polite and rebelled against it..... spent a long time enjoying being rude to people for no particularly good reason, other than that I suspected they thought I was an asshole anyway. Years (decades) later when I realized considerable accomplishments in life really were within grasp, but I needed other peoples' cooperation, it occured to me that if I didn't go around pre-pissing off others, things would go better.

Somewhat similar to adolescent rebellion against manners is the spiteful reaction against "political correctness." There's no point in deliberately being a boor, unless one is really a boorish oaf anyway. The ones I feel sorry for are the ones who truly don't know better and don't have any chance of ever catching on

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Somewhat similar to adolescent rebellion against manners is the spiteful reaction against "political correctness." There's no point in deliberately being a boor, unless one is really a boorish oaf anyway.

The politically correct ones are the boors IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Popeye ditched Olive Oyl for a younger, renewable energy source, BTW. 

The example for decorum starts at the top and filters down. It doesn’t always make it down, but it must start at the top. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Popeye ditched Olive Oyl for a younger, renewable energy source, BTW. 

The example for decorum starts at the top and filters down. It doesn’t always make it down, but it must start at the top. 

Senatorial example: Mitch McConnell. They can't even have a non-partisan goodbye dinner. course these days senate decorum is just a play for power (see ban on women using the congressional pool that lasted until 2009 because 2 dudes needed to parade around naked in the pool)

anyways - GHWB got along because he was a patrician yankee schooled from birth to do just that. it was his strength, it was his weakness. the worlds moved on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

anyways - GHWB got along because he was a patrician yankee schooled from birth to do just that. it was his strength, it was his weakness. the worlds moved on.

1

And crying like a goddamn baby, standing there on top all those US and Iraqi corpses! 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Nor the ones in FL - or any other myriad of examples that one could pull up to support the counter.  I'll contend that we'd see fewer instances of that kind of behavior if the focus was more on the good of the country, and the trust that used to exist between parties is slowly restored.  There are damn few absolutes - but, there are definitely "more right" decisions that we can make. 

Re the bolded part:  that’s the rub.  IMHO are damn few policies we can agree on that are for the “good of the country”.  There are probably less than 100 posters on this forum - let’s see if any one can put forth a policy that is good for the country and see if there is consensus on any of them in this small group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, J28 said:

Re the bolded part:  that’s the rub.  IMHO are damn few policies we can agree on that are for the “good of the country”.  There are probably less than 100 posters on this forum - let’s see if any one can put forth a policy that is good for the country and see if there is consensus on any of them in this small group.

Sure.... like President Trump's great foreign policy triumphs you've touted...... new North Korean missile silos, our NATO allies banding together against us, etc etc

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SloopJonB said:
17 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Somewhat similar to adolescent rebellion against manners is the spiteful reaction against "political correctness." There's no point in deliberately being a boor, unless one is really a boorish oaf anyway.

The politically correct ones are the boors IMO.

How about an example or two? I'll start: in a diverse society, people have names from different cultures. You may work with/for somebody whose name is difficult to pronounce and/or spell. Is it "politically correct" to make an effort to get their names right? I see it as a basic curtesy, and have been denounced for being "politically correct."

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Sure.... like President Trump's great foreign policy triumphs you've touted...... new North Korean missile silos, our NATO allies banding together against us, etc etc

-DSK

That’s a bunch of hyperbole right there!

Now can you name POLICIES you think we can all agree are for the good of the country, or you good with just slingin’ shit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, J28 said:

That’s a bunch of hyperbole right there!

Now can you name POLICIES you think we can all agree are for the good of the country, or you good with just slingin’ shit?

What part of "foreign policy" is not "policy" ??

I feel strongly that President Trump's foreign policy has been bad for this country, with very few exceptions (can't think of one off the top of my head but maybe). You were claiming they were a great success.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I feel strongly that President Trump's foreign policy has been bad for this country, with very few exceptions (can't think of one off the top of my head but maybe). You were claiming they were a great success.

-DSK

the trouble with Trump policy is the "admin" can get the problem right - for example China's economic abuses of US business  - but Trumps the implementation of fixes, i.e. turns it into a shitshow where noone knows what's going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

What part of "foreign policy" is not "policy" ??

I feel strongly that President Trump's foreign policy has been bad for this country, with very few exceptions (can't think of one off the top of my head but maybe). You were claiming they were a great success.

-DSK

I’m trying to steer the convo toward what we can agree are policies that are good for the country.  Think in theory, not commenting on current events.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

How about an example or two? I'll start: in a diverse society, people have names from different cultures. You may work with/for somebody whose name is difficult to pronounce and/or spell. Is it "politically correct" to make an effort to get their names right? I see it as a basic curtesy, and have been denounced for being "politically correct."

-DSK

Like the country:

Cheee Lay?

or Chill-eee?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Sure.... like President Trump's great foreign policy triumphs you've touted...... new North Korean missile silos, our NATO allies banding together against us, etc etc

-DSK

Hypocrite! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as the left keeps up personal attacks for political gains like the lies they used to try and ruin Kavanaugh. Fuck them, everyone of the pieces of shit that is dumb enough to identify as a democrap can GTFO of my great country. I couldn't care less about your"feels. You are attacking my nation and I will belittle you till you stop or leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, J28 said:

There are probably less than 100 posters on this forum - let’s see if any one can put forth a policy that is good for the country and see if there is consensus on any of them in this small group.

I'll give it a shot.

Instead of giving police agencies an incentive to seize property without a conviction, we should both require a conviction and send the proceeds of seizure to the general fund, not the seizing agency.

Consensus seems to be: ignore.

So there you have it. A policy that's good for the country and on which there is consensus, if you don't count Uncooperative types.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogballs Tom said:
21 hours ago, J28 said:

There are probably less than 100 posters on this forum - let’s see if any one can put forth a policy that is good for the country and see if there is consensus on any of them in this small group.

I'll give it a shot.

Instead of giving police agencies an incentive to seize property without a conviction, we should both require a conviction and send the proceeds of seizure to the general fund, not the seizing agency.

Consensus seems to be: ignore.

So there you have it. A policy that's good for the country and on which there is consensus, if you don't count Uncooperative types.

I would agree with this, as a national policy. Is it worth a Constitutional amendment?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

I would agree with this, as a national policy. Is it worth a Constitutional amendment?

-DSK

I don't think that's necessary but it would make it harder to undo.

Unfortunately, even a law like the FAIR Act can't get traction and an amendment is much harder to do for the same reasons it's harder to undo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2018 at 7:53 AM, Sol Rosenberg said:

Popeye ditched Olive Oyl for a younger, renewable energy source, BTW. 

The example for decorum starts at the top and filters down. It doesn’t always make it down, but it must start at the top. 

^This. I learned long ago that ethics of an organization's culture rise and fall with the example set by its leaders. Our culture has descended into a win-at-all-costs mentality where compromise is a four-letter word and vilification of the opponent is the most lauded strategy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And of you disagree with me go fuck yourself:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

I'll give it a shot.

Instead of giving police agencies an incentive to seize property without a conviction, we should both require a conviction and send the proceeds of seizure to the general fund, not the seizing agency.

Consensus seems to be: ignore.

So there you have it. A policy that's good for the country and on which there is consensus, if you don't count Uncooperative types.

I think that is a fair policy.  I support it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Not guilty said:

As long as the left keeps up personal attacks for political gains like the lies they used to try and ruin Kavanaugh. Fuck them, everyone of the pieces of shit that is dumb enough to identify as a democrap can GTFO of my great country. I couldn't care less about your"feels. You are attacking my nation and I will belittle you till you stop or leave.

Your hatred of women victims of sex assault is noted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2018 at 8:36 AM, Steam Flyer said:

What part of "foreign policy" is not "policy" ??

I feel strongly that President Trump's foreign policy has been bad for this country, with very few exceptions (can't think of one off the top of my head but maybe). You were claiming they were a great success.

-DSK

Shitstain kicked the Russkies out of their San Francisco consulate. That used to be a prime listening post back when San Francisco Bay hosted multiple bases: Alameda NAS, Mare Island, Hunters Point, the Presidio, Concord Naval Weapons, Oakland Army, Hamilton, Moffett Field, ... After the base closures, I think only Travis is left. (The entire Defense Department has decamped to Moocher Mississippi.) But while there's not much to listen to anymore, there is Silicon Valley which takes HUMINT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Raz'r said:
13 hours ago, Not guilty said:

As long as the left keeps up personal attacks for political gains like the lies they used to try and ruin Kavanaugh. Fuck them, everyone of the pieces of shit that is dumb enough to identify as a democrap can GTFO of my great country. I couldn't care less about your"feels. You are attacking my nation and I will belittle you till you stop or leave.

Your hatred of women victims of sex assault is noted.

Warbird has his own country now, that he doesn't think over 60% should be able to occupy because they aren't rabid Republicans. He lives in a very deep well of ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2018 at 10:58 AM, J28 said:

Re the bolded part:  that’s the rub.  IMHO are damn few policies we can agree on that are for the “good of the country”.  There are probably less than 100 posters on this forum - let’s see if any one can put forth a policy that is good for the country and see if there is consensus on any of them in this small group.

Cure cancer, reduce crime, take care of widows and orphans...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, hasher said:
On 12/6/2018 at 7:58 AM, J28 said:

Re the bolded part:  that’s the rub.  IMHO are damn few policies we can agree on that are for the “good of the country”.  There are probably less than 100 posters on this forum - let’s see if any one can put forth a policy that is good for the country and see if there is consensus on any of them in this small group.

Cure cancer, reduce crime, take care of widows and orphans... 

Improve the education system for everybody, root out corruption...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Warbird has his own country now, that he doesn't think over 60% should be able to occupy because they aren't rabid Republicans. He lives in a very deep well of ignorance.

Calling him ignorant is understating it - ignorance can be fixed through education.

Stupidity can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, J28 said:
On 12/7/2018 at 7:04 AM, dogballs Tom said:

I'll give it a shot.

Instead of giving police agencies an incentive to seize property without a conviction, we should both require a conviction and send the proceeds of seizure to the general fund, not the seizing agency.

Consensus seems to be: ignore.

So there you have it. A policy that's good for the country and on which there is consensus, if you don't count Uncooperative types.

I think that is a fair policy.  I support it.

Please write your Senators and ask them to stop ignoring it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m already in his “dangerously progressive lunatic” list after promising to match my ‘ethanol damage and mitigation’ fund in contributions to his opposition.   I’ll add this suggestion to the campaign donation, with some hope it might be read.  Unfortunately it won’t matter if I donate to the ‘wrong’ party.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, our current POTUS is most admired for  'we finally have a president with balls'.  Big thanks to FOX, Rush, all the AM ditto heads for decades of creating division and hatred.  When Democrats, Liberals, Lefties etc respond in kind they are accused of being hateful.  Tough to expect our legislators to behave better than those who support them, since when they do they are labeled weak.

We have met the enemy and it's us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lark said:

I’m already in his “dangerously progressive lunatic” list after promising to match my ‘ethanol damage and mitigation’ fund in contributions to his opposition.

Would this be the fund for purchasing Wish Key and hangover remedies or fixing broken engines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. We would like to figure out how to help our non-functioning veterans. 

   A. Those who are physically damaged

   B. Those who are mentally damaged 

2. We would like to schedule appropriate maintenance on our roads and bridges. 

3. We would like to figure out a way to lower the number or eliminate robocalls to those who have placed their phone numbers on no call registries. 

4. We would like to make identity theft an unattractive business / crime. 

5. We would like to cause individuals to care about their personal health and take steps to eat, exercise, and sleep such that their physical health would be better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

1. We would like to figure out how to help our non-functioning veterans. 

   A. Those who are physically damaged

   B. Those who are mentally damaged 

2. We would like to schedule appropriate maintenance on our roads and bridges. 

3. We would like to figure out a way to lower the number or eliminate robocalls to those who have placed their phone numbers on no call registries. 

4. We would like to make identity theft an unattractive business / crime. 

5. We would like to cause individuals to care about their personal health and take steps to eat, exercise, and sleep such that their physical health would be better.

 

The first two really shouldn't be as hard as we make them, though 1 B might involve a forbidden plant.

As for 3, there's an app called Robo Killer or something like that and it's both effective and hilarious. It sends them to scripts to keep them busy and then you can replay the fun later for your friends. Some very funny people have (for some reason) spent a lot of time making these things. My wife is getting significantly fewer spam calls. I don't use it.

4 and 5 are kinda related because the biggest vulnerabilities are always created by the targets themselves. "password" is not a great password.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this