We all should stop worrying about what's good for us individually and start worrying about what's best for us as a nation.
The only way to do that is vote for candidates that you like, to hell with the party. JMO however.
I like it.
"Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country." - JFK
If the only way is to vote for candidates YOU like, that is voting YOUR interest. We all should vote for our OWN individual interest. Sorry, I owe nothing to anyone except my family. That is where my loyalties lie. Not to you, not the R party, not to the D party. My family, and I will vote for their interest.
My impression is that PDF is outraged all the time and it's very real.
To get back on TOPIC
I went to CNN and under the Politics Today - here are the first 4 links:
"woman named in stormy daniels documents": "Former Trump Divorce Lawyer: Stormy Daniels will lose" "Opinion: Stormy Daniels suit could back Trump into a corner" "Opinion: Obama sparked Hope and Change and he got blindsided"
I find it funny that we are in the mist of historical talks with NK that may very well lead to them de-nuking. We have an agreed upon meeting pending particulars of arrangements which has not happened in say IDK 50 years. And these are the top headlines for "today in politics"
It's a fair point. I feel like the candidates that are good for me-- ones that emphasize limited government, personal responsibility, etc.-- also tend to be good for the country.
I get tired of the people who think government is there to provide for them and hold their hands through life. It breeds helplessness.
My impression is that PDF is outraged all the time and it's very real.
To get back on TOPIC
I went to CNN and under the Politics Today - here are the first 4 links:
"woman named in stormy daniels documents": "Former Trump Divorce Lawyer: Stormy Daniels will lose" "Opinion: Stormy Daniels suit could back Trump into a corner" "Opinion: Obama sparked Hope and Change and he got blindsided"
I find it funny that we are in the mist of historical talks with NK that may very well lead to them de-nuking. We have an agreed upon meeting pending particulars of arrangements which has not happened in say IDK 50 years. And these are the top headlines for "today in politics"
the funny, i just clicked on the link, and it shows:
Trump's north korea gamble Woman named in Stormy Daniels Ex Trump divorce lawer US Economy adds 213k jobs Trump signs aluminum and steel tariffs
so you either lied your ass off in order to create drama on the boards, or you lied your ass off in order to create drama on the boards.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
It's almost as if headlines often change on major news sites.
yea, but how quickly?
because i saw the same headlines 30 minutes ago. it didn't change.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
The top 4 headlines I'm seeing are not the same as either yours or will's. I'm not sure how CNN's site works but there may be a degree of randomness to it.
i just saw a headline about some engaged female ohio school teacher having sex with a 13 year old female student.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Republican Jewish Coalition demands resignation of Democratic leaders with ties to Farrakhan
Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan has answered those who denounced as anti-Semitic his recent "Jews are my enemy" quote with another broadside, this time tweeting a video clip where he says "The Jews have control over those areas of government" - in referring to the FBI.
The controversy sparked calls by many Republicans for Democrats to vigorously denounce Farrakhan's remarks. Others who quickly condemned Farrakhan's remarks also asked pointed questions on why much of the media was either slow to report the story, or have chosen to ignore it entirely.
its funny watching you make things up, and then double down on it.
fake news.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
oh, i did see "teacher tells class not to date african-americans because they aren't worth it"
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
The only conclusion we can come to is that liberals are feelings over facts kind of people.
The first conversation I can recall having with you was when I was mocking Trump for his inability to understand what health insurance is. It's widely known that he thinks it works like life insurance. His staff has long tried to correct him and explain it to him, but this, as usual, failed to work because Trump has the brain of a golden retriever.
You asked something to the effect of "surely you can't believe that Trump *actually* thinks health insurance costs $12 a month?" I posted a half dozen quotes of Trump non-sensically rambling about paying $12 or $14 a month for health insurance. You tried to argue that the quotes must have been taken out of context. I posted the full context. You then tried to argue that this couldn't be possible because - and I laughed out loud when I read it - "Trump isn't that dumb".
I don't think trying to make the "feelings over facts" argument is quite your lane.
Quote:
You have managed to completely misrepresent almost everything I've said in this thread. This quote you attached to me is not something I said, but rather what you came up with in your sick, demented mind.
You guys understand posts don't disappear into the ether, right? That people can scroll up and read what you wrote, yes?
This is you, quite literally asking what the issue is with an article being tagged under "black crime":
Quote:
What was your issue with that particular headline, PDF?
if they keep denying it even though its right there in their face, that the only other logically conclusion would be that they agree with whats being posted, thus have no issue with it.
I guess I just don't understand the strategy behind pretending to be someone so dumb that they would earnestly trot out "gee willickers, I guess I never noticed Breitbart was a racist cesspool. Could you explain it to me?"
Like, I get that there's still *some* stigma attached to being a racist, but is pretending to be painfully clueless to mask your racism that much better of a look?
you're talking about a group of people who voted for the same guy who said "nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated".
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
you're talking about a group of people who voted for the same guy who said "nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated".
I think my favorite is when he thought asking China to take out North Korea would work, and after Xi had to explain it to him like he were a small child, he held a presser and rambled on about how not many people know how old China is.
You guys understand posts don't disappear into the ether, right? That people can scroll up and read what you wrote, yes?
This is you, quite literally asking what the issue is with an article being tagged under "black crime":
Quote:
What was your issue with that particular headline, PDF?
Here is the headline in question, which you posted earlier in the thread:
Originally Posted By: PDF
This is the man who, in his manifesto to ABC, said his goal was to kill white people and start a race war.
Given these facts, what in particular is wrong with this headline? Is the race taboo so strong that you can't mention race, even when the murderer himself said in his manifesto that the killings were racially motivated?
I'm still missing the black crime tag by the way. I have little doubt that it existed at one time (and possibly still does?), but I'm working off your screenshot here.
It's titled "Race Murder", it was written by a white supremacist who wears an Iron Cross necklace and has advocated for ethnic cleansing and a "European ethnostate", and was tagged in the website's "black crime" section, and, knowing all of this, you're asking me for a third time what my particular issue with it is?
I don't know who the author of this particular piece is. The name isn't even included in the screen grab. You're going to have to do a better job of relaying that information. I see this screenshot you posted and the wikipedia link about the case posted in response to it. That's what I'm going off of, and if you expect to search out the author and everything he's ever said or done in his career, then you're just being unreasonable.
I'm sure whoever that is, if that is true, then Breitbart surely parted ways with the guy when it was discovered.
I read most of it the other day and it does have some insightful points. Let's set this aside for a second though.
Ever read PDF's posts? All attack, all the time. What would your advice be to deal with somebody like that? I don't think I have seen him have a productive conversation since his return to the board because he is so full of hate and just spews out all his favorite buzzwords almost at random (racist, game show host, sexist, throes of dementia, mentally ...., small hands, etc etc.)
Pit has made the point that it would be nice to see people call out their own side every once in a while. Not expecting it to happen, mind you, but he does have a point.
Ever read PDF's posts? All attack, all the time. What would your advice be to deal with somebody like that? I don't think I have seen him have a productive conversation since his return to the board because he is so full of hate and just spews out all his favorite buzzwords almost at random (racist, game show host, sexist, throes of dementia, mentally ...., small hands, etc etc.)
Pit has made the point that it would be nice to see people call out their own side every once in a while. Not expecting it to happen, mind you, but he does have a point.
I don't know that I have any advice ... I can question whether your interpretation of PDFs posts is completely neutral - or whether you read them expecting them to be offended? (genuinely - I'm not being a smart alec, often when we communicate with people who we know hold certain beliefs we interpret anything that might be neutral only in one way)... I don't know the history of PDF on the board or his politics... and I have not read that many of his posts. He seems like the anti-40 with a lot more depth to back up his perspective/belief. And while his viewpoint is strictly from the Left and maybe confrontational - he's responding often the strictly right viewpoints that are often presented in a confrontational, antagonistic and condescending fashion. And I can speak for myself - that after I read flippant, BS, "party line" responses or little laughing as responses to what I think are legit posts (mine or others), at some point you stop trying to take each post and thread and comment on it's merits and you've decided that the person your "talking" to is something of a troll. Ignore - or fight back in a similar style to that presented and move on.
I'm never going to say anything that 40 is ever going to acknowledge as right if it holds an opposite view on Trump than his own... and I won't ever try. Maybe that's what you do with PDF? Or maybe you see if PDF will isolate the issues and you can have a discussion. Maybe it needs to be via PM to get things rolling? Again - I don't know the history and the background to offer a solution or an insight ... I'm just throwing stuff out there. Maybe he doesn't want a discussion... maybe he can't ever respond without a "but what about this ...." ?
If you read the article I posted - and thought it was good - then that was really my goal. For me I got some additional stuff that I commented on and I think that's where the thread ended up sideways. My own fault.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
Ever read PDF's posts? All attack, all the time. What would your advice be to deal with somebody like that? I don't think I have seen him have a productive conversation since his return to the board because he is so full of hate and just spews out all his favorite buzzwords almost at random (racist, game show host, sexist, throes of dementia, mentally ...., small hands, etc etc.)
Pit has made the point that it would be nice to see people call out their own side every once in a while. Not expecting it to happen, mind you, but he does have a point.
I don't know that I have any advice ... I can question whether your interpretation of PDFs posts is completely neutral - or whether you read them expecting them to be offended? (genuinely - I'm not being a smart alec, often when we communicate with people who we know hold certain beliefs we interpret anything that might be neutral only in one way)... I don't know the history of PDF on the board or his politics... and I have not read that many of his posts. He seems like the anti-40 with a lot more depth to back up his perspective/belief. And while his viewpoint is strictly from the Left and maybe confrontational - he's responding often the strictly right viewpoints that are often presented in a confrontational, antagonistic and condescending fashion. And I can speak for myself - that after I read flippant, BS, "party line" responses or little laughing as responses to what I think are legit posts (mine or others), at some point you stop trying to take each post and thread and comment on it's merits and you've decided that the person your "talking" to is something of a troll. Ignore - or fight back in a similar style to that presented and move on.
I'm never going to say anything that 40 is ever going to acknowledge as right if it holds an opposite view on Trump than his own... and I won't ever try. Maybe that's what you do with PDF? Or maybe you see if PDF will isolate the issues and you can have a discussion. Maybe it needs to be via PM to get things rolling? Again - I don't know the history and the background to offer a solution or an insight ... I'm just throwing stuff out there. Maybe he doesn't want a discussion... maybe he can't ever respond without a "but what about this ...." ?
If you read the article I posted - and thought it was good - then that was really my goal. For me I got some additional stuff that I commented on and I think that's where the thread ended up sideways. My own fault.
What you see in this thread is basically par for the course for PDF. It doesn't matter whether I'm involved with the thread or what the topic is; the tone is still the same.
I ask because I do make an effort to have dialogue when it is possible. I just don't know how to bridge this gap. I don't even know that it's possible and I'm kind of out of ideas. You kind of see the same thing on the macro scale; the sides are rapidly moving apart with what seems like irreconcilable differences.
I find it easy to talk to some posters like Clem and PDX. I don't think I've ever seen PDX antagonize other posters and Clem only rarely.
Heck I've even had good discussions with CHS, Swish, and Rocket. Now, CHS describes himself as a communist, Swish donates to Black Lives Matter, and Rocket gets at least some of his NeverTrump material from NeoGAF. So these are people who I am not exactly ideologically aligned with, but every once in a while a discussion breaks out and one of us might learn a thing or two before we go back to bickering with each other.
I think I'm just rambling at this point. Thanks for the response, and for making the effort to have a thought-provoking thread. Those two things alone stand out.
I think what a lot of people can't do is engage in a discussion about something - have a passionate and heated debate & argue completely different views .... and after accept that the other person doesn't change their beliefs/perspective. And a lot of people bunker down and start to get a little snarky when they have been presented with a better argument than the one they presented. A lot of 'discussion' seems to be geared around setting someone up for a 'gotcha' moment. Anyways appreciate the back and forth. Whatever the solution is - it nearly always needs inclusion and a wider perspective and not a narrower and partisan perspective.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
PDF, I've probably read about 20 posts from you and all I get Racism, Racism, Racism. Maybe its time to get a job and a life, maybe even move out of Mom's basement.
I find it easy to talk to some posters like Clem and PDX. I don't think I've ever seen PDX antagonize other posters and Clem only rarely.
I feel the same way about you. When you ask a question, it's almost always a genuine request for more data. I can't remember you ever weaponizing a question to play a game of SnarkChess®.
Haus - phil is a Troll. He has so stated himself in clear and plain language. He described sitting up late at night, thinking up ridiculous and outrageous things to say, for the sole and only purpose of provoking an agitated response, for his own amusement and enjoyment. He has never denied it.
He has been such for many, many years.
He is also fundamentally dishonest, depressive, narcissistic, and IMO suffers from a severe inferiority complex.
If you expect the population of this site to act in rejection of his constant lies and attacks, they simply do not possess the necessary courage to act in such a manner.
...
as responses to what I think are legit posts (mine or others), at some point you stop trying to take each post and thread and comment on it's merits and you've decided that the person your "talking" to is something of a troll. Ignore - or fight back in a similar style to that presented and move on. 
