Even if you don't believe in it, you should realize that ethics is not a team sport.
You guys already do plenty of speaking out when the left leaning people do unethical stuff.
Then you want everyone to shut up and forget that they ever knew anything about ethics when the right does unethical stuff.  
In other forums, the reverse is true.  And in those forums, I make it my job to remind the leftists when their people have been unethical.  But there are no leftists on this forum.  No one here cheers for Democrats, so I don't have to bring that stuff up.

There are plenty of outspoken liberals here. They don't need you defending them; they can do it for themselves. 

I'd believe this if you played the conservative role in threads where there are more liberals than conservatives. Besides, how can someone whom claims to be a Republican / conservative never speak up against those he disagrees with? Most of your viewpoints aren't even remotely conservative. 

I have been on this board for almost 15 years and I don't think I've ever seen a thread where the conservatives were getting ganged up on.

Right. he blocked her out with his off hand. There was nothing violent about it. his hands didn't even touch her. his forearm crossed with hers, and not forcefully.
you're the one trying to sell this as an assault worthy of getting banned from a workplace. you're saying that Acosta should face consequences so the burden of proof is on you. I'm saying nothing noteworthy happened so I have no burden of proof. I'm the one actually looking at it and saying what really happened. You are the one selling a bridge.
As for your last paragraph, that is nothing more than tired victim mentality and no one whose mind is open has time for it. "they won't let my side get away with behavior that I think the other side always engages in." Wah wah. I guess we went to different elementary schools but my elementary school teachers didn't tolerate that kind of excuse from me.  Actions are either right or wrong. we should judge your actions by you only and not by an allegation that other people get away with those actions. Two wrongs don't make a right, etcetera

Just to be clear, unwanted physical contact isn't enough to be booted from the workplace? Who said it had to be violent? Who is even saying it is violent? Those sound like your words. Most people are just saying it's unacceptable.

I don't think you know how the burden of proof works. He touched her without her consent and without justification. Sure, it wasn't violent and I doubt people think it was harmful, but that's irrelevant when he was told to stop and refused AND then touched her to keep doing what he was told not to do. This isn't normal behavior, and you're saying it's on others to prove why this abnormal behavior is unacceptable.

There was a justification for the two of their arms running into each other.  They simply had different ideas about where the microphone should be.  There was no malicious or sexual intent.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Captain Conservative, Arbiter of Truth, Messiah of the Liberal Masses.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

There are plenty of outspoken liberals here. They don't need you defending them; they can do it for themselves. 

I'd believe this if you played the conservative role in threads where there are more liberals than conservatives. Besides, how can someone whom claims to be a Republican / conservative never speak up against those he disagrees with? Most of your viewpoints aren't even remotely conservative. 

I have been on this board for almost 15 years and I don't think I've ever seen a thread where the conservatives were getting ganged up on.

Just to be clear, unwanted physical contact isn't enough to be booted from the workplace? Who said it had to be violent? Who is even saying it is violent? Those sound like your words. Most people are just saying it's unacceptable.

I don't think you know how the burden of proof works. He touched her without her consent and without justification. Sure, it wasn't violent and I doubt people think it was harmful, but that's irrelevant when he was told to stop and refused AND then touched her to keep doing what he was told not to do. This isn't normal behavior, and you're saying it's on others to prove why this abnormal behavior is unacceptable.

There was a justification for the two of their arms running into each other.  They simply had different ideas about where the microphone should be.  There was no malicious or sexual intent.

Acosta was a grandstanding jackass who had no right to hold the mic nor to prevent the intern from taking it for the next recognized question. You're on the wrong side as usual.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I have been on this board for almost 15 years and I don't think I've ever seen a thread where the conservatives were getting ganged up on.

There was a justification for the two of their arms running into each other.  They simply had different ideas about where the microphone should be.  There was no malicious or sexual intent.

Acosta was a grandstanding jackass who had no right to hold the mic nor to prevent the intern from taking it for the next recognized question. You're on the wrong side as usual.

I actually agree with everything you said about Acosta. He was in the wrong, initially. An he is  a pompous grandstanding [BLEEP].
What I disagree with is the president continuing to insult a man after taking the microphone away.
And I disagree with the President trying to take his press pass away for something so petty.
And I disagree with the President and the press secretary pretending like there was some sort of physical confrontation between him and that intern.
I don't watch CNN because I find that most of the people behave like Acosta more often than not.
That's a nice thing about CNN. When you don't like what they're doing, you just turn it off. I don't like reality TV or professional wrestling either, so I don't turn those on. The problem is now the reality TV and professional wrestling are in charge of my government, and I cant ignore that.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Acosta was a grandstanding jackass who had no right to hold the mic nor to prevent the intern from taking it for the next recognized question. You're on the wrong side as usual.

I actually agree with everything you said about Acosta. He was in the wrong, initially. An he is  a pompous grandstanding [BLEEP].
What I disagree with is the president continuing to insult a man after taking the microphone away.
And I disagree with the President trying to take his press pass away for something so petty.
And I disagree with the President and the press secretary pretending like there was some sort of physical confrontation between him and that intern.
I don't watch CNN because I find that most of the people behave like Acosta more often than not.
That's a nice thing about CNN. When you don't like what they're doing, you just turn it off. I don't like reality TV or professional wrestling either, so I don't turn those on. The problem is now the reality TV and professional wrestling are in charge of my government, and I cant ignore that.

No what you disagree with is President Trump regardless of the situation or circumstances.  
Press passes have been taken away in the past and they will be taken away in the future.
What you and several left leaning people refuse to acknowledge at this point in time is there is the respect for the office of the president vs your disdain for the person holding that position.

Acosts's disdain for the man crossed the line as to the position the man holds.  For that his credentials should be pulled.  He made it personal.  This is no different than a sitting member of congress yelling out "Liar" during a state of the union address.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

I actually agree with everything you said about Acosta. He was in the wrong, initially. An he is  a pompous grandstanding [BLEEP].
What I disagree with is the president continuing to insult a man after taking the microphone away.
And I disagree with the President trying to take his press pass away for something so petty.
And I disagree with the President and the press secretary pretending like there was some sort of physical confrontation between him and that intern.
I don't watch CNN because I find that most of the people behave like Acosta more often than not.
That's a nice thing about CNN. When you don't like what they're doing, you just turn it off. I don't like reality TV or professional wrestling either, so I don't turn those on. The problem is now the reality TV and professional wrestling are in charge of my government, and I cant ignore that.

No what you disagree with is President Trump regardless of the situation or circumstances.  
Press passes have been taken away in the past and they will be taken away in the future.
What you and several left leaning people refuse to acknowledge at this point in time is there is the respect for the office of the president vs your disdain for the person holding that position.

Acosts's disdain for the man crossed the line as to the position the man holds.  For that his credentials should be pulled.  He made it personal.  This is no different than a sitting member of congress yelling out "Liar" during a state of the union address.

I can still respect the office while refusing to agree with the man who holds it when he tells us that two plus two is five, when he has his press secretary share doctored video against the evidence of our own eyes.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

No what you disagree with is President Trump regardless of the situation or circumstances.  
Press passes have been taken away in the past and they will be taken away in the future.
What you and several left leaning people refuse to acknowledge at this point in time is there is the respect for the office of the president vs your disdain for the person holding that position.

Acosts's disdain for the man crossed the line as to the position the man holds.  For that his credentials should be pulled.  He made it personal.  This is no different than a sitting member of congress yelling out "Liar" during a state of the union address.

I can still respect the office while refusing to agree with the man who holds it when he tells us that two plus two is five, when he has his press secretary share doctored video against the evidence of our own eyes.

Good Lord, you have been brainwashed by the MSM. Watching the advancement of your TDS these past few months has been crazy.

---

I can still respect the office while refusing to agree with the man who holds it when he tells us that two plus two is five, when he has his press secretary share doctored video against the evidence of our own eyes.

Good Lord, you have been brainwashed by the MSM. Watching the advancement of your TDS these past few months has been crazy.

He's a closeted leftist and pretending to be someone you aren't takes its toll. He's forced to double down on leftism every few days to attempt to validate his claims to moderacy, never considering that he's not once shown evidence for his claims of conservatism. Always trying to redefine the Right to be less Right and more Left isn't moderacy, it's subversion. Always arguing with the Right why the Left isn't  wrong isn't contrarian or enlightened, it's advocacy. He just cant admit to himself what we already know he really is. He's actually a pretty good case study in self-delusion.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

New York Times had a great headline: "Trump and Acosta: When Showboats Collide"

---

Good Lord, you have been brainwashed by the MSM. Watching the advancement of your TDS these past few months has been crazy.

He's a closeted leftist and pretending to be someone you aren't takes its toll. He's forced to double down on leftism every few days to attempt to validate his claims to moderacy, never considering that he's not once shown evidence for his claims of conservatism. Always trying to redefine the Right to be less Right and more Left isn't moderacy, it's subversion. Always arguing with the Right why the Left isn't  wrong isn't contrarian or enlightened, it's advocacy. He just cant admit to himself what we already know he really is. He's actually a pretty good case study in self-delusion.

from my perspective what is called right keeps on getting defined further and further to the right and further and further away from any respect for all Americans or shared sets of facts.
Y'all are the ones who are moving. I'm just trying to stand still.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Good Lord, you have been brainwashed by the MSM. Watching the advancement of your TDS these past few months has been crazy.

He's a closeted leftist and pretending to be someone you aren't takes its toll. He's forced to double down on leftism every few days to attempt to validate his claims to moderacy, never considering that he's not once shown evidence for his claims of conservatism. Always trying to redefine the Right to be less Right and more Left isn't moderacy, it's subversion. Always arguing with the Right why the Left isn't  wrong isn't contrarian or enlightened, it's advocacy. He just cant admit to himself what we already know he really is. He's actually a pretty good case study in self-delusion.

Here's a conservative claim:
anyone who contributes to the demise of a fetus for any reason other than saving the life of the mother, should be prosecuted. Protecting another human life is the only possible justification for taking a human life.
Do you agree with that one? Or are you actually the fake conservative?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

He's a closeted leftist and pretending to be someone you aren't takes its toll. He's forced to double down on leftism every few days to attempt to validate his claims to moderacy, never considering that he's not once shown evidence for his claims of conservatism. Always trying to redefine the Right to be less Right and more Left isn't moderacy, it's subversion. Always arguing with the Right why the Left isn't  wrong isn't contrarian or enlightened, it's advocacy. He just cant admit to himself what we already know he really is. He's actually a pretty good case study in self-delusion.

Here's a conservative claim:
anyone who contributes to the demise of a fetus for any reason other than saving the life of the mother, should be prosecuted. Protecting another human life is the only possible justification for taking a human life.
Do you agree with that one? Or are you actually the fake conservative?

Oh, I agree. I'm pro-life, it's a core Libertarian principle.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Here's a conservative claim:
anyone who contributes to the demise of a fetus for any reason other than saving the life of the mother, should be prosecuted. Protecting another human life is the only possible justification for taking a human life.
Do you agree with that one? Or are you actually the fake conservative?

Oh, I agree. I'm pro-life, it's a core Libertarian principle.

The U.S. Libertarian Party political platform (2012) states: "Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

Of course I expect you to reject the official party position, but there are other examples to show that, while there are pro-life and pro-choice Libertarians, it's disingenuous to say pro-life it's a "core value". Maybe yours, but there's plenty if dissenting opinions among your party.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

He's a closeted leftist and pretending to be someone you aren't takes its toll. He's forced to double down on leftism every few days to attempt to validate his claims to moderacy, never considering that he's not once shown evidence for his claims of conservatism. Always trying to redefine the Right to be less Right and more Left isn't moderacy, it's subversion. Always arguing with the Right why the Left isn't  wrong isn't contrarian or enlightened, it's advocacy. He just cant admit to himself what we already know he really is. He's actually a pretty good case study in self-delusion.

from my perspective what is called right keeps on getting defined further and further to the right and further and further away from any respect for all Americans or shared sets of facts.
Y'all are the ones who are moving. I'm just trying to stand still.

The data does not support your view.

---

from my perspective what is called right keeps on getting defined further and further to the right and further and further away from any respect for all Americans or shared sets of facts.
Y'all are the ones who are moving. I'm just trying to stand still.

The data does not support your view.

Data on video: https://youtu.be/YsmgPp_nlok

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

That's not data. That's a segment of a debate regarding a problem that has not been resolved in 38 years.

---

That's not data. That's a segment of a debate regarding a problem that has not been resolved in 38 years.

Data is a very broad word that includes literally any type of information.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So, just so we're clear, if you told me the data didn't support my conclusion, and then I linked a historical anecdote in defense of a much broader claim, you would be cool with that? You're smart enough to know how data should be used in a political discussion.

---

So, just so we're clear, if you told me the data didn't support my conclusion, and then I linked a historical anecdote in defense of a much broader claim, you would be cool with that? You're smart enough to know how data should be used in a political discussion.

My claim is that I'm believing the same things while all the other Republicans have changed.
I showed both Reagan and Bush making arguments that Trump would laugh at.
Whether Reagan or Trump is right is besides the point and don't be distracted by that.
The point is that the Republican party is moving, and fast.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I don't dispute that Republicans are moving right. I dispute the implication that Republicans are moving away from Americans and a shared set of facts as a result of them moving right. This is essentially a post hoc fallacy. People and, by extension, parties tend to move when presented with new circumstances, and so it should be expected considering how different the culture was in 1980 compared to today. You may believe the same things as a 1980s conservative, but that is irrelevant in 2018, as we are dealing with an entirely different culture.

The simple fact is that both parties are moving because they have different agendas and, therefore interpret information differently. The more those agendas are realized the greater the push-back will be until an equilibrium is found. This can not happen in today's political climate. The data shows the Republican party moving at slower pace than the Democrats. More over, Republicans tend to become more moderate with a Republican President. Democrats have been getting progressively more, well, progressive no matter who is in office.

---