AR Husker Fan v ZRod

[commando]

He's the President. Not the "So-called President". You don't have to like the man or even respect him, but respect the office and the country, even if he does not.

when the president refers to "so-called judges" i think he can expect some of the same disrespect back at him.

Be better than him.

i am some random 2 bit hick from Nebraska and it's up to me to be better than the president of the united states sad

 

[ZRod]

He's the President. Not the "So-called President". You don't have to like the man or even respect him, but respect the office and the country, even if he does not.

when the president refers to "so-called judges" i think he can expect some of the same disrespect back at him.

Be better than him.

i am some random 2 bit hick from Nebraska and it's up to me to be better than the president of the united states sad

What a time to be alive!

 

[AR Husker Fan]

He's the President. Not the "So-called President". You don't have to like the man or even respect him, but respect the office and the country, even if he does not.

Any claim - explicit or implied - that I have failed to respect the Office of the President or this country is a lie. I did not demean the office at all - I didn't claim, for example, that the office is only ceremonial. Likewise, I made no statement concerning the country. If your claim is based on some fallacy that my reference to the person occupying the office equates to a disrespect to the office or the country, then by that illogic one could never express any negative statement about the person occupying the office, no matter how reprehensibly that person acts. And that is as much utter crap as the lie that I failed to respect the office of the country.

Further, if the so-called president can claim that a judge of impeccable reputation - one that was confirmed with zero opposition, one that underwent a vetting process that was far more intrusive and comprehensive then what the so-called president underwent - is "so-called" then without any doubt the legitimacy of Trump's election can be called into question, particularly given the attempts by Russia to influence the election and that less then half of all voters voted for him in the popular election.

Finally, if this has led you merrily tripping down the path to self-realization that I'm going to refer to that lying, sexual predatory, draft-dodging coward who demeans those who have actually served their country and underwent the tortures suffered upon their capture, then congratulations. You now have the chance to recognize that you don't get to give me orders concerning how I refer to that fat tub of sh#t. The alternative is to wallow in the knowledge of your impotency to change my behavior.

 

[knapplc]

It's a nice idea, but I've been frequenting P&R too long to pretend that this sentiment was being exercised during the last administration.

Don't get me wrong - I agree with you. But I saw what bnilhome & 84HuskerLaw have been allowed to say with little or no protest.

Who cares? Isn't this whataboutism? Be consistent on your own terms and call individuals out on their own terms. Yes or no, it's fine and no big deal and you have zero problem with people referring to the President as the "so-called" President? If yes, great, simple enough. If no, no need to respond with, "Yeah but they did it the last 8 years so..."

It is not "what-about-ism." It's calling out hypocrisy. There's a difference, and it's not minor.

If someone is going to claim such principles that they cannot abide anyone holding office to be derided, they have an obligation to follow through on that in all circumstances. If they don't, they're being a hypocrite.

I know very well how long ZRod has been a member, and I know very well the opportunities he's had to call out irreverent behavior. Pointing out that his concern is one-sided is not a deflection, it is a focus.

Know the difference.

 

[ZRod]

He's the President. Not the "So-called President". You don't have to like the man or even respect him, but respect the office and the country, even if he does not.

Any claim - explicit or implied - that I have failed to respect the Office of the President or this country is a lie. I did not demean the office at all - I didn't claim, for example, that the office is only ceremonial. Likewise, I made no statement concerning the country. If your claim is based on some fallacy that my reference to the person occupying the office equates to a disrespect to the office or the country, then by that illogic one could never express any negative statement about the person occupying the office, no matter how reprehensibly that person acts. And that is as much utter crap as the lie that I failed to respect the office of the country.Further, if the so-called president can claim that a judge of impeccable reputation - one that was confirmed with zero opposition, one that underwent a vetting process that was far more intrusive and comprehensive then what the so-called president underwent - is "so-called" then without any doubt the legitimacy of Trump's election can be called into question, particularly given the attempts by Russia to influence the election and that less then half of all voters voted for him in the popular election.

Finally, if this has led you merrily tripping down the path to self-realization that I'm going to refer to that lying, sexual predatory, draft-dodging coward who demeans those who have actually served their country and underwent the tortures suffered upon their capture, then congratulations. You now have the chance to recognize that you don't get to give me orders concerning how I refer to that fat tub of sh#t. The alternative is to wallow in the knowledge of your impotency to change my behavior.

Was he not, by the system that has been in place in this country for generations, elected and sworn in as the President of The United States of America?
Be better than him.

 

[Landlord]

It is not "what-about-ism." It's calling out hypocrisy. There's a difference, and it's not minor.

If someone is going to claim such principles that they cannot abide anyone holding office to be derided, they have an obligation to follow through on that in all circumstances. If they don't, they're being a hypocrite.

I know very well how long ZRod has been a member, and I know very well the opportunities he's had to call out irreverent behavior. Pointing out that his concern is one-sided is not a deflection, it is a focus.

Know the difference.

Fair enough. I don't know nearly enough about zrod's history to comment on the matter.

 

[ZRod]

He's not wrong. I probably never specifically called them out. Shame on me, I'll be better. However, I was constantly debating their criticisms of Obama, and how misguided they were.

And yes it still is a whataboutism. You're trying to infer that my criticism isn't valid because of my hypocrisy.

 

[knapplc]

Whataboutism doesn't invalidate all comparisons.

 

[AR Husker Fan]

He's the President. Not the "So-called President". You don't have to like the man or even respect him, but respect the office and the country, even if he does not.

Any claim - explicit or implied - that I have failed to respect the Office of the President or this country is a lie. I did not demean the office at all - I didn't claim, for example, that the office is only ceremonial. Likewise, I made no statement concerning the country. If your claim is based on some fallacy that my reference to the person occupying the office equates to a disrespect to the office or the country, then by that illogic one could never express any negative statement about the person occupying the office, no matter how reprehensibly that person acts. And that is as much utter crap as the lie that I failed to respect the office of the country.Further, if the so-called president can claim that a judge of impeccable reputation - one that was confirmed with zero opposition, one that underwent a vetting process that was far more intrusive and comprehensive then what the so-called president underwent - is "so-called" then without any doubt the legitimacy of Trump's election can be called into question, particularly given the attempts by Russia to influence the election and that less then half of all voters voted for him in the popular election.

Finally, if this has led you merrily tripping down the path to self-realization that I'm going to refer to that lying, sexual predatory, draft-dodging coward who demeans those who have actually served their country and underwent the tortures suffered upon their capture, then congratulations. You now have the chance to recognize that you don't get to give me orders concerning how I refer to that fat tub of sh#t. The alternative is to wallow in the knowledge of your impotency to change my behavior.

Was he not, by the system that has been in place in this country for generations, elected and sworn in as the President of The United States of America?
Be better than him.

I had assumed that the reason you engaged in a personal attack against me by lying and saying that I had demonstrated a lack of respect for the office of the President, and by lying and saying that I had demonstrated a lack of respect for my country, was due to malice. However, by asking the question above when I had already addressed that issue in my first reply, you have made a compelling argument, bordering on irrefutable, that you share another trait with the so-called president other than lying – ignorance. And while ignorance is often incurable – particularly when it is of the level displayed by you and the so-called president – and curing you of your ignorance is not my responsibility, it will be fun to plumb the depths of that ignorance by providing you a series of free clues and seeing if you are capable of overcoming your ignorance and arriving at the correct conclusion. And who knows? We may well reveal additional character flaws you share with the so-called president. So...

1. I addressed the issue raised by your question in my second paragraph.

2. I did not address the issue raised by your question in my first paragraph.

3. I did not address the issue raised by your question in my third paragraph.

4. If you can divine the plain meaning behind statements numbered 1 through 3, you won’t have to struggle reading more of those pesky words in my first reply than is necessary.

5. Words and phrases can have multiple meanings. I recognize, by your question above that you have trouble discerning even a single correct meaning from words and phrases, so accept the truth that the term “so-called” can also refer to a performance that is not in conformity with the job. By way of example, someone could refer to Callahan as a “so-called coach” because a “real coach” would adapt the system to the players rather than the converse. Likewise, it is correct to state that someone is a “so-called president” because he or she does not behave as should a president – you know, someone who displays ignorance of government, the role of the press, and other breathtaking evidence of ignorance. Or someone who lies.

6. Have someone assist you in parsing all of this. A fourth or fifth grade child would certainly suffice, since in recognizing your limitations I wrote to that level.

As for being better than the so-called president, I already am. Unlike the so-called president and you, I don’t lie. Unlike the so-called president and you, I don’t initiate unprovoked personal attacks through social media should I ever encounter something beyond my understanding. Unlike the so-called president, I am not a draft-dodging coward. I served in the military, and did so voluntarily. Unlike the so-called president, I am not a bigot. Unlike the so-called president, I do not sexually assault women. Unlike the so-called president, I do not cheat people and businesses that provide me goods and services out of their earnings by using bankruptcy or an economic advantage. The list goes on.

So, care to personally attack me again by lying about me? Be my guest. I won’t ban you for that – I’ll just respond and continue to expose you as an ignorant liar, and continue to laugh at you. But you’ve now been put on notice – any unprovoked attack on a member and you’re gone.

The only unresolved issue, then, is whether you’ll reveal that, like the so-called president, you are a coward by slinking off the board. If I had to bet, given the traits you’ve clearly demonstrated you share with the so-called president, it would be that you do. But we’ll see.

 

[knapplc]

 

[knapplc]

As a fan of both ZRod and AR Husker Fan, I'd just like to say that I'm really uncomfortable with you guys not getting along and I wish this conversation was going differently. You're both really good guys. I hope this resolves quickly and amicably.

Maybe a vs. thread in the Shed is a good idea? Eh, chums?

 

[TGHusker]

AR I have to give you a

- you framed the discussion very well. When talking about politics in general, one does not have to agree with someone to appreciate the way they frame the argument and cognitively work though the tedious process of framing the discussion in a way that is understandable and worthy of a person's consideration. Knapp does a good job doing this also. Doesn't mean I agree wt you both on all things but I do appreciate the way you frame the argument.

In regards to the specific topic, I do wish Trump would respect the office as presidents traditionally have done. I've heard arguments on talk shows that DC needs to be shaken up (and it does for many reasons) and the way to do is to be non-traditional, the bull in a china store. Well, I disagree. I think Trump could accomplish more if he would present a logical argument for his policies and use the force of his personality to defend the logic and not attacking the very people he needs to persuade. Of course as a repub voter, I hold out hope that policies will rise to the top over personality. But I would be hypocritical after calling out Obama on a # of things not to do the same on Trump. While I think this administration has great potential (if the adults lead and they work wt congress), Trump will be and has been the greatest detriment to his own success. Trump isn't a far right winger and the Dems had previously said there were things they could work with him on - infrastructure is one example but if Trump keeps insulting every Congressman, judge who gets under his think skin, he will build his own wall of opposition against him. He has also undermined his relationships with foreign leaders by his comments to them.

I've been taking a "sit back & watch and see" attitude towards the admin. While there are some moves I like - SC nominee to name one - I see him sabotaging his own efforts by an uncontrollable narcissistic personality disorder. Sooner than later everyone will tire of it and even his supporters will abandon him. This will destroy all potential and we'll have 4 lost years. The adults in that cabinet room will eventually need to get him under control and convince him that his whole agenda is at risk if he doesn't control himself.

 

[TAKODA]

AR, not calling you out here, so don't take this post as such, it's just my observation.

I am not sure I got the same read or at least the intensity from Zrod's comment, as to calling you a lier, as what is being relayed here?

Obviously, I have had my own issues, reading between the lines or understanding the true intent of other posters comments in the past few weeks, so there is that too. (OR) Maybe I missed something as well?

Regarding respect or they lack thereof, this is one reason why I was deliberate (in a different thread), to state the other day, that my patronage is to country, not to the man. There is a big difference and you obvioulsy follow the same thought process, as would/do most anyone, who has served.

Again, your board, your rules, your call, and I know this is a sensitive subject for anyone who cares about what's happening, but I am less inclined to say he was trying to call you anything here, but moreover making a generalized comment as to the office itself. Could have been worded differently, sure, but we are human and sometime what is posted, comes across as something altogether differnt, than the intent.

Maybe I should not have an opinion on this since it doesn't involve me, but as a board member, and one who enjoys both your and ZRods perspectives, I would hate

to see this escalate more than it has already!

 

[Enhance]

I'm with TAKODA on this one, if I'm honest. I didn't quite understand how we devolved from his statement (which didn't register as a personal attack with me) to then a very lengthy (and quite obviously personal) post from AR.

I know this doesn't involve me so I don't intend to offend you, AR. This was just my observation. That forum has been more contentious than ever recently and I really enjoy posting in there, but I know at least one mod has expressed an interest in closing the place down, and this gave them some ammunition.

 

[NUance]

Okay, it's time to come clean on this and shed a little light. AR is actually Barack Obama.

Sorry I had to out you, AR.