M
MisterMike
Guest
loki09789 said:watch it MM, here come the "your only a programmed drone of the system because you don't agree with us" comments.
Wake UP!
"Bring it on."
Quarantining Dissent
- Thread starter Bob Hubbard
- Start date
"Bring it on."
loki09789
Senior Master
MisterMike said:
I'd love to consult my local Secret Service branch office for general info, but I would be afraid that, with some of the language/tone issues here combined with the martial arts image, that I might be asked to name names....
I am KIDDING...sort of....NO, really - they wouldn't do that....would they?....Nah!....Well, Mabye.....
See now they have me paranoid
loki09789
Senior Master
"The Secret Service does not discuss methods or means in any detail, however generally speaking, the advance team surveys each site to be visited. From these surveys, the members determine manpower, equipment, hospitals, and evacuation routes for emergencies. Fire, rescue, and other public service personnel in the community are alerted. A command post is established with full communications facilities. The assistance of the military, federal, state, county, and local law enforcement organizations is a vital part of the entire security operation.
Before the protectee's arrival, the lead advance agent coordinates all law enforcement representatives participating in the visit. Personnel are posted and are alerted to specific problems associated with the visit. Intelligence information is discussed, identification specified, and emergency options outlined. Prior to the arrival of the protectee, checkpoints are established, and access to the secured area is limited."
Got this straight off the Secret Service Web Site....hope they can't finger print the computer....
Before the protectee's arrival, the lead advance agent coordinates all law enforcement representatives participating in the visit. Personnel are posted and are alerted to specific problems associated with the visit. Intelligence information is discussed, identification specified, and emergency options outlined. Prior to the arrival of the protectee, checkpoints are established, and access to the secured area is limited."
Got this straight off the Secret Service Web Site....hope they can't finger print the computer
....
M
MisterMike
Guest
loki09789 said:I'd love to consult my local Secret Service branch office for general info, but I would be afraid that, with some of the language/tone issues here combined with the martial arts image, that I might be asked to name names....
I am KIDDING...sort of....NO, really - they wouldn't do that....would they?....Nah!....Well, Mabye.....
See now they have me paranoid
"They're coming to take me away, HA HA. They're coming to take me away..."
loki09789 said:Obviously, with either political or protective motivations, it is creating a negative image that I would agree is leaving a bad taste in civil liberties minded folks. While I won't agree that it is intentional or primarily designed for the squashing of free speech, I would say that it demonstrates a poor 'finger on the pulse' of the citizenry from the Administration/Security/POTUS'. The cowboy way isn't making friends in lowly places
It seems as if you are rather fond of the "false analogy" fallacy. There is a large difference between a political dissenter and an assassin. All of the Pre-incident indicators of an assassination point to someone who has pre-planned their strategy and tactics. That points to someone who is ready and willing to act as in imposter if neccessary. Look at the statistics. Or at least look at the anecdotal evidence out there. Very few assassinations have been accomplished by those who go out and profess loudly their dissent and then do their deed. Read "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin DeBecker. The chapter on assassination will be particularly enlightening - that is if the ice hasn't formed...
It just doesn't make any sense and it is not good security policy because it sets up a precident that shows an assassin HOW to get close to the president. All of the security arguments have holes you could drive trucks through! No other presidents have done this. NOT EVEN REAGAN WHO WAS THE VICTIM OF AN ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT!!!! This is not a security procedure. It is about protecting a president from dissenting opinions when he is infront of the media in order to show a false image of solidarity. It's unreality TV.
Perhaps the mindless drone argument could be a factor in the dissenting opinion, but I do have faith. According to Mezirow, even you could have a transformation experience from this discussion...
WAKE UP ALL YE MINDLESS DRONES OF AMERICA! PEOPLE DIED FOR THE RIGHTS THAT THIS PRESIDENT BLANDLY TRAMPLES!
upnorthkyosa
PS - Integrity is something you do when no one is watching. How about being strong enough to stand up to those who disagree with you...does that count?
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Again and again, you might want to go back to the Republican convention in LA of 2000--this has nothing to do with security. Nothing at all. It is a matter of keeping certain images off the evening news--which last time I checked, amounts to censorship.
I'd also be fascinated to learn exactly how it is that anyone knows exactly what it is the Hizzoner knows. He certainly speaks like a profoundly ignorant man (not as ignernt as, say Dan Quayle, but ignorant, and anyway god knows that Al Gore proved the limits of being well-informed) and I really do wonder just how we are to know that he has the slightest awareness of other viewpoints.
The point is, guys, that dissent got erased. I continue to be amazed by the intellectual contortions folks are willing to go through to justify muzzling an old lady in a wheelchair.
I'd also be fascinated to learn exactly how it is that anyone knows exactly what it is the Hizzoner knows. He certainly speaks like a profoundly ignorant man (not as ignernt as, say Dan Quayle, but ignorant, and anyway god knows that Al Gore proved the limits of being well-informed) and I really do wonder just how we are to know that he has the slightest awareness of other viewpoints.
The point is, guys, that dissent got erased. I continue to be amazed by the intellectual contortions folks are willing to go through to justify muzzling an old lady in a wheelchair.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
Just a couple of thoughts, before I even read the next 10 or 12 posts in this thread.loki09789 said:
I do know the geography from where the article takes place. I have wanted to go and take a picture of the school building where the President was speaking ... and measure the distance to where the protestors were cordoned off.
And, this is New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, we practice very personal politics. If one is so inclined, they can meet each and every presidential candidate before the primary. I would be willing to bet that Betty met with G.W. when he was a candidate.
Again, she served 12 terms in the NH house. The president should have been out on the street thanking her for her years dedicated public service.
loki09789
Senior Master
Assassins carrying guns, disguised as 'pro-Bush' or who ever are only one category of threat that the SS prepares for.
Just because it wasn't done before doesn't mean dooky. Tradition is not an effective argument in a forum titled "Martial Talk" when innovations/adaptiveness is discussed to meet the needs of the moment....
After the explosions at abortion clinics and the Atlanta olympics/Unibomber/anthrax scares.... distance is ONLY ONE technique, applicable for a small percentage of threat types to the priniciple. But, SS have to prepare for all contingencies with as simple and manageable plan as possible....sounds like fight principles again to me.
Look at the Forensic Journal pieces attached to the Secret Service Web Site concerning Threat Assessment and the data compiled about past threats - lethal and non lethal contacts - on officials. They explore the weakness of 'assumptions' about threats and the holes in profiling procedures as stand alone tools for 'predictors.' Just an example, the age range of threat persons ranged from 16 to 73. There were other profile types of data that I read and saw as evidence that - in the moment and in planning - the threats could come from places totally unexpected if you are only assuming certain types of attacks/motives.
I have worked crowd control for events, and the crowd IS the problem because - citing the OJ Simpson Riots - even reasonable people, when they are banded together, can be capable of unbelievable things when the passions of the moment can almost 'permit' unacceptable behavior. My experience is with crowds at a 'fun' event and they acted unruly, rude, pushy and did things that they would never think of individually.It is a bazaar phenomenon to watch.
What if the subject of a group of 'anti-' demonstrators is within hate and discontent range, and like "the shot heard round the world" one persons action sets off a whole chain of events because it gives 'permission' for the rest of the crowd to start creating havoc? It has happened that way and it will again.
Simple reasoning also rules here too:
If the protection team is continuing to use a procedure that is creating this much public disapproval and criticism, and all the spin doctors/public relation types are seeing the same disapproval remarks (the POTUS/administration do really read the papers and get briefings regulary) and are STAYING with the practice in spite of that - I would say that their primary motivation is protection and not political because the protection could be costing some political approval.
Because the 'keeping the images away' logic has tons of holes as well. If it was that big a problem, why aren't the camera teams/reporters chasing down these 'quarrentined' dissenters and getting there spin and comments? Why isn't the media hooking into this gripping and attention grabbing problem to blast the story all over the news and raise the awareness of the viewer....as well as get tons of advertising clout with the increase in Nielson points?
I know the public relations/press secretaries of the Bush administration/republicans are corralling them as well - away from the dissenters. So, even the investigative reporters, press releases from these demonstration groups to the networks and other forms of photo ops/platform speech making situations are being squashed as well...
With all the open criticism and concerns of the POTUS' policies in Iraq, the media is being strong armed into silence about this incidious dissenter/information control tatic...
Have fun.
Just because it wasn't done before doesn't mean dooky. Tradition is not an effective argument in a forum titled "Martial Talk" when innovations/adaptiveness is discussed to meet the needs of the moment....
After the explosions at abortion clinics and the Atlanta olympics/Unibomber/anthrax scares.... distance is ONLY ONE technique, applicable for a small percentage of threat types to the priniciple. But, SS have to prepare for all contingencies with as simple and manageable plan as possible....sounds like fight principles again to me.
Look at the Forensic Journal pieces attached to the Secret Service Web Site concerning Threat Assessment and the data compiled about past threats - lethal and non lethal contacts - on officials. They explore the weakness of 'assumptions' about threats and the holes in profiling procedures as stand alone tools for 'predictors.' Just an example, the age range of threat persons ranged from 16 to 73. There were other profile types of data that I read and saw as evidence that - in the moment and in planning - the threats could come from places totally unexpected if you are only assuming certain types of attacks/motives.
I have worked crowd control for events, and the crowd IS the problem because - citing the OJ Simpson Riots - even reasonable people, when they are banded together, can be capable of unbelievable things when the passions of the moment can almost 'permit' unacceptable behavior. My experience is with crowds at a 'fun' event and they acted unruly, rude, pushy and did things that they would never think of individually.It is a bazaar phenomenon to watch.
What if the subject of a group of 'anti-' demonstrators is within hate and discontent range, and like "the shot heard round the world" one persons action sets off a whole chain of events because it gives 'permission' for the rest of the crowd to start creating havoc? It has happened that way and it will again.
Simple reasoning also rules here too:
If the protection team is continuing to use a procedure that is creating this much public disapproval and criticism, and all the spin doctors/public relation types are seeing the same disapproval remarks (the POTUS/administration do really read the papers and get briefings regulary) and are STAYING with the practice in spite of that - I would say that their primary motivation is protection and not political because the protection could be costing some political approval.
Because the 'keeping the images away' logic has tons of holes as well. If it was that big a problem, why aren't the camera teams/reporters chasing down these 'quarrentined' dissenters and getting there spin and comments? Why isn't the media hooking into this gripping and attention grabbing problem to blast the story all over the news and raise the awareness of the viewer....as well as get tons of advertising clout with the increase in Nielson points?
I know the public relations/press secretaries of the Bush administration/republicans are corralling them as well - away from the dissenters. So, even the investigative reporters, press releases from these demonstration groups to the networks and other forms of photo ops/platform speech making situations are being squashed as well...
With all the open criticism and concerns of the POTUS' policies in Iraq, the media is being strong armed into silence about this incidious dissenter/information control tatic...
Have fun.
Nope.
I too have worked crowd control and I HAVE actually worked to control REALLY unruly crowds. Part of the security work I did was for heavy metal concerts. Think mosh pit and drugs. Anyways, the techniques that we performed controlled that crowd just fine and we didn't have all of the fancy equipment that the SS has available to them. A crowd of protesters getting out of hand can be dispersed and the president can be huddled off without much risk if you have the right training and I am SURE that the SS has that training. The assertion that a spontaneous riot catching the POTUS and tearing him apart is not only bogus, but it discounts the intensive training that SS have had to deal with that sort of thing.
Granted, new threats are always developing. Assassins will look for the weakest areas to strike. Assassins are also creatures of habit. There are many pre-incident indicators that are VERY reliable in this respect. This means that it is entirely possible for an assassin to use the current "security" situation for their advantage. In my opinion, this kind of treatment, if it is "security" related creates a blindspot in the web meant to catch threats. There is nothing simple and manageable about treating one group of people different then another. Again, it just points the way for an assassin to be successful.
Profiling, alone, is not a good predictor, true, but I never made that point. The point I made is that the "profiling" in this case has nothing to do with security and everything to do with squelching dissent.
We can discuss security procedure until the cows come home and in the end the pro-security/moving dissenters argument becomes completely asanine, because the threat from protest groups has proven to be nil in the past. A protest group, seeing the presence of suited SS and visibly armed guards surrounding the president is going to have a really hard time assuming a mob mentality. Obviously, you've never been someone in this situation facing down the threat of bullets if things get out of hand.
As far as your fight/martial arts analogy goes, that too, is bogus. You don't block the left hand and let the right one close when you fight. Do you think you (or the president) are proof against right hands? Do you think there is anyone on the right who is unhappy with what the president is doing? If this was a security issue EVERYONE would be treated equally regardless of their political leanings.
Using your simple reasoning rules, it also follows that...
1. The reason the practice of squelching dissent is continued dispite the negative press from the left is because it has proven effective for squelching dissent. The administration doesn't care what the left thinks. As long as the right is convinced that it is for security purposes, the left is nothing but a "focus group".
2. Yeah, like that article posted was super secret covert dissent propaganda distributed by an underground network of illuminated radicals who are constantly on the run from the man. The media IS hooking into this issue and they are going after these people who are having their first amendment rights trampled. How in the heck are we able to talk about this issue if they have not been doing that? Countless, countless, countless numbers of peices have been done on this issue as long as the media remains "left" though, the right won't give a darn. It's security dang it, and screw all the evidence otherwise.
3. Dude, you need to get real. This is not conspiracy theory that you can just blithely denounce as more liberal trash. The destruction of our civil liberties is REALLY happening and you can only stand their so long before the ARK pulls away.
Have Fun Swimming
upnorthkyosa
I too have worked crowd control and I HAVE actually worked to control REALLY unruly crowds. Part of the security work I did was for heavy metal concerts. Think mosh pit and drugs. Anyways, the techniques that we performed controlled that crowd just fine and we didn't have all of the fancy equipment that the SS has available to them. A crowd of protesters getting out of hand can be dispersed and the president can be huddled off without much risk if you have the right training and I am SURE that the SS has that training. The assertion that a spontaneous riot catching the POTUS and tearing him apart is not only bogus, but it discounts the intensive training that SS have had to deal with that sort of thing.
Granted, new threats are always developing. Assassins will look for the weakest areas to strike. Assassins are also creatures of habit. There are many pre-incident indicators that are VERY reliable in this respect. This means that it is entirely possible for an assassin to use the current "security" situation for their advantage. In my opinion, this kind of treatment, if it is "security" related creates a blindspot in the web meant to catch threats. There is nothing simple and manageable about treating one group of people different then another. Again, it just points the way for an assassin to be successful.
Profiling, alone, is not a good predictor, true, but I never made that point. The point I made is that the "profiling" in this case has nothing to do with security and everything to do with squelching dissent.
We can discuss security procedure until the cows come home and in the end the pro-security/moving dissenters argument becomes completely asanine, because the threat from protest groups has proven to be nil in the past. A protest group, seeing the presence of suited SS and visibly armed guards surrounding the president is going to have a really hard time assuming a mob mentality. Obviously, you've never been someone in this situation facing down the threat of bullets if things get out of hand.
As far as your fight/martial arts analogy goes, that too, is bogus. You don't block the left hand and let the right one close when you fight. Do you think you (or the president) are proof against right hands? Do you think there is anyone on the right who is unhappy with what the president is doing? If this was a security issue EVERYONE would be treated equally regardless of their political leanings.
Using your simple reasoning rules, it also follows that...
1. The reason the practice of squelching dissent is continued dispite the negative press from the left is because it has proven effective for squelching dissent. The administration doesn't care what the left thinks. As long as the right is convinced that it is for security purposes, the left is nothing but a "focus group".
2. Yeah, like that article posted was super secret covert dissent propaganda distributed by an underground network of illuminated radicals who are constantly on the run from the man. The media IS hooking into this issue and they are going after these people who are having their first amendment rights trampled. How in the heck are we able to talk about this issue if they have not been doing that? Countless, countless, countless numbers of peices have been done on this issue as long as the media remains "left" though, the right won't give a darn. It's security dang it, and screw all the evidence otherwise.
3. Dude, you need to get real. This is not conspiracy theory that you can just blithely denounce as more liberal trash. The destruction of our civil liberties is REALLY happening and you can only stand their so long before the ARK pulls away.
Have Fun Swimming
upnorthkyosa
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
I continue to be amazed. This was an old lady in a wheelchair.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
Well, Betty sure had some things to say in the Nashua Telegraph. However, one reason the National Media may not be covering this story to the extent you suggest, is because the International Conglomerates that own the media might not be interested in a little old lady in a wheel chair. They might be interested in encouraging the Bush Administration policies that so handsomely reward the very wealthy, and the corporations.loki09789 said:
We do not have a 'Guardian' type of news station here in the US; an independent journalistic resource the actually employs skepticism as a vital ingredient in the news gathering process. We have few independent sources of news. We have NewCorp, Disney, & GE dispensing news; yes dispensing, that is taking what the government says and repeating it without fact checking or second sourcing. In those companies, the news is driven by the bottom line, not newsworthyness. How much media time was devoted to Martha Stuarts trial (an honest news event, concerning a $60,000.00 stock loss) compared to the Medicare Perscription Drug accounting error ($150,000,000,000.00 worth of bad math known and hidden by the Bush Administration) prior to the congressional vote.
... but I'm just one of those whinin' liberals.
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
Strange that how when a democrat is in power, the media is a biased liberal institution and when a republican is in power, its "big business" protecting its own.
My take on this stuff...
The SS has the "last word" on security matters so Im doubtful of the the premise that this is all the Presidents doing. I worked a VP security detail when his motorcade passed through my Town. The SS had set up the same thing for him. Ive worked personal security for the Military and Civilian LE. The Principals let the security teams deal with security and Ive never had one demand something like this. If anything they complain that its giving them a bad image but they are told that its a necessary measure.
My take on this stuff...
The SS has the "last word" on security matters so Im doubtful of the the premise that this is all the Presidents doing. I worked a VP security detail when his motorcade passed through my Town. The SS had set up the same thing for him. Ive worked personal security for the Military and Civilian LE. The Principals let the security teams deal with security and Ive never had one demand something like this. If anything they complain that its giving them a bad image but they are told that its a necessary measure.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #113
Robert, that wheelchair might have been rigged to explode, or been armed with those WMD they can't seem to find in Iraq.rmcrobertson said:
Anyway, have you ever seen those old ladies do Bingo? They make MMA folks quake in fear.
:rofl:
Hey, is it just me, or does all this "SS" stuff remind anyone of another group with similar initials? Both groups wore dress shirts (white/brown), black ties, were involved in security of political figures, are a bit overzelous in their duties....difference seems to be a bit of color, an armband and a little mustache. Oh, and one roughs up old ladies, the other babies. :/ Regardless, there are similarities in the crackdown of public displays of disent. Oh wait though...this is post-9/11 I keep forgetting. We're scared of those terrorist folks and all the evil they can do. What color alert are we on today? Muave? I just can't keep up.
</sarcasm>
Tgace said:
On the Media point, this is another one of those "wake up and smell the coffee issues." 20 years ago we had a multitude of large media sources owned by a very diverse group of people - and this is without the internet! Now we have three. If you can't see the consolidation and dissemination of information in this phenomenon, the mindless drone label starts to fit a little better
On the other point, I would like to see some information concerning protest groups and their physical threat to the president. I would like to see this information cross-referenced to that of the typical assassin in order to assess for myself just how the situation has changed to require this new procedure. If other presidents did not do this, sure their must be some data to show how protesters have suddenly become "dangerous".
upnorthkyosa
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
I think this statement could be analyzed for validity. I am not so certain there is now, or ever was a 'Liberal Bias' in the media. Certainly, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly repeat this statement often enough, but that does not necessarily make it true.Tgace said:
Do you think the 'Media' is biased toward 'Liberal' positions? Why?
Kaith Rustaz said:
Can anyone say Reichstag fire? This could be a whole new thread. I saw a good website on this a while back. I wonder if I can still find it...
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
I wasnt making a statement about the media as much as I was making an observation about an opinion shift regarding it. When Clinton was in office "liberal media" was being tossed everywhere. Now that its Bush its a "big busniess" issue. Gripes always seem to be a backlash against the party in power.michaeledward said:
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
Dont know....call your secret service office and ask. My point is that I think this is more a SS issue than a presidential one.upnorthkyosa said:On the other point, I would like to see some information concerning protest groups and their physical threat to the president. I would like to see this information cross-referenced to that of the typical assassin in order to assess for myself just how the situation has changed to require this new procedure. If other presidents did not do this, sure their must be some data to show how protesters have suddenly become "dangerous".
upnorthkyosa
loki09789
Senior Master
If this is going to spiral downward into 'cross referencing data', I would love to see where you have the transcripts/memos of the POTUS telling the SS (only an abreviation for speed, let's not go too far here) that he wants those dissenter quarrentined. This isn't the first time or the last that there have been POTUS who come under criticism. This isn't the first or last time that the SS/security practices have been misinterpreted/misunderstood by those without any real knowledge on the subject. Much like those who don't know much about martial arts, scientific study, educational practices, military operations or other topics create opinions without all the information or an equal amount of information/experience from both sides of the issue.
This is all speculation, opinion....sand pounding yet again. What are you going to do about it if you are so upset? Yell at me because I disagree? I didn't call anyone here Liberal nor did I bring up conspiracy....And since no one is talking about reform actions that they are taking when I asked earlier = except for Bob H. who talked about keeping folks informed = I am taking that lack of data into consideration when I form my opinions about folks on these forums. I think how people behave in a 'consequence free/uninhibiting' environment can be more telling than anywhere else, one's true character can shine because you don't hold back as much as you would at work, home, school....
As an MP, Marine, Private Security, Teacher.... I have been told that I was 'infringing' or doing something that 'wasn't right' and had line and letter of policy quoted to me by those subject to my job appointed authority on a regular basis. The security details that are protecting the POTUS are experiencing the same thing in different ways.
Would you feel better if I said "Yes, I see your point" wait, I did say that, I just added that, based on my training, experience and view that I don't agree with it. Okay, for a group of folks talking about individual freedom and right to dissent, I am feeling a lot of peer pressure to leave, shut up or convert.
Have fun with more of your flock.... this is interestingly revealing about the 'openness' of liberalism.
This is all speculation, opinion....sand pounding yet again. What are you going to do about it if you are so upset? Yell at me because I disagree? I didn't call anyone here Liberal nor did I bring up conspiracy....And since no one is talking about reform actions that they are taking when I asked earlier = except for Bob H. who talked about keeping folks informed = I am taking that lack of data into consideration when I form my opinions about folks on these forums. I think how people behave in a 'consequence free/uninhibiting' environment can be more telling than anywhere else, one's true character can shine because you don't hold back as much as you would at work, home, school....
As an MP, Marine, Private Security, Teacher.... I have been told that I was 'infringing' or doing something that 'wasn't right' and had line and letter of policy quoted to me by those subject to my job appointed authority on a regular basis. The security details that are protecting the POTUS are experiencing the same thing in different ways.
Would you feel better if I said "Yes, I see your point" wait, I did say that, I just added that, based on my training, experience and view that I don't agree with it. Okay, for a group of folks talking about individual freedom and right to dissent, I am feeling a lot of peer pressure to leave, shut up or convert.
Have fun with more of your flock.... this is interestingly revealing about the 'openness' of liberalism.
loki09789 said:
What I find interesting is that despite points of view from lots of different people from across the country with wildly different backgrounds you stick to your belief that everything is good and that they MUST have a reason for doing what they are doing. And then, their is the fact that you have claimed not to label those points of view liberal and then contradicted that statement with the last word quoted. Wouldn't you think that all of the people who have chimed in on the side opposite yours would have some experience that is at least equal to yours? The argument bears consideration even by the most skeptical and the most idealogous. Just as your argument bears consideration. There is a truth out there. How does one find it if one cannot obtain a document that directly orders the quashing of dissent? How do we go beyond the realm of belief and conjecture?
I don't know if I like the world you are imposing on this forum. I don't think you sense the scope of this technology. Certainly there must be some benifit in having a heated discussion in a "consequence free" environment? Also, I don't know how your real life goes, but political discussions in my family end in wrestling matches. After which we laugh and high five.
Becareful. Don't assume to much about someones character...
