The War of Competitive Outrage

[Unbeliever]

Just the latest in an ever escalating rhetoric of the parties.

Let's just hope it stays with rhetoric, and doesn't escalate beyond all rational discourse. Some supporters of Spanky have already said they'd resort to guns if he's impeached. I think the coming chaos is just what Chump and his Russian master intended, leading to the complete dissolution of the U.S.A.

But I hope that's just my pessimism poking through.

[Gilgamesh]

Let's just hope it stays with rhetoric, and doesn't escalate beyond all rational discourse. Some supporters of Spanky have already said they'd resort to guns if he's impeached. I think the coming chaos is just what Chump and his Russian master intended, leading to the complete dissolution of the U.S.A.

But I hope that's just my pessimism poking through.

>muh russian narrative
>muh killing people who are trying to destroy your democracy is bad

[Shiranu]

The NFL and ABC are both private entities and if you work for them they have the right disassociate with you if you say shit they don't like. In that it's the same.

True. But one side is "right", the other is "wrong", even if the law doesn't make a distinction between the two.

I don't think the government needs to (or should) step in in either situation, however the problem with the NFL situation is the government very explicitly did so... in favour of the owners, both through support for their actions and through the NFL being heavily sponsored by the military.

So when people are saying, "Wow! Liberal hypocrites! You are against the NFL limiting free speech but are okay when ABC does it to people you disagree with!", I find that really stretching, which annoys me because at first I was actually prone to agree with that idea. But once you actually give it some thought, it's a load of shit. It's implying that a private company cutting someone for racist statements is essentially the same as a company heavily sponsored by the government and encouraged by the government to silence protest against what is perceived as the government (when it truth it is protest against a cultural tolerance of violence against minorities).

[Shiranu]

>muh killing people who are trying to destroy your democracy is bad

>implying impeachment isn't democratic

[Baruch]

Not the same ... Gilgamesh is saying ... Ds are assassins (As in Assassin's Creed?).  That is too strong, much more than impeachment.

What we are seeing is a delegitimization of elections.  The winning side and the losing side, don't accept the result of the election.  The losing side thinks they were robbed (and they are).  The winning side thinks they have a mandate (they don't).  It is well known that Chicago crooks stole the 1960 election for JFK.  Should be de-list the Ds as a legal party?  More recently the Rs stole the 2000 election (more so than 2016) ... because of SCOTUS.  With 2016 do we count all the illegal aliens who voted D party?  With trillions of dollars in grifting at stake, people would be upset at not getting their share of the fake money grift.

[Cavebear]

Liberals Killed Roseanne. Conservatives Crushed the NFL Protests. Everybody Happy Now?

The right and left are determined to one-up each other on the outrage front.

Oh c'mon, Roseanne ruined her career herself, thinking most everyone was a racist like her.  Racists always think they are in the majority.

[Cavebear]

If Trump Tweeted what Roseanne did he would still have his job. It's good to be king.

Yeah, it is really hard to get impeached.  And no idiot President as been convicted.  May Trump be the first.  But he won't.

[Cavebear]

Yes, people only remember the outrageous things the other side did.  They also excuse or forget the outrageous things of their own side.

I do.  And I am willing to flay my own side when I see the hypocrisy (and have).

[Cavebear]

True. But one side is "right", the other is "wrong", even if the law doesn't make a distinction between the two.

I don't think the government needs to (or should) step in in either situation, however the problem with the NFL situation is the government very explicitly did so... in favour of the owners, both through support for their actions and through the NFL being heavily sponsored by the military.

So when people are saying, "Wow! Liberal hypocrites! You are against the NFL limiting free speech but are okay when ABC does it to people you disagree with!", I find that really stretching, which annoys me because at first I was actually prone to agree with that idea. But once you actually give it some thought, it's a load of shit. It's implying that a private company cutting someone for racist statements is essentially the same as a company heavily sponsored by the government and encouraged by the government to silence protest against what is perceived as the government (when it truth it is protest against a cultural tolerance of violence against minorities).

I agree that what is lost in many arguments is that one side is often wrong and the other side right, and the other side doesn't actually care.  The facts don't matter to them, just the political effects...