CSNbbs

(07-17-2019 09:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2019 09:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2019 09:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2019 08:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2019 08:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Bad timing on this post - what looks to be an entire arena is basically cheering his tweet...

You mean the tweet that one has to edit, alter, and chop, to get it to the form that y'all want to have it heard as, right? That one, right? Funny you forgot that salient point.

Actually to use your term, that is what one 'explicitly' has to do to that tweet to get it in that form (i.e. the definition of 'explicitly'). Perhaps that is a stretch of a nuance though.

I mean, how *dare* he say to someone 'go fix it elsewhere, come back, and tell us how it is done.' The sheer fing gall to say that. I shudder. Animal-style I say, animal-style.

I mean, how dare anyone tells a bunch of pretty much self-admitted socialists to do that. Honestly, I would cheer for that as well. Pretty safe bet you wouldnt I would surmise.

Do you know what I'm talking about?

Do you know what this means?



Having watched the rally, that is the message they chanted. I will lay dollars to donuts you didnt bother to watch.

Please do tell, how long and how often did the crowd chant this? And perhaps you want to tell us to what they chanted this to? I'm sure you will know based on your intimate first hand knowledge, right?

And here we go, back to the fact that it's ironic that Trump based his entire campaign on criticizing the way things are here...

The crowd chanted this to Trump after he lied about things Omar has done. Regarding the Al Qaeda nonsense he brought up, you should read the fact check. It's a load of ****: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/trumps...lhan-omar/

Had you fing bothered to look at the rally this evening, one might realize that there is zero correlation between any of the items in the factcheck you wield like a sharp knife and his actual comments tonite. Care to retry there? This time try to use some actual facts about the comments *tonite* rather than your wild supposition there. Might help a tad.

Had you noted another fact, the factcheck noted that the last update was July 16 on that particular issue. Unless they are strangely ESP prone and wildly prescient, I seriously doubt that that source would be very good for something happening tonite -- that is the 17th. Hopefully you will agree with me on that strange little issue about your special retort there. Right? Or is this another 'nuance' that we should overlook?

Quote:Look, you can continue to rationalize away this rather disgusting behavior that says that you can't criticize America or an administration, but that's the wrong perspective, and you know it.

Wow, now *that* is a leap. "[Trump's] behavior [] says that you can't criticize America or an administration". Actually that is an amazing leap there son. Laughably broad leap, in fact. Lolz level, to be honest.

How in the fk do you get there in any semblance of a rational mind?

<clap> for the rhetorical flourish effort there lad.

Rationalize the tweet? After consideration, I actually kind of support it.

Especially in the way he stated it to 'hey smart ones, if you think your socialist and open border ways a *so* much better, go somewhere and try. Give us a book report when you come to a conclusion'. What exactly is bad about that behavior that has your cute little feathers ruffled so smartly? Please do tell.

I have zero issue with telling anyone, let alone a US Representative, who equate the US government with nazism to take a rather large flying leap. I take it you do have an issue there?

Hey as a reminder, on the issues about what the crowd responded to, again, use facts on what he said tonight. Dont pull it out of your ass like you just did.

(07-17-2019 09:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]If Trump wasn't keeping his promises and delivering the goods, his approval rating would be down near that of Congress.

But the economic indexes are up. Wages are up, the Dow is up, the S&P is up.
Employment is up, unemployment down. I don't care if he says the Bronx is a shithole. Kind of matches my opinion, anyway.

But back to "short bus'.

I am not a mean person. I don't like to hurt anybody's feeling. I would never say something like that to a Downs kid. I know Tanq would not either.

But Tanq was not talking to kids - he was talking to a Rice grad. I thought a Rice grad would be smart enough to understand that comment.

*edit* and as I get caught up on the lastest posts I see that Tanq has reiterated his mea culpa and advised that he doesn't need OO to defend his use of those terms. I won't post further on this topic.

You're right. Tanq wasn't talking to kids. He was making a comment on an internet forum to readers that he may not know personally. Some of these readers may have people in their lives with special needs.

What does "being smart enough" have to do with considering it poor taste to use a term like that?

(07-17-2019 10:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2019 09:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2019 09:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2019 09:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2019 08:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]You mean the tweet that one has to edit, alter, and chop, to get it to the form that y'all want to have it heard as, right? That one, right? Funny you forgot that salient point.

Actually to use your term, that is what one 'explicitly' has to do to that tweet to get it in that form (i.e. the definition of 'explicitly'). Perhaps that is a stretch of a nuance though.

I mean, how *dare* he say to someone 'go fix it elsewhere, come back, and tell us how it is done.' The sheer fing gall to say that. I shudder. Animal-style I say, animal-style.

I mean, how dare anyone tells a bunch of pretty much self-admitted socialists to do that. Honestly, I would cheer for that as well. Pretty safe bet you wouldnt I would surmise.

Do you know what I'm talking about?

Do you know what this means?



Having watched the rally, that is the message they chanted. I will lay dollars to donuts you didnt bother to watch.

Please do tell, how long and how often did the crowd chant this? And perhaps you want to tell us to what they chanted this to? I'm sure you will know based on your intimate first hand knowledge, right?

And here we go, back to the fact that it's ironic that Trump based his entire campaign on criticizing the way things are here...

The crowd chanted this to Trump after he lied about things Omar has done. Regarding the Al Qaeda nonsense he brought up, you should read the fact check. It's a load of ****: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/trumps...lhan-omar/

Had you fing bothered to look at the rally this evening, one might realize that there is zero correlation between any of the items in the factcheck you wield like a sharp knife and his actual comments tonite. Care to retry there? This time try to use some actual facts about the comments *tonite* rather than your wild supposition there. Might help a tad.

Had you noted another fact, the factcheck noted that the last update was July 16 on that particular issue. Unless they are strangely ESP prone and wildly prescient, I seriously doubt that that source would be very good for something happening tonite -- that is the 17th. Hopefully you will agree with me on that strange little issue about your special retort there. Right? Or is this another 'nuance' that we should overlook?

Quote:Look, you can continue to rationalize away this rather disgusting behavior that says that you can't criticize America or an administration, but that's the wrong perspective, and you know it.

Wow, now *that* is a leap. "[Trump's] behavior [] says that you can't criticize America or an administration". Actually that is an amazing leap there son. Laughably broad leap, in fact. Lolz level, to be honest.

How in the fk do you get there in any semblance of a rational mind?

<clap> for the rhetorical flourish effort there lad.

Rationalize the tweet? After consideration, I actually kind of support it.

Especially in the way he stated it to 'hey smart ones, if you think your socialist and open border ways a *so* much better, go somewhere and try. Give us a book report when you come to a conclusion'. What exactly is bad about that behavior that has your cute little feathers ruffled so smartly? Please do tell.

I have zero issue with telling anyone, let alone a US Representative, who equate the US government with nazism to take a rather large flying leap. I take it you do have an issue there?

Hey as a reminder, on the issues about what the crowd responded to, again, use facts on what he said tonight. Dont pull it out of your ass like you just did.

Are you kidding me? I watched Trump try and say that Omar had said she was proud of Al Qaeda and that you don't say America with pride - that is a clear misrepresentation of what she said, as outline in the link I sent you.

Trump: "You don't say America with this intensity, you say Al Qaeda... Al Qaeda makes you proud..."

Seriously?

(07-17-2019 10:45 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2019 09:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]If Trump wasn't keeping his promises and delivering the goods, his approval rating would be down near that of Congress.

But the economic indexes are up. Wages are up, the Dow is up, the S&P is up.
Employment is up, unemployment down. I don't care if he says the Bronx is a shithole. Kind of matches my opinion, anyway.

But back to "short bus'.

I am not a mean person. I don't like to hurt anybody's feeling. I would never say something like that to a Downs kid. I know Tanq would not either.

But Tanq was not talking to kids - he was talking to a Rice grad. I thought a Rice grad would be smart enough to understand that comment.

You're right. Tanq wasn't talking to kids. He was making a comment on an internet forum to readers that he may not know personally. Some of these readers may have people in their lives with special needs.

What does "being smart enough" have to do with considering it poor taste to use a term like that?

OO --

Told you the moral posturing would continue..... lolz. Not only that, it continues with zero comprehension nor zero clue abut his own comment about Trump (base, supporters, followers).

Give a lib any chance to continue a moral preening --- well, flame, moth. You know the rest of the story.

(07-17-2019 10:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2019 10:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2019 09:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2019 09:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2019 09:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Do you know what I'm talking about?

Do you know what this means?



Having watched the rally, that is the message they chanted. I will lay dollars to donuts you didnt bother to watch.

Please do tell, how long and how often did the crowd chant this? And perhaps you want to tell us to what they chanted this to? I'm sure you will know based on your intimate first hand knowledge, right?

And here we go, back to the fact that it's ironic that Trump based his entire campaign on criticizing the way things are here...

The crowd chanted this to Trump after he lied about things Omar has done. Regarding the Al Qaeda nonsense he brought up, you should read the fact check. It's a load of ****: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/trumps...lhan-omar/

Had you fing bothered to look at the rally this evening, one might realize that there is zero correlation between any of the items in the factcheck you wield like a sharp knife and his actual comments tonite. Care to retry there? This time try to use some actual facts about the comments *tonite* rather than your wild supposition there. Might help a tad.

Had you noted another fact, the factcheck noted that the last update was July 16 on that particular issue. Unless they are strangely ESP prone and wildly prescient, I seriously doubt that that source would be very good for something happening tonite -- that is the 17th. Hopefully you will agree with me on that strange little issue about your special retort there. Right? Or is this another 'nuance' that we should overlook?

Quote:Look, you can continue to rationalize away this rather disgusting behavior that says that you can't criticize America or an administration, but that's the wrong perspective, and you know it.

Wow, now *that* is a leap. "[Trump's] behavior [] says that you can't criticize America or an administration". Actually that is an amazing leap there son. Laughably broad leap, in fact. Lolz level, to be honest.

How in the fk do you get there in any semblance of a rational mind?

<clap> for the rhetorical flourish effort there lad.

Rationalize the tweet? After consideration, I actually kind of support it.

Especially in the way he stated it to 'hey smart ones, if you think your socialist and open border ways a *so* much better, go somewhere and try. Give us a book report when you come to a conclusion'. What exactly is bad about that behavior that has your cute little feathers ruffled so smartly? Please do tell.

I have zero issue with telling anyone, let alone a US Representative, who equate the US government with nazism to take a rather large flying leap. I take it you do have an issue there?

Hey as a reminder, on the issues about what the crowd responded to, again, use facts on what he said tonight. Dont pull it out of your ass like you just did.

Are you kidding me? I watched Trump try and say that Omar had said she was proud of Al Qaeda and that you don't say America with pride - that is a clear misrepresentation of what she said, as outline in the link I sent you.

Trump: "You don't say America with this intensity, you say Al Qaeda... Al Qaeda makes you proud..."

Seriously?

Your full and complete statement is: "The crowd chanted this to Trump after he lied about things Omar has done."

The crowd chanted this directly after Trump repeated her actual 'its all about the Benjamins' comment, not after the portion dealing with the way in which Al Queada is said.

That is, the crowd chanted this well away from the point in time Trump made any sort of comment akin to what you say.

Get your facts straight.

The first small, isolated chants occur nearly a full minute after you the portion you squawk about. They actually start in force after Trump mentions her long history of "anti-Semitic screeds", and crescendo when the 'Benjamin' quote is repeated.

Reading comprehension issues? I mean, those are your words, are they not? You pretty much fully mischaracterize the cause and effect here. Imagine that.

--------------------

No issue with the other 8-10 comments made about Omar then, I take it. Just the 'says it proud' portion? Thats interesting given the roughly four minutes and full listing of items there that actually refer to her by name. Glad to know that you agree with those.

Further, I actually suggest you look at the clip of the words you type. Very different inflection than the bald snippet you post..... not to mention you have pulled that partial comment from its context. Good for you.

The context was that Trump correctly stated that Omar said:

'You don’t say “America” with an intensity. You don’t say it in a manner that makes one proud.' That was the entire context of the clip in Trump's speech.

Kind of a stupid statement, but it is true. Omar *did* comment on how different groups stated different things differently.

It is a non-issue when you think of it, that Omar was observing and commenting on how differing groups state things differently.

I think a better dig would be something along: "Omar thinks that people state things in different ways. Like most of us would say '19 suicide terrorists killed 3000 people using jets as living bombs' while she prefers to state it as 'someone did something'."

I think that would be far more effective, dont you? Would that be better in a veracity sense for you?

Honestly, I have this funny feeling that you watched a, maybe, 15 second or so highlights version there lad. Perhaps even heavily edited.

I'll be happy to send you a link to the full speech if you really wish to opine much further. Just give me the word.

(07-17-2019 09:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2019 09:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]If Trump wasn't keeping his promises and delivering the goods, his approval rating would be down near that of Congress.

But the economic indexes are up. Wages are up, the Dow is up, the S&P is up.
Employment is up, unemployment down. I don't care if he says the Bronx is a shithole. Kind of matches my opinion, anyway.

But back to "short bus'.

I am not a mean person. I don't like to hurt anybody's feeling. I would never say something like that to a Downs kid. I know Tanq would not either.

But Tanq was not talking to kids - he was talking to a Rice grad. I thought a Rice grad would be smart enough to understand that comment.

I need a good market to stay afloat until I can sell some land. Not going to get that from the Dems. They will bankrupt me, then compassionately send me a small check. Yay. They are more concerned with controlling the words in my mouth.

Better a bad talker who does good things than a good talker who does bad things.

OO, no need to defend my 'retard' comment. It was wrong. Nor any need to defend 'short bus'.

I kind of laugh that these two, especially the lad, who is seemingly typically bouncy house to excrutiating lengths to be *ahem* precise *cough*, is so hell bent to tag the correctness of the offending 'kids'. Interesting change of face. Perhaps even 'special'.

Let the lad pull his hair out over the Orange man actually saying 'love it or leave it', and let him pull his hair out and chop, edit, and alter a comment to torture it into what he perceives to be 'racist'. I dont expect any more from the lad, to be honest.

But no need to defend the 'retard' comment. Mea culpa. The lad's moral preening to me in the rep ding was pretty funny ----- 'how *dare* you ever ever ever ever ever say or think that, even *if* you rethink it and pull it down.' Again, par for the course from my perspective.

So given that I doubt there will ever be a rehabilitation from that fine form moral posturing lesson seen today. Lolz.

I would actually prefer the lad to explain how the fab four's comments and slurs on the United States are *explicitly* the same as using the word term 'again' (literally 'explicitly the same' in the words he used) --- that is aside from the donk statement that both are 'criticisms'. Again, for such a donk on precision, this still seems like an idiotic statement when actually examined.

So let these two slam all they want on the 'retard' and the other comment. No need to feed the moral preeners here. They will either accept the mea culpa or not. Out of your hands, and out of mine, tbh. Lolz.

I wasn't defending your comment. I was just saying that "bad" words depend on context/speaker/listener. These guys think certain words are bad no matter what. Very sharp delineation between good and bad. And I was commenting on the hypocrisy of the left.

Still waiting for the Morality Police, er, I mean, 93, to tell us what he thought of the TV comment. I think ir was racist in a way the left accepts. JMHO.

But I have about decided discussion with leftists are about as productive as spitting in the ocean. They already know everything, and they won't listen. Glad they don't run the world. Their Utopia is a thinking man's nightmare.

(07-17-2019 11:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2019 09:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2019 09:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]If Trump wasn't keeping his promises and delivering the goods, his approval rating would be down near that of Congress.

But the economic indexes are up. Wages are up, the Dow is up, the S&P is up.
Employment is up, unemployment down. I don't care if he says the Bronx is a shithole. Kind of matches my opinion, anyway.

But back to "short bus'.

I am not a mean person. I don't like to hurt anybody's feeling. I would never say something like that to a Downs kid. I know Tanq would not either.

But Tanq was not talking to kids - he was talking to a Rice grad. I thought a Rice grad would be smart enough to understand that comment.

I need a good market to stay afloat until I can sell some land. Not going to get that from the Dems. They will bankrupt me, then compassionately send me a small check. Yay. They are more concerned with controlling the words in my mouth.

Better a bad talker who does good things than a good talker who does bad things.

OO, no need to defend my 'retard' comment. It was wrong. Nor any need to defend 'short bus'.

I kind of laugh that these two, especially the lad, who is seemingly typically bouncy house to excrutiating lengths to be *ahem* precise *cough*, is so hell bent to tag the correctness of the offending 'kids'. Interesting change of face. Perhaps even 'special'.

Let the lad pull his hair out over the Orange man actually saying 'love it or leave it', and let him pull his hair out and chop, edit, and alter a comment to torture it into what he perceives to be 'racist'. I dont expect any more from the lad, to be honest.

But no need to defend the 'retard' comment. Mea culpa. The lad's moral preening to me in the rep ding was pretty funny ----- 'how *dare* you ever ever ever ever ever say or think that, even *if* you rethink it and pull it down.' Again, par for the course from my perspective.

So given that I doubt there will ever be a rehabilitation from that fine form moral posturing lesson seen today. Lolz.

I would actually prefer the lad to explain how the fab four's comments and slurs on the United States are *explicitly* the same as using the word term 'again' (literally 'explicitly the same' in the words he used) --- that is aside from the donk statement that both are 'criticisms'. Again, for such a donk on precision, this still seems like an idiotic statement when actually examined.

So let these two slam all they want on the 'retard' and the other comment. No need to feed the moral preeners here. They will either accept the mea culpa or not. Out of your hands, and out of mine, tbh. Lolz.

I wasn't defending your comment. I was just saying that "bad" words depend on context/speaker/listener. These guys think certain words are bad no matter what. Very sharp delineation between good and bad. And I was commenting on the hypocrisy of the left.

Still waiting for the Morality Police, er, I mean, 93, to tell us what he thought of the TV comment. I think ir was racist in a way the left accepts. JMHO.

And I'm going to continue to ignore your question when it is accompanied by you calling me the Morality Police for having a problem with the terms "short bus" and "retard".

Perhaps you could first explain to me how "retard" and "short bus" are OK depending on the context/speaker/listener. You seemed to suggest earlier that it was OK to use those terms if there weren't any people with special needs around to hear them?

(07-18-2019 12:10 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ][b]Perhaps you could first explain to me how [] "short bus" [is] OK depending on the context/speaker/listener. You seemed to suggest earlier that it was OK to use those terms if there weren't any people with special needs around to hear them?

Perhaps when an actual short bus (i.e. the one that comes into my neighborhood to pick up the 13 or 14 kids here) is being used to pick up the 13 or 14 kids? That strikes me as a hugely appropriate designation of the actual physical object.

Would be pretty moronic to call it a 'big bus' it strikes me.

Kind of forgot about that one in your moral preening, didnt you?

Funny how the rush to make something completely offensive for all points at all times doesnt seem to work with all your best efforts. (this board really needs a self-head slap emoji....)

Perhaps when they are designating drivers for the day, and to delineate which one Joe drives, and he is assigned the short bus, they say 'Joe, you are driving the short bus'? That seems to be a fairly ******* obvious one as well.

Or perhaps you might try and describe the object in the *this* photo?


Seems to me the object is pretty accurately as hell described as that. What would *you* call the object in that picture 93?

How about the splash page of this webpage for a dealership that sells car rental busses? MINI AND SHORT BUSES FOR SALE

How about a description of an electronic component? Short bus V. 2

How about a description of a bus ride of less than 10 minutes? It was short bus ride.

Pull your head out of your smug condescending myopia.

As for your question about 'retard' *ever* being proper in context/setting etc.... this will be fun. This is even easier than the 'short bus' preen you went off on.

Title of a scientific/medical article: Fasting Cycles Retard Growth of Tumors

Economics: Does financialization retard growth? Time series and cross-sectional evidence

Does too much government investment retard economic development of a country?

High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals

There are only about 200 million search results to go. Get the point?

Care to backtrack from your hysterical and nonsensical level question of "Perhaps you could first explain to me how "retard" ... [is] OK depending on the context/speaker/listener. You seemed to suggest earlier that it was OK to use those terms if there weren't any people with special needs around to hear them?"

I can go on for 200 million more if you wish.

This is actually fun. Care to toss any more 'there cant be *any* good uses of word or phrase ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever' issues we can help you out with with that preen you got going there? I can think of one 'for sure' example. Well, a 'maybe' example come to think of it......

I guess in your rush to get those moralistic preening points you utterly lost sight of the very common and standard use of the word, notwithstanding your abjectly shrill question that implies there could *never* be a time/place/context in which the word was proper. That is the fun thing when dealing with moralistic preeners, they forget the obvious **** in their rush to race out in the front of the preener mob.

(07-18-2019 01:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]As for your question about 'retard' *ever* being proper in context/setting etc.... this will be fun. This is even easier than the 'short bus' preen you went off on.

Title of a scientific/medical article: Fasting Cycles Retard Growth of Tumors

Economics: Does financialization retard growth? Time series and cross-sectional evidence

Does too much government investment retard economic development of a country?

High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals

There are only about 200 million search results to go. Get the point?

Care to backtrack from your hysterical and nonsensical level question of "Perhaps you could first explain to me how "retard" ... [is] OK depending on the context/speaker/listener. You seemed to suggest earlier that it was OK to use those terms if there weren't any people with special needs around to hear them?"

I can go on for 200 million more if you wish.

This is actually fun. Care to toss any more 'there cant be *any* good uses of word or phrase ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever' issues we can help you out with with that preen you got going there? I can think of one 'for sure' example. Well, a 'maybe' example come to think of it......

I guess in your rush to get those moralistic preening points you utterly lost sight of the very common and standard use of the word, notwithstanding your abjectly shrill question that implies there could *never* be a time/place/context in which the word was proper. That is the fun thing when dealing with moralistic preeners, they forget the obvious **** in their rush to race out in the front of the preener mob.

LOL, talk about preening!

I thought it was implied that I meant the use of those terms as they relate to people with disabilities. Pretty sure you knew that.

It was fun to watch you preen though. Smug and condescending too. But keep reserving those terms for leftists.

(07-18-2019 06:37 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 01:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]As for your question about 'retard' *ever* being proper in context/setting etc.... this will be fun. This is even easier than the 'short bus' preen you went off on.

Title of a scientific/medical article: Fasting Cycles Retard Growth of Tumors

Economics: Does financialization retard growth? Time series and cross-sectional evidence

Does too much government investment retard economic development of a country?

High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals

There are only about 200 million search results to go. Get the point?

Care to backtrack from your hysterical and nonsensical level question of "Perhaps you could first explain to me how "retard" ... [is] OK depending on the context/speaker/listener. You seemed to suggest earlier that it was OK to use those terms if there weren't any people with special needs around to hear them?"

I can go on for 200 million more if you wish.

This is actually fun. Care to toss any more 'there cant be *any* good uses of word or phrase ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever' issues we can help you out with with that preen you got going there? I can think of one 'for sure' example. Well, a 'maybe' example come to think of it......

I guess in your rush to get those moralistic preening points you utterly lost sight of the very common and standard use of the word, notwithstanding your abjectly shrill question that implies there could *never* be a time/place/context in which the word was proper. That is the fun thing when dealing with moralistic preeners, they forget the obvious **** in their rush to race out in the front of the preener mob.

LOL, talk about preening!

I thought it was implied that I meant the use of those terms as they relate to people with disabilities. Pretty sure you knew that.

It was fun to watch you preen though. Smug and condescending too. But keep reserving those terms for leftists.

Now wait until Tanq jumps into the pedantic bouncy house to explain why he willfully misinterpreted that statement.

One of the most exhausting things about this message board is the need to constantly re-explain things because certain people willfully either act like they don’t understand points (perfect example right there) or they intentionally ignore or misinterpret posts. Tanq can ***** about a pedantic bouncy house, but a post like that is a perfect example of why I constantly have to hop in one with him. He knew damn well you weren’t saying that the use of the term “short bus” shouldn’t be used to describe an actual short bus. Same as OO knew that I wouldn’t see a problem describing someone as gay, if it meant happy.

(07-17-2019 11:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2019 10:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2019 10:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2019 09:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2019 09:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Do you know what this means?



Having watched the rally, that is the message they chanted. I will lay dollars to donuts you didnt bother to watch.

Please do tell, how long and how often did the crowd chant this? And perhaps you want to tell us to what they chanted this to? I'm sure you will know based on your intimate first hand knowledge, right?

And here we go, back to the fact that it's ironic that Trump based his entire campaign on criticizing the way things are here...

The crowd chanted this to Trump after he lied about things Omar has done. Regarding the Al Qaeda nonsense he brought up, you should read the fact check. It's a load of ****: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/trumps...lhan-omar/

Had you fing bothered to look at the rally this evening, one might realize that there is zero correlation between any of the items in the factcheck you wield like a sharp knife and his actual comments tonite. Care to retry there? This time try to use some actual facts about the comments *tonite* rather than your wild supposition there. Might help a tad.

Had you noted another fact, the factcheck noted that the last update was July 16 on that particular issue. Unless they are strangely ESP prone and wildly prescient, I seriously doubt that that source would be very good for something happening tonite -- that is the 17th. Hopefully you will agree with me on that strange little issue about your special retort there. Right? Or is this another 'nuance' that we should overlook?

Quote:Look, you can continue to rationalize away this rather disgusting behavior that says that you can't criticize America or an administration, but that's the wrong perspective, and you know it.

Wow, now *that* is a leap. "[Trump's] behavior [] says that you can't criticize America or an administration". Actually that is an amazing leap there son. Laughably broad leap, in fact. Lolz level, to be honest.

How in the fk do you get there in any semblance of a rational mind?

<clap> for the rhetorical flourish effort there lad.

Rationalize the tweet? After consideration, I actually kind of support it.

Especially in the way he stated it to 'hey smart ones, if you think your socialist and open border ways a *so* much better, go somewhere and try. Give us a book report when you come to a conclusion'. What exactly is bad about that behavior that has your cute little feathers ruffled so smartly? Please do tell.

I have zero issue with telling anyone, let alone a US Representative, who equate the US government with nazism to take a rather large flying leap. I take it you do have an issue there?

Hey as a reminder, on the issues about what the crowd responded to, again, use facts on what he said tonight. Dont pull it out of your ass like you just did.

Are you kidding me? I watched Trump try and say that Omar had said she was proud of Al Qaeda and that you don't say America with pride - that is a clear misrepresentation of what she said, as outline in the link I sent you.

Trump: "You don't say America with this intensity, you say Al Qaeda... Al Qaeda makes you proud..."

Seriously?

Your full and complete statement is: "The crowd chanted this to Trump after he lied about things Omar has done."

The crowd chanted this directly after Trump repeated her actual 'its all about the Benjamins' comment, not after the portion dealing with the way in which Al Queada is said.

That is, the crowd chanted this well away from the point in time Trump made any sort of comment akin to what you say.

Get your facts straight.

The first small, isolated chants occur nearly a full minute after you the portion you squawk about. They actually start in force after Trump mentions her long history of "anti-Semitic screeds", and crescendo when the 'Benjamin' quote is repeated.

Reading comprehension issues? I mean, those are your words, are they not? You pretty much fully mischaracterize the cause and effect here. Imagine that.

--------------------

No issue with the other 8-10 comments made about Omar then, I take it. Just the 'says it proud' portion? Thats interesting given the roughly four minutes and full listing of items there that actually refer to her by name. Glad to know that you agree with those.

Further, I actually suggest you look at the clip of the words you type. Very different inflection than the bald snippet you post..... not to mention you have pulled that partial comment from its context. Good for you.

The context was that Trump correctly stated that Omar said:

'You don’t say “America” with an intensity. You don’t say it in a manner that makes one proud.' That was the entire context of the clip in Trump's speech.

Kind of a stupid statement, but it is true. Omar *did* comment on how different groups stated different things differently.

It is a non-issue when you think of it, that Omar was observing and commenting on how differing groups state things differently.

I think a better dig would be something along: "Omar thinks that people state things in different ways. Like most of us would say '19 suicide terrorists killed 3000 people using jets as living bombs' while she prefers to state it as 'someone did something'."

I think that would be far more effective, dont you? Would that be better in a veracity sense for you?

Honestly, I have this funny feeling that you watched a, maybe, 15 second or so highlights version there lad. Perhaps even heavily edited.

I'll be happy to send you a link to the full speech if you really wish to opine much further. Just give me the word.

I guess it’s good that you’ve dropped the facade and admit you’re on board with the nativist “send her back” chant. If that had been about her proving she knew what she was doing, which is what you’re lying to yourself about regarding trump’s quote, wouldn’t they have changed “prove it” or “show us proof” or “fix it first” or... Nope, instead, as Trump ragged on Omar for things she said or didn’t say, the crowd screamed for an American citizen to be sent back. Sounds just like all the nasty things that people said to the Irish in the 1800s.

(07-18-2019 07:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Sounds just like all the nasty things that people said to the Irish in the 1800s.

But I don't recall that the Irish repeatedly said nasty and subversive things about America.

(07-18-2019 07:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 07:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Sounds just like all the nasty things that people said to the Irish in the 1800s.

But I don't recall that the Irish repeatedly said nasty and subversive things about America.

1) Does it matter? I thought y’all were the group who constantly screams about thought policing? Is there anything more thought policing than screaming “Send her back” because she has views different than you?

2) Can you list out the exact nasty and subversive things Omar has said about America? Or do they primarily focus on the Trump administration (which is not America, as we all know)

(07-18-2019 07:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]1) Does it matter? I thought y’all were the group who constantly screams about thought policing? Is there anything more thought policing than screaming “Send her back” because she has views different than you?

Yes, it matters, because you were attempting an analogy that falls apart because of that differentiation. Trump is not attacking her because of her ethnicity, or even her thoughts. He is attacking her words and deeds.

Quote:2) Can you list out the exact nasty and subversive things Omar has said about America? Or do they primarily focus on the Trump administration (which is not America, as we all know)

Seriously? Do you truly believe that Omar and Tlaib have not said and done things that were nasty and subversive toward America?

I won't put AOC and Pressly in quite that same class. Their comments are simply stupid. But I have no use for any of the four, and I can't really imagine why any thinking person would.

(07-18-2019 08:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 07:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]1) Does it matter? I thought y’all were the group who constantly screams about thought policing? Is there anything more thought policing than screaming “Send her back” because she has views different than you?

Yes, it matters, because you were attempting an analogy that falls apart because of that differentiation. Trump is not attacking her because of her ethnicity, or even her thoughts. He is attacking her words and deeds.

Quote:2) Can you list out the exact nasty and subversive things Omar has said about America? Or do they primarily focus on the Trump administration (which is not America, as we all know)

Seriously? Do you truly believe that Omar and Tlaib have not said and done things that were nasty and subversive toward America?

I won't put AOC and Pressly in quite that same class. Their comments are simply stupid. But I have no use for any of the four, and I can't really imagine why any thinking person would.

1) Trump is using a classic line of thinking based on ethnicity - go back from where you came from. If his crowd really believed the delusional idea that Trump is asking Omar and the rest to prove that their policies worked in other countries, they wouldn’t have chanted “Send her back.”

Also, does that mean you agree with his tactics? That when someone promotes an idea or says that idea in a way one disagrees with, they should pack things up and leave? Pretty sure the right, and libertarians, are all about a government official not forcefully removing someone for their speech.

2) I truly don’t know specific statements that Omar has made that are subversive towards America. All I see are people providing generic statements such as yours, without actual evidence to back it up. The two instances I’ve seen (one referenced above and the one Tanq used) both rely on removing the context of the conversation, and even then, aren’t subversive.

(07-18-2019 07:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2019 11:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2019 10:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2019 10:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-17-2019 09:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]And here we go, back to the fact that it's ironic that Trump based his entire campaign on criticizing the way things are here...

The crowd chanted this to Trump after he lied about things Omar has done. Regarding the Al Qaeda nonsense he brought up, you should read the fact check. It's a load of ****: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/trumps...lhan-omar/

Had you fing bothered to look at the rally this evening, one might realize that there is zero correlation between any of the items in the factcheck you wield like a sharp knife and his actual comments tonite. Care to retry there? This time try to use some actual facts about the comments *tonite* rather than your wild supposition there. Might help a tad.

Had you noted another fact, the factcheck noted that the last update was July 16 on that particular issue. Unless they are strangely ESP prone and wildly prescient, I seriously doubt that that source would be very good for something happening tonite -- that is the 17th. Hopefully you will agree with me on that strange little issue about your special retort there. Right? Or is this another 'nuance' that we should overlook?

Quote:Look, you can continue to rationalize away this rather disgusting behavior that says that you can't criticize America or an administration, but that's the wrong perspective, and you know it.

Wow, now *that* is a leap. "[Trump's] behavior [] says that you can't criticize America or an administration". Actually that is an amazing leap there son. Laughably broad leap, in fact. Lolz level, to be honest.

How in the fk do you get there in any semblance of a rational mind?

<clap> for the rhetorical flourish effort there lad.

Rationalize the tweet? After consideration, I actually kind of support it.

Especially in the way he stated it to 'hey smart ones, if you think your socialist and open border ways a *so* much better, go somewhere and try. Give us a book report when you come to a conclusion'. What exactly is bad about that behavior that has your cute little feathers ruffled so smartly? Please do tell.

I have zero issue with telling anyone, let alone a US Representative, who equate the US government with nazism to take a rather large flying leap. I take it you do have an issue there?

Hey as a reminder, on the issues about what the crowd responded to, again, use facts on what he said tonight. Dont pull it out of your ass like you just did.

Are you kidding me? I watched Trump try and say that Omar had said she was proud of Al Qaeda and that you don't say America with pride - that is a clear misrepresentation of what she said, as outline in the link I sent you.

Trump: "You don't say America with this intensity, you say Al Qaeda... Al Qaeda makes you proud..."

Seriously?

Your full and complete statement is: "The crowd chanted this to Trump after he lied about things Omar has done."

The crowd chanted this directly after Trump repeated her actual 'its all about the Benjamins' comment, not after the portion dealing with the way in which Al Queada is said.

That is, the crowd chanted this well away from the point in time Trump made any sort of comment akin to what you say.

Get your facts straight.

The first small, isolated chants occur nearly a full minute after you the portion you squawk about. They actually start in force after Trump mentions her long history of "anti-Semitic screeds", and crescendo when the 'Benjamin' quote is repeated.

Reading comprehension issues? I mean, those are your words, are they not? You pretty much fully mischaracterize the cause and effect here. Imagine that.

--------------------

No issue with the other 8-10 comments made about Omar then, I take it. Just the 'says it proud' portion? Thats interesting given the roughly four minutes and full listing of items there that actually refer to her by name. Glad to know that you agree with those.

Further, I actually suggest you look at the clip of the words you type. Very different inflection than the bald snippet you post..... not to mention you have pulled that partial comment from its context. Good for you.

The context was that Trump correctly stated that Omar said:

'You don’t say “America” with an intensity. You don’t say it in a manner that makes one proud.' That was the entire context of the clip in Trump's speech.

Kind of a stupid statement, but it is true. Omar *did* comment on how different groups stated different things differently.

It is a non-issue when you think of it, that Omar was observing and commenting on how differing groups state things differently.

I think a better dig would be something along: "Omar thinks that people state things in different ways. Like most of us would say '19 suicide terrorists killed 3000 people using jets as living bombs' while she prefers to state it as 'someone did something'."

I think that would be far more effective, dont you? Would that be better in a veracity sense for you?

Honestly, I have this funny feeling that you watched a, maybe, 15 second or so highlights version there lad. Perhaps even heavily edited.

I'll be happy to send you a link to the full speech if you really wish to opine much further. Just give me the word.

I guess it’s good that you’ve dropped the facade and admit you’re on board with the nativist “send her back” chant. If that had been about her proving she knew what she was doing, which is what you’re lying to yourself about regarding trump’s quote, wouldn’t they have changed “prove it” or “show us proof” or “fix it first” or... Nope, instead, as Trump ragged on Omar for things she said or didn’t say, the crowd screamed for an American citizen to be sent back. Sounds just like all the nasty things that people said to the Irish in the 1800s.

What the hell are you saying in the bolded.... Im not going to respond because I dont know wtf you are frothing at there, son.

I have zero issue with telling anyone, let alone a US Representative, who equate the US government with nazism to take a rather large flying leap. I take it you do have an issue there?

Quote: I guess it’s good that you’ve dropped the facade and admit you’re on board with the nativist “send her back” chant.

In the context of Trump's tweet, yes, I heartily approve of the "America, love it or leave it" angle. Notwithstanding your tortured attempts to change what I say, son.

Do you have an issue with the chant in that context?

I remember you being bent out of shape in serious fing way about a chanting 'lock her up' with regards to a crime as well. Funny that.

(07-18-2019 07:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 06:37 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 01:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]As for your question about 'retard' *ever* being proper in context/setting etc.... this will be fun. This is even easier than the 'short bus' preen you went off on.

Title of a scientific/medical article: Fasting Cycles Retard Growth of Tumors

Economics: Does financialization retard growth? Time series and cross-sectional evidence

Does too much government investment retard economic development of a country?

High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals

There are only about 200 million search results to go. Get the point?

Care to backtrack from your hysterical and nonsensical level question of "Perhaps you could first explain to me how "retard" ... [is] OK depending on the context/speaker/listener. You seemed to suggest earlier that it was OK to use those terms if there weren't any people with special needs around to hear them?"

I can go on for 200 million more if you wish.

This is actually fun. Care to toss any more 'there cant be *any* good uses of word or phrase ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever' issues we can help you out with with that preen you got going there? I can think of one 'for sure' example. Well, a 'maybe' example come to think of it......

I guess in your rush to get those moralistic preening points you utterly lost sight of the very common and standard use of the word, notwithstanding your abjectly shrill question that implies there could *never* be a time/place/context in which the word was proper. That is the fun thing when dealing with moralistic preeners, they forget the obvious **** in their rush to race out in the front of the preener mob.

LOL, talk about preening!

I thought it was implied that I meant the use of those terms as they relate to people with disabilities. Pretty sure you knew that.

It was fun to watch you preen though. Smug and condescending too. But keep reserving those terms for leftists.

Now wait until Tanq jumps into the pedantic bouncy house to explain why he willfully misinterpreted that statement.

One of the most exhausting things about this message board is the need to constantly re-explain things because certain people willfully either act like they don’t understand points (perfect example right there) or they intentionally ignore or misinterpret posts. Tanq can ***** about a pedantic bouncy house, but a post like that is a perfect example of why I constantly have to hop in one with him. He knew damn well you weren’t saying that the use of the term “short bus” shouldn’t be used to describe an actual short bus. Same as OO knew that I wouldn’t see a problem describing someone as gay, if it meant happy.

I answered the question proffered. Bummer. Perhaps *93* should actually ask the correct question. Perhaps *that* is a solution.

I mean whenever I make *any* assumption in your fing posts, you ***** and wail that that 'wasnt what [you] said'. So I am taking both of absolutely literally.

Now like the true champ that you are, tiger, you now take the opposite point of view. Absolutely fing rich. Bouncy house. Bouncy house. Bouncy house.

Dont like it? Fk your feelings as some might say.

I mean you seem to orgasmically complain about everyone else, even to the level of the basic comprehensive skills. You play dodge, weave, and even 'change the fing words' (as you seemingly have with Trump's tweet in a previous point).

Quite proud that you attack a literal answer to a literal question in this manner. Par for the fing course.

(07-18-2019 08:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 07:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]1) Does it matter? I thought y’all were the group who constantly screams about thought policing? Is there anything more thought policing than screaming “Send her back” because she has views different than you?

Yes, it matters, because you were attempting an analogy that falls apart because of that differentiation. Trump is not attacking her because of her ethnicity, or even her thoughts. He is attacking her words and deeds.

Quote:2) Can you list out the exact nasty and subversive things Omar has said about America? Or do they primarily focus on the Trump administration (which is not America, as we all know)

Seriously? Do you truly believe that Omar and Tlaib have not said and done things that were nasty and subversive toward America?

I won't put AOC and Pressly in quite that same class. Their comments are simply stupid. But I have no use for any of the four, and I can't really imagine why any thinking person would.

*clutching pearls* Are you implying that one is not a "thinking person" if he or she supports leftist policies? Wait... is that smug and condescending?

(07-18-2019 06:37 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 01:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]As for your question about 'retard' *ever* being proper in context/setting etc.... this will be fun. This is even easier than the 'short bus' preen you went off on.

Title of a scientific/medical article: Fasting Cycles Retard Growth of Tumors

Economics: Does financialization retard growth? Time series and cross-sectional evidence

Does too much government investment retard economic development of a country?

High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals

There are only about 200 million search results to go. Get the point?

Care to backtrack from your hysterical and nonsensical level question of "Perhaps you could first explain to me how "retard" ... [is] OK depending on the context/speaker/listener. You seemed to suggest earlier that it was OK to use those terms if there weren't any people with special needs around to hear them?"

I can go on for 200 million more if you wish.

This is actually fun. Care to toss any more 'there cant be *any* good uses of word or phrase ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever' issues we can help you out with with that preen you got going there? I can think of one 'for sure' example. Well, a 'maybe' example come to think of it......

I guess in your rush to get those moralistic preening points you utterly lost sight of the very common and standard use of the word, notwithstanding your abjectly shrill question that implies there could *never* be a time/place/context in which the word was proper. That is the fun thing when dealing with moralistic preeners, they forget the obvious **** in their rush to race out in the front of the preener mob.

LOL, talk about preening!

I thought it was implied that I meant the use of those terms as they relate to people with disabilities. Pretty sure you knew that.

It was fun to watch you preen though. Smug and condescending too. But keep reserving those terms for leftists.

Answering a question literally is 'preening'; got it.

Perhaps next time ask a correct question. Ranks up there with providing a proper quote in my book. Maybe even chastise yourself for not forming the proper question with all your built in biases, perhaps.

The lad goes off on OO elsewhere about a similar answer to 'gay'. So its perfectly okay to toss Trump supporters as an side with the implication that they are knuckle draggers, yet when a question is answered truthfully in a literal manner, *your first* response is to attack the person answering, with no fing introspection on *your* question. Bravo 93, bravo. Stupendous display.

If I got a literal answer to an as badly formed question at that, I would simply say, 'let me rephrase'. I take it you do not. Bummer.