Neo

1). If there's room, I'm in. Grateful. 2). Mr. Whiskey, relative to your QB comment but outside the realm of fantasy, who starts for the Bills?

Three sentences. Yes.

Anyone besides me think a Clinton v Fiorina debate would be awesome to watch?

Because all lives do matter, I hope. Isn't that your point? In a dialogue with one party, the other failed to say "I agree" before making an equally true/valid statement. This made that party a smart-assed quipster hipster. Or, wait, it made him unprepared as a speaker, or a disingenuous politician. I forget the crime as it shifts When the audience didn't reply to "all lives matter" (equally true and non-controversial), aren't they held to the same standard? Perhaps only one orthodoxy is held to the standard. Or one career. Or one race. Or one age group. Or one religion. I'm preparing a chart to assist me in daily living. PS: I agree! Phewwwww, I almost dropped that.

Did the audience have to say "we agree" to O'Malley?

I will take note. "All lives matter" is something O'Malley and I have no knowledge of. It is a sentence indicating a void in our thought processes. Saying "all Iives matter" is pretending to be hip. Should Obama have been shouted down as an uninformed hipster wanna be in my dream?

If you thought O'Malley was delivering a quip, I have no response. If you think O'Malley said anything making him worthy of being put in his place, I have no response. If you think O'Malley wasn't interested, I have no response. If you think he or I deserve to be b**** slapped, I have no response. I am trying to follow the logic. "Nod your head approvingly at everything I say and add or subtract nothing or you are a smart-assed quipster in need of a good b**** slapping to put you in your place". That would certainly keep our post counts lower. I have to go, now. I'm having an existential moment after defending Governor O'Malley for several days. Perhaps I'll rationalize that I'm actually defending decorum, polite society, dialogue used to advance ideas, manufactured grievance at the expense of quality self governance dialogue, mutual respect, and the belief in good intentions where no evidence to the contrary exists. Good heavens, a PROGRESSIVE! What have I done? Who am I? I had a dream last night. President Obama was at a Great Lakes Environmental conference in Chicago. The moderator told him "we need to clean Lake Michigan". He replied "we need to clean all of the Great Lakes". The smart-assed quipster, who just doesn't get it, and was intent at shutting down the "Clean Lake Michigan" team, was immediately hissed at and shouted down. Lucky for him, he wasn't deservedly b*itch slapped. How could he be so callous as to say that? Doesn't he recognize there's an invisible "no" in front of his sentence? Doesn't he feel guilt as a member of the privileged class he's in (former Illinois resident who consumed manufactured goods) that contributed to the pollution of Lake Michigan? “But I don’t want to go among mad people," Alice remarked. "Oh, you can’t help that," said the Cat: "we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad." "How do you know I’m mad?" said Alice. "You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn’t have come here.” ― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

Succinctly, no. Are you shouting me down when you responded to me with a continuation of the dialogue? On second thought, I'll join your world, NOW STOP SHOUTING ME DOWN!!!!

Yes, if the alternative is shouting down the other sentence. Given the choice between asking "do you mean "too"" or shouting down an invited and sincere speaker, I would say it is up to them. I'd answer "yes, of course "too", let's continue discussing the issue".

Agree, agree, agree, agree! And, while BuffaninATL doesn't need my help, I offer the following to BagBoy as evidence, if not quite proof. http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/presidents-inner-circle-conceded-obamacare-rationing-2/ Of course, the concession comes after the denial and the sale in the most transparent administration of all time. Details, details ...

The inimitable Yuri ... small joys!

I might surprise you. This ol' fiscal conservative, who doesn't think one big government is effective at managing the lives of individuals, and who doesn't manufacture rights out of thin air, is thrilled by the thought of everyone having the benefit of health care. But, it is rationing. It has to be. It's only not rationing when that word can't be used to sell it. I pay more for less health care so that others can receive a benefit that's for the greater good, but not a right. I consent to this rationing because, well, because I'm a good man. Ration away, but recognize it for what it is. Honest debate is our friend. For the record, the Affordable Care Act isn't the best way to provide it. I know, I know, MY VIEW. It's a tax I am willing to pay. It's expensive. The Supreme Court turned itself into a Gumby pretzel to protect its implementation without bringing to light the deception. None of this is good. But, it's health care for all. I'm glad I live in a country where this benefit can be provided, with taxation and rationing, despite the fact that the debate never took place. I'd be proud if the debate took place and yielded the same result. My ideal leader: "We should provide health care to all and we'll pay for it by taxing those who have it and rationing its distribution." Where was he or she? The "it wouldn't have gotten done had we been honest and said that" response is for cowards and the disingenuous. This wasn't the first time that's happened. It won't be the last. The overwhelming majority of your total health care expenditures take place in the last years of your life. It begs for rationing. Yuck, what politician will touch that?

Eleven, that is the best explanation I've seen. It doesn't address shouting down invited guests, acknowledging the legitimacy of the invited guest's view, ignoring the larger problem when someone's addressing it, or the insistence that the "all lives" speaker is dumb, a smart ass or has ulterior motives, but it is the best explanation. It doesn't sway me. Here's a scenario I think fits more tightly. The person not getting fed says "I'm not getting fed here and many more people aren't getting fed here, at school, in restaurants, and at dozens of places much more frequently than just here at this table". The father replies "you should all get fed, here and at the dozens of places you visit much more frequently than this single table". I'd agree with, and not shout down, that father. I think he's closer to O'Malley who gave me no "smart ass" vibe. PS: Hoss, I recognized your similar construct. Agree. PS2: What I'd like to hear, for context, answered by the "black lives matter" team - an answer to a simple question. Do you think cops killing black kids is a bigger issue for black kids than other blacks killing black kids? I'd listen respectfully to learn. No one's called me out on this, but my passion around the issue has nothing to do with the sanctity of black lives or the legitimacy of the cop/black issue. Instead, it has to do with my impression that a racial grievance is elevated above the sanctity of the lives. When the sanctity of the lives is the primary issue, delivering the message to cops is disingenuous. When race grievance (very often legitimate) is the primary issue, I am left wondering the motive of the person making the point. When you shout down "all lives matter", are you doing so in order to avoid a harder conversation and instead focus the blame on some "other"? Thoughtful, all ... you've heard more than enough from me!

I'm having fun with you and me. Recant nothing! You have all of my respect.

I'm laughing. This isn't the first time, nor will it be the last, I've heard THAT said ....

You're going to get some commentary on your violent imagery. Second amendment and hammers: coming soon to a blog near you... icrackmeup

I will sincerely consider the "to divert" concept. Before I do, though, I've concluded that if it was a diversion, it was a diversion to a larger issue that takes more lives. I see merit in that. I'm not throwing dirt. I'm pointing out a larger fire. Wouldn't joining O'Malley fight the larger fire? I get the point. It's not hard, subtle, or complicated. I just have a much larger affinity for the much larger point.

I felt no vibe that you were accusing me of anything, truly. Would you say "Duh, it goes without being shouted down"?

Interesting aside, to me, in light of you referencing logic. Let me start by admitting I'm no logician. I have, however, spent the better part of a week considering how I'd frame my thoughts on this topic. My consideration led me to email a former professor earlier today. I've not had any contact with him since I last left his classroom at UB. I remember him well. He's a logician who exposed me to criticle thinking in Logic 101. I mentioned "black lives matter" only as a topic without volunteering any thoughts or conclusions. It was a great joy, for me, to touch this man and express my gratitude 33 years later. Agree: Two different topics. Civilian on civilian Focus: It's mine when I say all lives matter. That's honorable and shouldn't be shouted down. You tackle trout, I'll tackle whales. Language: Racist condemnation? Where? Am I guilty? KKK: Take responsibility for, no. Join me and others in condemning, yes. Addendum: "Black lives matter" would be an appropriate message to take to a KKK gathering. Governor O'Malley is not a Klansman.

For me, all lives matter. I'm not dismissive about anything. How could you know if I was? Do I value one life more than another? I've considered the "you're missing the point" argument. Let's see if I am. I believe "the point" is to draw attention to black lives being ended by a largely white society and/or police force. Further, I believe the point of assailing the obvious truism that "all lives matter" is not to say that white lives don't matter. Instead, the point of is to say that "all lives" dilutes the emphasis on an especially endangered black life. Did I get that right? If so, my thoughts go further. I'll be more inclined to join the black lives matter team when it delivers its message in under privileged neighborhoods where blacks kill blacks at a rate far in excess of white cops killing blacks. If the point is "black lives matter", where would you take your message? I'd take it to the place where more black lives are being lost. If you take it to the realm of race grievance (and there are gazillions of legitimate race grievances), I'm left wondering if your most important concern isn't, in fact, grievance and not the effectiveness of saving lives. If you take it to the realm of greater effectiveness, I'll join you. All lives matter is necessarily inclusive. Black lives matter is not necessarily inclusive. Making a non-inclusive statement to demonstrate an emphasis will cause me to wonder why you chose one emphasis over another.

When "all lives matter" is shouted down, you are living in unusual times regardless of your side on any issue.

I was a Windows warrior for years. I learned and worked with registries, installed additional memory, formatted and reformatted, partitioned drives, removed viruses, etc. I was the old guy who could make it work. I was proud. Now, I have a Mac. I turn it on and it works, every day, year after year. It talks to my entire house and all of my family's devices. I was turned.

Random thoughts while lurking and wondering whatever happened to Morris Titanic ... * What civil discourse around race, an important and emotional topic. Mutual respect while framing an issue all the while acknowledging good intentions and humanity. * Human beings recognize racial differences and struggle with the genetically hard wired instinct to fear the different. Here's to the eventual triumph of knowledge and civility. Different is a threat, base case. Different is an advantage and an opportunity to be celebrated, learned and advanced thought. * America has a race problem. It's not unique to Americans or America's history. What is (more) uniquely American is the diverse nature of our citizens, our pledge to equality, 24 hour news as a business with a profit motive, and a representative form of government that produces public discourse where politicians benefit by taking up the shield of this group or that. * More important than race, in my view and when lumping behaviors together, are economics and family circumstances. Show me three kids of different races growing up in the same neighborhood with similar family structures and I'll show you three kids with similar characteristics, race notwithstanding. Controversy: This is the primary reason I cry when government programs designed to assist those so disadvantaged in fact subsidize and perpetuate the circumstances so enslaving. Is welfare assistance to a single mom having her fourth child really helping any of us in anything but the "for today" time frame? I think "no". Any solution is long term and painful to those we've trapped. I see a multi generational glide path where subsidies are phased out (humane to the trapped) and growth of opportunity replaces them. * "Identity politics" play into this. I long for a candidate who says "I care not what color you are or who you worship". I long more for an electorate where this would resonate. While we're identities, we're less Americans. This doesn't mean ending the cultural practices that make America so rich. Google "Governor O'Malley" and "all lives matter". * "Politically Correct" language drives me nuts. As others have suggested, it serves no purpose where people are polite, civil, and respectful of alternative views without assuming ill intent. Where others are impolite, uncivil or disrespectful, the issue isn't their language. Google "micro aggression" and look for the just plain silly. * Mug shots, thug shots, and choir boys. I've seen what Hoss is referring to. I'm not convinced it's intentional. It certainly is from time to time, I suspect. However, the recent Cincinnati police/driver incident seemed balanced to me. The young man was beautiful. The cop was originally pictured in uniform, but stories quickly shifted to a startled mug shot, perhaps when it became available. True even at the dreaded Fox News. * You are all the best. Post Script: How cool it is to be a Buffalonian living in Florida and seeing 716 as my post total. Day after day, small joys.

True. Another question: Which victim was saved by a law? Would you say neither? The gun / Sudafed law that prevents a law breaker from killing interests me.

You all make me think. Legitimate question not intended to score 2nd amendment points: What causes more deaths in the U.S., handguns or meth? Maybe buying Sudafed should be more difficult. I'm googling without convincing results, so far. Preliminary feel: handguns.