Fuck

[midwestyankee]

 

[HisArpy]

Not to put too fine a point on things, but where was this rule when Ted Cruz accused Mitch McConnell of lying to the Senate during a speech Cruz gave from the Senate floor? And if it was breaking the rules last night when Senator Warren attempted to read the letter from Mrs. King, why have four male senators been allowed to read the same text into the record today? Far seems quite right to note the odor of misogyny seeping out from McConnell's crepuscular carcass.

Fucking racist misogynist jackass.

*sigh*

You need to put a fine point on it because it makes a huge diference.

What the various members of the Senate did today was NOT the same as what Warren did yesterday. They weren't warned beforehand. They weren't breaking the rules. The letter they were reading IS NOT the reason Warren was punished. Nor are the words in the letter the reason.

It was her bad behavior, not her speech, that got her silenced. What was done today was to try to cloud the issue so that some people would continue to spew hate because they don't know what really happened. Which is the fault of McConnell because he can't figure out what side of his tongue is up, let alone form a cogent sentence more than 5 words long. If he was a capable orator, you'd KNOW why it all happened. Instead we get Mumbles from a Dick Tracy comic as the head of the Senate being misquoted by a media that doesn't care if you, the voter, understand or know the truth. All they care is that you watch, click, like, or whatever just so that they can continue to sell ad space and make millions. The whole thing is fucking sad because they're playing you and you like it.

The rest of your argument is worthless because it attempts to justify bad acts today based on the bad acts of someone else yesterday. One could use that same argument to say that because your house was burglarized in the past, it's ok for anyone to do it again today and not be punished for it. Which is patently ridiculous.

 

[HisArpy]

Almost had a real bad fucking day.

240 volts is a lot of juice, now I'm awake, fuck

Wow. The jumbo shot of adrenaline wake-up call. Remind me to not request THAT ONE from the hotel concierge.

 

[midwestyankee]

*sigh*

You need to put a fine point on it because it makes a huge diference.

What the various members of the Senate did today was NOT the same as what Warren did yesterday. They weren't warned beforehand. They weren't breaking the rules. The letter they were reading IS NOT the reason Warren was punished. Nor are the words in the letter the reason.

Really? Can you cite an authoritative source describing this bad behavior? I have not seen one and I follow more conservative journalists than liberal ones.

It was her bad behavior, not her speech, that got her silenced. What was done today was to try to cloud the issue so that some people would continue to spew hate because they don't know what really happened. Which is the fault of McConnell because he can't figure out what side of his tongue is up, let alone form a cogent sentence more than 5 words long. If he was a capable orator, you'd KNOW why it all happened. Instead we get Mumbles from a Dick Tracy comic as the head of the Senate being misquoted by a media that doesn't care if you, the voter, understand or know the truth. All they care is that you watch, click, like, or whatever just so that they can continue to sell ad space and make millions. The whole thing is fucking sad because they're playing you and you like it.

The rest of your argument is worthless because it attempts to justify bad acts today based on the bad acts of someone else yesterday. One could use that same argument to say that because your house was burglarized in the past, it's ok for anyone to do it again today and not be punished for it. Which is patently ridiculous.

The only behavior from today that I described was the four senators reading Mrs. King's letter. Since you said that these men did not behave badly and therefore were not due any punishment, what bad behavior from today did I use to justify something that happened yesterday?

 

[HisArpy]

I kick you all the time, rancor or not.

I once had an all black filly who loved to kick. She'd follow me everywhere without a lead or halter. I could ride her bareback without any tack at all, not even a halter or leadrope or hackamore. She'd come running if I just starting calling for her and slide to a stop on my right side in the 'leading' position ready to do whatever I asked. But, she spent her day kicking things. Everything and anything, she kicked it. She didn't need any justification for it, she just did it.

The filly died young. I don't even have a picture of her, just the memories.

 

[HisArpy]

Really? Can you cite an authoritative source describing this bad behavior? I have not seen one and I follow more conservative journalists than liberal ones.

Oh, I probably could. That is, if I cared enough to spend time looking for a few articles to compare and contrast. The interesting thing is that you ask me for a citation to something you could reason out for yourself if you only tried.

For instance. Query: What is the difference between what the 4 did today and what Warren did yesterday?

Cloture?
A prior warning?
An attempt at an improper filibuster?
Harassment?
Had the confirmation vote been accomplished and now the Senate is moving on to other business?
What?

To me it seems like you are attempting to use ME to do your research and critical thinking for you and spoon feed it to you through some sort of 'verifiable' citation/source that you then poo-poo and debunk merely because it doesn't fit with what you want to believe.

Why should I bother to do that when you won't listen anyway?

The only behavior from today that I described was the four senators reading Mrs. King's letter. Since you said that these men did not behave badly and therefore were not due any punishment, what bad behavior from today did I use to justify something that happened yesterday?

THIS is a falsehood. And you know it. You yourself mentioned Cruz and his calling Reid a liar as an attempt to dismiss what occurred to Warren on the implicit basis that she was unfairly targeted when Cruz was not. Whatever was done in the past by someone else is no basis to legitimize illegal or lawless behavior today.

 

[Farawyn]

I once had an all black filly who loved to kick. She'd follow me everywhere without a lead or halter. I could ride her bareback without any tack at all, not even a halter or leadrope or hackamore. She'd come running if I just starting calling for her and slide to a stop on my right side in the 'leading' position ready to do whatever I asked. But, she spent her day kicking things. Everything and anything, she kicked it. She didn't need any justification for it, she just did it.

The filly died young. I don't even have a picture of her, just the memories.

Nope.

 

[Azuldrgon]

Today's fuck sponsored by dangerous thoughts.

 

[midwestyankee]

Oh, I probably could. That is, if I cared enough to spend time looking for a few articles to compare and contrast. The interesting thing is that you ask me for a citation to something you could reason out for yourself if you only tried.

For instance. Query: What is the difference between what the 4 did today and what Warren did yesterday?

Cloture?
A prior warning?
An attempt at an improper filibuster?
Harassment?
Had the confirmation vote been accomplished and now the Senate is moving on to other business?
What?

To me it seems like you are attempting to use ME to do your research and critical thinking for you and spoon feed it to you through some sort of 'verifiable' citation/source that you then poo-poo and debunk merely because it doesn't fit with what you want to believe.

Why should I bother to do that when you won't listen anyway?




THIS is a falsehood. And you know it. You yourself mentioned Cruz and his calling Reid a liar as an attempt to dismiss what occurred to Warren on the implicit basis that she was unfairly targeted when Cruz was not. Whatever was done in the past by someone else is no basis to legitimize illegal or lawless behavior today.

1. I asked you for citations because you made a claim that you did not back up with any evidence. Facts matter and you provided only supposition. In fact, here's what I found on the matter on the Atlantic Magazine's site tonight:

What it means to violate Rule XIX is, of course, highly subjective, and its enforcement is extremely rare. It is not uncommon for senators to receive warnings or informal reprimands for remarks that their colleagues consider over the line. Often senators withdraw their contested comments from the record. But on Wednesday morning, the Senate historian’s office—which keeps extensive records on the chamber’s proceedings—could find no previous example of the Senate enforcing Rule XIX as it did on Tuesday night, by voting to silence Warren for the remainder of the current debate​

.

The article also pointed out that some of the senators chose to paraphrase one section of the King letter that specifically charged Sessions with being responsible for a clearly discriminatory action when he was States Attorney of Alabama rather than to read it aloud. This appears to be the passage that got Senator McConnell's dander up. However, when Senator Udall spoke, he was granted permission to enter the full text of the letter into the record. Thus the rule was applied selectively against Senator Warren last night.

2. I misunderstood you when you used "today" and "yesterday" somewhat metaphorically rather than literally.

Finally, I asked for clarification in good faith but I sense a good deal of hostility in your response. I admitted to error in this response. Any chance we can hold a civil discussion in the future, or are going to continue to treat me like an antagonistic shit without cause? Because I enjoy fair discussions with people who treat me like a fucking human being but there's an Ignore button here for everyone else.

 

[HisArpy]

So, now here's the thing...

You went and reviewed some articles and discovered that;

a) The rule is not often invoked BECAUSE when it's pointed out to the violating Senator they tend to back off and withdraw their offending actions;

b) We can logically assume that Warren apparently did NOT do this because if she HAD she wouldn't have had the rule invoked against her. Unless you're insisting that it was done solely because she is a woman. If so where are your facts to support this premis?; and,

c) The Senators who today were PARAPHRASING the King letter also got warnings yet were allowed to read the actual contents of the letter into the record once they stopped violating the rule. Per the usual standards by which the rule is normally (not) applied.

Think about that for a moment and compare it to what you said a few posts earlier.


As for the rest, I never called you names and never inferred you are an antagonistic shit. All I asked was for you to think for yourself. Which you did. We may not agree on the conclusion you drew, but at least you did something other than parrot the BS being tossed around out there. And THAT is an amazing thing because you set your emotional response aside to chase the truth. The TRUTH, not what some talking head says and wants you to believe.

 

[Misshotndeep]

That burning sensation in my abdomen after I had done a few reps of weighted curls. FUCK that shit hurt.

 

[HisArpy]

Nope.

I'm sorry if I somehow made you think my post was something other than my recitation of a sad memory. It was not my intention.

 

[midwestyankee]

So, now here's the thing...

You went and reviewed some articles and discovered that;

a) The rule is not often invoked BECAUSE when it's pointed out to the violating Senator they tend to back off and withdraw their offending actions;

b) We can logically assume that Warren apparently did NOT do this because if she HAD she wouldn't have had the rule invoked against her. Unless you're insisting that it was done solely because she is a woman. If so where are your facts to support this premis?; and,

c) The Senators who today were PARAPHRASING the King letter also got warnings yet were allowed to read the actual contents of the letter into the record once they stopped violating the rule. Per the usual standards by which the rule is normally (not) applied.

Think about that for a moment and compare it to what you said a few posts earlier.


As for the rest, I never called you names and never inferred you are an antagonistic shit. All I asked was for you to think for yourself. Which you did. We may not agree on the conclusion you drew, but at least you did something other than parrot the BS being tossed around out there. And THAT is an amazing thing because you set your emotional response aside to chase the truth. The TRUTH, not what some talking head says and wants you to believe.

I'm not going to make any suppositions but you're welcome to do so. I have not viewed the tape to see for myself what Senator Warren did over to see the nature of the warning and explanation that Senator McConnell says she was provided. As for the bolded part above, don't put words in my mouth. You won't like the ones I pout in yours.

I have no idea what you inferred, as that's an internal mental operation. However, by telling me to do my own research, you clearly meant to impugn my character and I'm happy to exaggerate a bit when I'm pissed.

I never, ever take the word of others without evidence. And don't you ever fucking imply that again.

 

[Miles Long]

These are some long fucking days.

 

[Farawyn]

So, now here's the thing...

You went and reviewed some articles and discovered that;

a) The rule is not often invoked BECAUSE when it's pointed out to the violating Senator they tend to back off and withdraw their offending actions;

b) We can logically assume that Warren apparently did NOT do this because if she HAD she wouldn't have had the rule invoked against her. Unless you're insisting that it was done solely because she is a woman. If so where are your facts to support this premis?; and,

c) The Senators who today were PARAPHRASING the King letter also got warnings yet were allowed to read the actual contents of the letter into the record once they stopped violating the rule. Per the usual standards by which the rule is normally (not) applied.

Think about that for a moment and compare it to what you said a few posts earlier.


As for the rest, I never called you names and never inferred you are an antagonistic shit. All I asked was for you to think for yourself. Which you did. We may not agree on the conclusion you drew, but at least you did something other than parrot the BS being tossed around out there. And THAT is an amazing thing because you set your emotional response aside to chase the truth. The TRUTH, not what some talking head says and wants you to believe.

You come across as so condescending. Don't do that.

 

[Farawyn]

These are some long fucking days.

Fuck. What's wrong?

 

[Miles Long]

Fuck. What's wrong?

Nothing wrong per se, just such long days it's worth saying fuck about.

 

[Farawyn]

Nothing wrong per se, just such long days it's worth saying fuck about.

Passes you a Fucking dirty martini.

 

[HisArpy]

...don't put words in my mouth. You won't like the ones I pout in yours. However, by telling me to do my own research, you clearly meant to impugn my character and I'm happy to exaggerate a bit when I'm pissed.

I never, ever take the word of others without evidence. And don't you ever fucking imply that again.

1) It is never an insult to tell someone to do their own research. In fact, it rationally infers that you are capable of doing so in a competent fashion.

2) I did not "put words in your mouth", I merely asked a question.

3) Apparently you did. Right up to the point where you did your own research.

4) A threat?

 

[Miles Long]

Passes you a Fucking dirty martini.

I had a fucking margarita with my fucking tacos at dinner. That was pretty fucking great.

 

[Azuldrgon]

Nothing wrong per se, just such long days it's worth saying fuck about.

I hear you....fuck.

 

[Miles Long]

I hear you....fuck.

Fuck yeah, man.

 

[HisArpy]

You come across as so condescending. Don't do that.

Far, I'm not trying to be anything. I'm trying to discuss current events in a logical manner.

A+B+C = conclusion.

This is called logical thinking. Often called "left brain thinking" it is the opposite of "right brain thinking" whereby emotional responses often result in the conclusions reached.

 

[Wild_Honey_66]

The ex is drunk. Which means he's being an asshole.

Fuck.

 

[Azuldrgon]

The ex is drunk. Which means he's being an asshole.

Fuck.

Fuck.....I'm sorry.