Iran General Soleimani assassinated in Baghdad

[jdshock]

This is "one of [your] favorite stats"?

Are you sure it reflects what you have insinuated it means: Republicans are hypocrites, while the Democrats were consistent on Syrian strikes?

For your sake, go have a cigarette and think about your response.

For the avoidance of doubt, I literally said that was NOT my point. I literally spelled out that my point was that many Democrats vocally opposed Obama.

As to the hypocrite point you're making, I'm not sure I follow.

[Kung Wu]

For the avoidance of doubt, I literally said that was NOT my point. I literally spelled out that my point was that many Democrats vocally opposed Obama.

As to the hypocrite point you're making, I'm not sure I follow.

Let's start over. Why are those your favorite stats?

[Shocker1976]

Let's start over. Why are those your favorite stats?

Life experiences with my friend described in my previous post inform - you are wasting your time with this discussion Kung Wu.

[jdshock]

Let's start over. Why are those your favorite stats?

This sounds like a way more efficient and interesting route than just explaining what you meant in your post.

If the crux of your argument depends on whether these are actually my "favorite" statistics, I'll admit I exaggerated. Currently, for example, I'm much more interested in Giannis's PER eclipsing Wilt's two most efficient seasons.

Now, are you willing to just explain what you meant or do we really have to go through this? Because I'll admit, I'm probably not going to do that.

[jdshock]

Life experiences with my friend described in my previous post inform - you are wasting your time with this discussion Kung Wu.

No wonder you have difficulty maintaining that friendship at times. In no world should political views hinder your ability to have a conversation with someone.

As has been my point on this forum time and time again, it would appear society is less willing to agree with that general concept.

[Kung Wu]

This sounds like a way more efficient and interesting route than just explaining what you meant in your post ...
Now, are you willing to just explain what you meant or do we really have to go through this? Because I'll admit, I'm probably not going to do that.

I'm trying to understand your original post, because I think I misunderstood it's intention.

Was your point that Democrats haven't changed at all but Republicans had one opinion under Obama but a different opinion under Trump? Or was it purely that the Democrats haven't changed at all about Syrian air-strikes and you have no opinion about the Republican numbers?

[jdshock]

I'm trying to understand your original post, because I think I misunderstood it's intention.

Was your point that Democrats haven't changed at all but Republicans had one opinion under Obama but a different opinion under Trump? Or was it purely that the Democrats haven't changed at all about Syrian air-strikes and you have no opinion about the Republican numbers?

Yes, part of the reason I think it is an interesting statistic as it relates to this particular conversation is the difference between the Republican and Democratic numbers. The initial argument was that Dems would never criticize their "messiah" over these issues even though Obama was doing effectively the same thing as Trump. I think the statistic shows that a similar percentage of Democrats supported Syria strikes under Obama as support Syria strikes under Trump. I think the statistic shows that, if anything, Republicans are more prone to swings in support regarding military actions based on who is president at that time. As I interpret the data, a smaller portion of Republicans supported Syria strikes under Obama and a much larger portion supported them under Trump.

Again, I would be happy to hear your interpretation that suggested I go smoke a cigarette. It doesn't feel like there has been any additional explanation here.

[Shocker1976]

No wonder you have difficulty maintaining that friendship at times. In no world should political views hinder your ability to have a conversation with someone.

As has been my point on this forum time and time again, it would appear society is less willing to agree with that general concept.

You misunderstood my post, I have had no problem maintaining my friendship for the past 64 years. In fact, I have a monthly conference call with two gentlemen with whom I have been friends for six decades. One is the gentleman who IMO represents your type of thinking/posting while the second friend is a big fan of Rush Limbaugh. My frustration results from his willingness to hold and voice strong convictions based on a lack of knowledge/experience; which leads to repeating conversations on a number of topics that in a reasonable discussion would lead participants to reach a common understanding if not agreement.

[pogo]

You misunderstood my post, I have had no problem maintaining my friendship for the past 64 years. In fact, I have a monthly conference call with two gentlemen with whom I have been friends for six decades. One is the gentleman who IMO represents your type of thinking/posting while the second friend is a big fan of Rush Limbaugh. My frustration results from his willingness to hold and voice strong convictions based on a lack of knowledge/experience; which leads to repeating conversations on a number of topics that in a reasonable discussion would lead participants to reach a common understanding if not agreement.

Therein lies the problem. Society as a whole is less tolerant of opposing views and many feel put upon when someone voices an opposing view. At one time being bi-partisan meant someone was willing to work with those with opposing views which I thought was a sign of strength but now is viewed by many as a sign of weakness and a traitor to his "party". I believe even Bob Dole expressed his consternation about the lack of bi-partisan cooperation in our government.

[pogo]

The only problem I have with this topic is the word assassinated used to describe the killing of the Iranian general. I would think "Justified elimination" is more true.

[wufan]

Therein lies the problem. Society as a whole is less tolerant of opposing views and many feel put upon when someone voices an opposing view. At one time being bi-partisan meant someone was willing to work with those with opposing views which I thought was a sign of strength but now is viewed by many as a sign of weakness and a traitor to his "party". I believe even Bob Dole expressed his consternation about the lack of bi-partisan cooperation in our government.

I think this is true. I think the reason we are seeing less tolerance of dissenting opinions is because the two parties are working within different ideologies; equity vs equality. Previously, both parties stood for equality, but had differing opinions on how to get there. This is almost certainly further exasperated by social media.