Arizona congresswoman shot

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

under the circumstances.

The circumstances were that he knew she was politically different than him and wasn't going to do his non-political job because of it.

[bjd392]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

There goes the blanketing statements again. It's so much easier to blame an entire group than to place responsibility on one person's actions (or lack of actions).

Re: "Blaming Cons." The fireman's decision not to perform his duty and his lame reasons behind it are not the same views that were expressed by his fellow Con OR Lib co-workers. That ONE guy's failure to perform an action because of his 'affiliation' should not discredit all those other Conservative public servants that DID show up.

Let's go back to personal accountability where it belongs, and stop needlessly offending people, groups and affiliations by lump-summing them into actions that they don't agree with or condone.

Oh yeah, and don't forget this part of the article:
Ekstrum said he was distraught over the shootings and had no problem with U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who is recovering from a bullet wound to the brain, and even voted for her in the last election.

This board really has to stop posting those needless, unfounded below-the-belt jabs.

And to further add to the nullifying of the argument:
Ekstrum has been registered as an independent since 1999, Pima County Recorder's Office records show, after being registered as a Democrat for the previous 17 years. He did not appear to be very politically active. The records show he hadn't voted in a primary election in 28 years and his name couldn't be found in campaign finance records as a donor.

Con? Lib? Moderate? Independent?

[matapule]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

There goes the blanketing statements again. It's so much easier to blame an entire group than to place responsibility on one person's actions (or lack of actions).

Pepper in a pot to successfully elicit response.... That's the intention..

This is more like chumming, because you don't go anywhere for that. Since there's a good lot of crap getting spewed in here, I might as well bring my bucket too, so I don't feel left out. My bait just has a different color and flavor.

You have no credibility. You engage in "baiting" rather than serious discussion of serious issues. I was willing to engage you once in a serious discussion and you fooled me with your intentions. Fooled matapule once it was your fault, fool matapule twice, it would be matapule's fault. We can agree, we can disagree, but we always treat each other with dignity and respect, especially our elders. Matapule placing responsibility on one person, YOU.

You are no longer part of matapule's village. No moa popcorn foa you.

[bjd392]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

You are no longer part of matapule's village. No moa popcorn foa you.

Um... so what? Get over yourself already. It appears the only discussion that we're in bitter disagreement on is anything having to do with a gun debate, which will always be heated.

I'm not here to win you over or be on your side, nor do I care if YOU think I don't have credibility. You, too, have nothing more than mere internet credentials, especially if your only source of reference is a village. But if you care to even read any of the previous posts, you'll find Ron was tripping over his own tongue when the very article he posted disproved his comments.

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

Ekstrum said he was distraught over the shootings and had no problem with U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who is recovering from a bullet wound to the brain, and even voted for her in the last election.

Him making differing afterthot statements that can't be proven hold no sway, and I'm not surprised someone of your political persuasions would promote such fallacy. Nor is it surprising that you'd want the privilege to say what I did/do to be stifled.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

Um... so what? Get over yourself already. It appears the only discussion that we're in bitter disagreement on is anything having to do with a gun debate, which will always be heated.

I'm not here to win you over or be on your side, nor do I care if YOU think I don't have credibility. You, too, have nothing more than mere internet credentials, especially if your only source of reference is a village. But if you care to even read any of the previous posts, you'll find Ron was tripping over his own tongue when the very article he posted disproved his comments.

I've been having the same BS from the aforementioned villager: baiting, accusations of me baiting him, delusions of grandeur, below-the-belt attacks and so on.

Now he's alienating you, like he recently did to me - he even used the same wording 'fool me once - your fault, fool me twice, etc.' I think the only person fooling him is his own self. I doubt it is his 'change of life,' but who knows? It sounds more like alcoholic blame-casting - seeing everyone else as the problem and not seeing one's own self truly. It's sad, cause when he's together he's a really neat guy, and I miss him.
It doesn't seem like the same-old matapule from a few months ago, and we can only speculate.

Next step: denial.

[bjd392]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

Him making differing afterthot statements that can't be proven hold no sway, and I'm not surprised someone of your political persuasions would promote such fallacy. Nor is it surprising that you'd want the privilege to say what I did/do to be stifled.

Unless someone admits to who they voted for, there really isn't a legal method to disclose who someone voted for at the ballots. That's why there are curtains and privacy and anonymity, and laws against pressuring votes.

One CAN find what affiliation they are (Rep, Dem, Ind, other). Still, at the end of the article you didn't read, and at the end of my original post you probably didn't read either.

But I'm not surprised someone of your political persuasions would assume anything not aligned with your political persuasions is anything less than a fallacy. These fallacy accusations are a fallacy.

But I'll even include it again, because it's worth reiterating:
Ekstrum has been registered as an independent since 1999, Pima County Recorder's Office records show, after being registered as a Democrat for the previous 17 years. He did not appear to be very politically active. The records show he hadn't voted in a primary election in 28 years and his name couldn't be found in campaign finance records as a donor.

I have no need to defend whatever ideology I have because the sourced article already lays it out. I personally believe Ekstrum was entirely in the wrong and was derelict in his duties as a public servant. But to immediately jump to a conclusion that this was a difference between "libs and cons" is quite unfounded. I wouldn't be surprised if he actually leaned more liberal based on his past political affiliations, but I'm not speculating that as truth, because then that would be a fallacy.

Ideally, I would love to agree with things said here. I don't really 'want' the privileges to counter, prove, disprove, discredit or deny some of the comments; but, sometimes it's plain as day, and even easier when it's done by the posters themselves. But oh well, it's another political issue, which I'm fine with being one of the select few that won't back down from my views. There's always the other forums that we tend to hold hands in and sing because there aren't any differences.

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

I'm not surprised someone of your political persuasions would assume anything not aligned with your political persuasions is anything less than a fallacy.

Not when it's aligned with 'nothing but the facts, ma'am'. His cop out story doesn't pass the smell test.
I'm all about the truth, no matter if it proves me wrong, or supports purely partisan positions, or whatever. If me being wrong gets the truth out, then I'll be wrong all day.

Fallacy? That anyone not on-page with the daily con dictate isn't conservative, and any lib-think is proof.
Those lockstepping exclusionists are faux/weak-kneed cons that hide behind hypocritical banners, like the bible/flag, and talk endlessly as tho they own them.
Libs are the true conservatives.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

I'm all about the truth, ....

Fallacy? That anyone not on-page with the daily con dictate isn't conservative, and any lib-think is proof.
Those lockstepping exclusionists are faux/weak-kneed cons that hide behind hypocritical banners, like the bible/flag, and talk endlessly as tho they own them.
Libs are the true conservatives.

Just remember, Ron, that Truth is not so much a matter of black and white as it is shades of gray.

As there are shades of gray so there are degrees of liberal and conservative. Name-calling and strict black and white labeling has proven false again and again.

Your above rant reminds me much of the KKK and other extremist groups philosophies. Tell me it ain't so, that you aren't locked into your own groups philosophy as those you accuse.

[bjd392]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

Re: "nothing but the facts."
Hooray, we're in agreement! If that's the case, let's look at the facts. And let's try to get to our "Truth."

Fact: Shooting occurred in Tuscon.
Fact: Mark Ekstrum is a 28-year veteran of the TFD.
Fact: Ekstrum refused to go to the call.
Testimony: Ekstrum cited: "he had a much different political viewpoint than the rest of the crew and he was concerned." Note that it is NOT SAID what political viewpoint he or the rest of the crew have.
Statement: Ekstrum resigned due to doubting his abilities to handle an emergency call.
Statement: Ekstrum said he voted for Giffords.
Fact: Pima County records show Ekstrum as an Independent since 1999, and a Democrat for 17 years before that.

Now for the Political Facts:
Fact: Giffords was originally a Republican, but switched parties in 2000.
Political Record: Tends to lean more centrist, appealing to moderate Republicans, Independents, and Blue-Dog Democrats.
Fact: The Tucson District is predominantly Republican registered.

Now for the part that needs to be cleaned up:
Speculation: His refusal to respond must mean he's Conservative.
Speculation: His statement on who he voted for is only a 'cop-out' story.
Fallacy: Conservatives support his refusal to respond. (NO ONE supports his lack of action, even when he tries to use politics as an excuse.)
Fallacy: "My political persuasions promote such fallacy." (Every time I read this, I start to chuckle, and disregard that as another one of those statements from 'left field.' Gotta add the baseball reference there.)

Ok, "If me being wrong gets the truth out, then I'll be wrong all day." The truth/facts are laid out. Glad that portion is finished. It's what we all want. What we don't want to hear is someone sit around and say wrong things all day. That makes no sense. It gets nothing accomplished. And if it includes whatever political background in it, it does a disservice to those who share that background.

But referring to the other thread on political compasses, you all tend to forget that the reason I'm a Centrist/Moderate by math is because I'm a Social Liberal and a Fiscal Conservative. So... coming from ONE OF YOUR OWN KIND, knock off the bullcrap.

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

Truth is shades of gray.
Tell me you aren't locked into your own groups philosophy as those you accuse.

Truth knows no color, groups, boundries, or ideals, it is what it is, even if it evolves.

Re: "nothing but the facts."

I hope your analysis proves correct, I'd be happy to be wrong on this one.
Nobody's always right and I'm looking to be, so if putting mistaken opinion out that generates the ultimate truth, that's a good thing, mission accomplished.

I am of no political persuasion, I cover the whole spectrum. Truth is the bottom line.

[bjd392]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

I am of no political persuasion, I cover the whole spectrum. Truth is the bottom line.

Another similarity.

My 'persuasions' cover extremes from both ends and all angles, which makes me happy to be in the middle. The balance from the heavy lean on gun issues is usually made up for by an equal and opposite lean on some other controversial issue. So while I'm easily mistaken for as a "con," I really don't identify with either cons or libs; but, I'll defend any of their logical standpoints, or against any unwarranted/unfounded accusation towards them.

But if truth is indeed the bottom line, I won't spare people's precious internet feelings, whether it's agreement, disagreement, sarcasm, humor or otherwise.

[Kaonohi]

What is truth?

Originally Posted by Ron Whitfield
I am of no political persuasion, I cover the whole spectrum. Truth is the bottom line.

But if truth is indeed the bottom line, I won't spare people's precious internet feelings, whether it's agreement, disagreement, sarcasm, humor or otherwise.

I'm reminded of Pilate's rant from JC Superstar:

"Pilate:
What is truth?
Is truth unchanging law?
We both have truths
Are mine the same as yours?"

Don't spare feelings, state your truth as you see it - all of us; no one has a monopoly on Truth. We'll sort it out.