CSNbbs

(07-18-2019 08:53 AM)tanqtonic 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.

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.

I'm sorry that you found my question so very confusing and badly formed. My assumption was that you could connect the dots relative the the conversation that we were in the middle of.

It's not "preening" to answer a question literally. It's preening to do so in the manner that you did (and quite often do).

*edit* You continue to imply that I call Trump supporters "knuckle draggers". As usual you are making something completely up. I said that the Trump base (remember when we worked hard to define that?) would be OK with his tweet. I was clearly right about that. You have turned that into me calling Trump supporters stupid. You are completely off base here.

(07-18-2019 08:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(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 - [b]go back from where you came from[b].

Chop, alter, edit. Good job there, lad.

Quote: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.”

You truly do set the bar for naivete or ignorance here, I cant tell which. 'Go back and do it yourself, know it all' is a time honored throwdown. Are you so desperate to get your junior g-man 'racism' badge that you are not aware of this? Or are you aware of that throwdown? Serious question.

Delusional idea? Perhaps literally. Figuratively speaking I would imagine this occurred from the first grunt languages when Og tried to tell Gog about the better way to make a club.

But you know that. If you dont, then you should.

Funny how you utterly and absolutely either dont know of this throwdown, or are willfully unaware of it. I dont find the throwdown out of order.

Quote: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.

A throwdown of go back home and do it yourself is now a constitutional concern? Holy ****. Take a serious chill pill. Lolz.

Actually as an afterthought, if you are so seriously deprived of real world experiences so as to not even fing know of that throwdown, hell, I can save some serious bourbon/entertainment value watching you tear your hair out over this..... lololololol.

This is like watching my neighbors dachshund fly off the handle chasing its stubby little body around in pretzel circles.

(07-18-2019 09:02 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 08:53 AM)tanqtonic 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.

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.

I'm sorry that you found my question so very confusing and badly formed. My assumption was that you could connect the dots relative the the conversation that we were in the middle of.

It's not "preening" to answer a question literally. It's preening to do so in the manner that you did (and quite often do).

*edit* You continue to imply that I call Trump supporters "knuckle draggers". As usual you are making something completely up. I said that the Trump base (remember when we worked hard to define that?) would be OK with his tweet. I was clearly right about that. You have turned that into me calling Trump supporters stupid. You are completely off base here.

For some odd, perhaps unfounded, reason, I seriously doubt that you hold the Trump (base, supporters, followers, hangerons, etc.) with a deep, undying, and unchallenged respect, 93.

Considering the (rather continuous from the left) 'chop, edit, and alter' to get the tweet where *you* wanted it, and your view of how terrible that 'chop, edit, and alter' was to you, then immediately follow it up with a comment on the Trump people, yes, I do see it as your slur on them. In a rather ispo facto manner.

What I do see, is a group of people who dont believe in the principles of Santa Claus 'democratic socialism', and are rather sick and tired of the government referred to as nazis at every turn.

But that consideration doesnt enter your head, because the tweet is 'bad'. It is bad after the edit job, and bad prior to the chop, alter, edit that was performed on it.
Does that about sum it up there?

Supposition here to a great extent.

By the way, as opposed to lad, I will also assume that you are aware of the throwdown, 'get out of here and go do it yourself', right?

(07-18-2019 09:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 08:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(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 - [b]go back from where you came from[b].

Chop, alter, edit. Good job there, lad.

Quote: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.”

You truly do set the bar for naivete or ignorance here, I cant tell which. 'Go back and do it yourself, know it all' is a time honored throwdown. Are you so desperate to get your junior g-man 'racism' badge that you are not aware of this? Or are you aware of that throwdown? Serious question.

Delusional idea? Perhaps literally. Figuratively speaking I would imagine this occurred from the first grunt languages when Og tried to tell Gog about the better way to make a club.

But you know that. If you dont, then you should.

Funny how you utterly and absolutely either dont know of this throwdown, or are willfully unaware of it. I dont find the throwdown out of order.

Quote: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.

A throwdown of go back home and do it yourself is now a constitutional concern? Holy ****. Take a serious chill pill. Lolz.

Actually as an afterthought, if you are so seriously deprived of real world experiences so as to not even fing know of that throwdown, hell, I can save some serious bourbon/entertainment value watching you tear your hair out over this..... lololololol.

This is like watching my neighbors dachshund fly off the handle chasing its stubby little body around in pretzel circles.

So were the chants cut off?

Did the people at the rally actually chang “Send her back! Send her back so she attempt to implement her ideas and prove that they work!”

(07-18-2019 09:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 09:02 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 08:53 AM)tanqtonic 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.

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.

I'm sorry that you found my question so very confusing and badly formed. My assumption was that you could connect the dots relative the the conversation that we were in the middle of.

It's not "preening" to answer a question literally. It's preening to do so in the manner that you did (and quite often do).

*edit* You continue to imply that I call Trump supporters "knuckle draggers". As usual you are making something completely up. I said that the Trump base (remember when we worked hard to define that?) would be OK with his tweet. I was clearly right about that. You have turned that into me calling Trump supporters stupid. You are completely off base here.

For some odd, perhaps unfounded, reason, I seriously doubt that you hold the Trump (base, supporters, followers, hangerons, etc.) with a deep, undying, and unchallenged respect, 93.

Considering the (rather continuous from the left) 'chop, edit, and alter' to get the tweet where *you* wanted it, and your view of how terrible that 'chop, edit, and alter' was to you, then immediately follow it up with a comment on the Trump people, yes, I do see it as your slur on them. In a rather ispo facto manner.

What I do see, is a group of people who dont believe in the principles of Santa Claus 'democratic socialism', and are rather sick and tired of the government referred to as nazis at every turn.

But that consideration doesnt enter your head, because the tweet is 'bad'. It is bad after the edit job, and bad prior to the chop, alter, edit that was performed on it.
Does that about sum it up there?

Supposition here to a great extent.

By the way, as opposed to lad, I will also assume that you are aware of the throwdown, 'get out of here and go do it yourself', right?

Give it a rest that anyone is tired of the government being called nazis. They’re tired of this administration being called nazis. They had no problem criticizing the government and using similar language while Obama was in control...

(07-18-2019 09:02 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 08:53 AM)tanqtonic 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.

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.

I'm sorry that you found my question so very confusing and badly formed. My assumption was that you could connect the dots relative the the conversation that we were in the middle of.

It's not "preening" to answer a question literally. It's preening to do so in the manner that you did (and quite often do).

*edit* You continue to imply that I call Trump supporters "knuckle draggers". As usual you are making something completely up. I said that the Trump base (remember when we worked hard to define that?) would be OK with his tweet. I was clearly right about that. You have turned that into me calling Trump supporters stupid. You are completely off base here.

Actually I will agree -- my answer(s) were 'preening'. On the other hand, you pretty much asked a dumb*** question considering what you really wished to ask, correct?

And no your question wasnt 'confusing' -- it was straightforward. I would guess that the answer itself would have made that abundantly clear. The answer(s) was(were) as straightforward as the question it responded to.

Nor was it 'badly formed' in the normal sense. It was very badly formed for the moral preening avenue that you wished to take it, though.

I truly am sorry that *you* didnt ask the question that *you* wished to ask. But that isnt my fault, is it? Notwithstanding your subsequent attempts to make it that way, eh?

And while preening to some extent, I personally feel it truly lacks the depth of the moral sanctimony that you seemingly bring. So perhaps at least a tad different; perhaps in that style at the very least.

(07-18-2019 09:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 09:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 09:02 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 08:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

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

I'm sorry that you found my question so very confusing and badly formed. My assumption was that you could connect the dots relative the the conversation that we were in the middle of.

It's not "preening" to answer a question literally. It's preening to do so in the manner that you did (and quite often do).

*edit* You continue to imply that I call Trump supporters "knuckle draggers". As usual you are making something completely up. I said that the Trump base (remember when we worked hard to define that?) would be OK with his tweet. I was clearly right about that. You have turned that into me calling Trump supporters stupid. You are completely off base here.

For some odd, perhaps unfounded, reason, I seriously doubt that you hold the Trump (base, supporters, followers, hangerons, etc.) with a deep, undying, and unchallenged respect, 93.

Considering the (rather continuous from the left) 'chop, edit, and alter' to get the tweet where *you* wanted it, and your view of how terrible that 'chop, edit, and alter' was to you, then immediately follow it up with a comment on the Trump people, yes, I do see it as your slur on them. In a rather ispo facto manner.

What I do see, is a group of people who dont believe in the principles of Santa Claus 'democratic socialism', and are rather sick and tired of the government referred to as nazis at every turn.

But that consideration doesnt enter your head, because the tweet is 'bad'. It is bad after the edit job, and bad prior to the chop, alter, edit that was performed on it.
Does that about sum it up there?

Supposition here to a great extent.

By the way, as opposed to lad, I will also assume that you are aware of the throwdown, 'get out of here and go do it yourself', right?

Give it a rest that anyone is tired of the government being called nazis. They’re tired of this administration being called nazis. They had no problem criticizing the government and using similar language while Obama was in control...

There you go again son, using the 'well its all just criticism' trope. At least you didnt use the phrase 'literally the same' here as you did with 'again'.

Glad you agree with me that the crowd doesnt like the 'Santa Claus visions of "democratic socialism" '. At least you have the objectivity to potentially accept that. Maybe not. I dont know,

Actually, lad, I am more interested in your subjective knowledge of the throwdown. Care to take a stab at that.

(07-18-2019 09:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 09:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 08:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(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 - [b]go back from where you came from[b].

Chop, alter, edit. Good job there, lad.

Quote: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.”

You truly do set the bar for naivete or ignorance here, I cant tell which. 'Go back and do it yourself, know it all' is a time honored throwdown. Are you so desperate to get your junior g-man 'racism' badge that you are not aware of this? Or are you aware of that throwdown? Serious question.

Delusional idea? Perhaps literally. Figuratively speaking I would imagine this occurred from the first grunt languages when Og tried to tell Gog about the better way to make a club.

But you know that. If you dont, then you should.

Funny how you utterly and absolutely either dont know of this throwdown, or are willfully unaware of it. I dont find the throwdown out of order.

Quote: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.

A throwdown of go back home and do it yourself is now a constitutional concern? Holy ****. Take a serious chill pill. Lolz.

Actually as an afterthought, if you are so seriously deprived of real world experiences so as to not even fing know of that throwdown, hell, I can save some serious bourbon/entertainment value watching you tear your hair out over this..... lololololol.

This is like watching my neighbors dachshund fly off the handle chasing its stubby little body around in pretzel circles.

So were the chants cut off?

Did the people at the rally actually chang “Send her back! Send her back so she attempt to implement her ideas and prove that they work!”

Wow, resorting to Monty Python levels of schtick with that one.

Perhaps you arent really cognizant of the prevalence of 2, 3, and 4 word chants. In Trump world, much easier to do and remember as opposed to that 30 or so syllable chant that you proffer, that I am sure that you erudites are so good at doing.

You keep going down the idiotic trail. Cute.

(07-18-2019 09:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 09:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 08:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(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 - [b]go back from where you came from[b].

Chop, alter, edit. Good job there, lad.

Quote: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.”

You truly do set the bar for naivete or ignorance here, I cant tell which. 'Go back and do it yourself, know it all' is a time honored throwdown. Are you so desperate to get your junior g-man 'racism' badge that you are not aware of this? Or are you aware of that throwdown? Serious question.

Delusional idea? Perhaps literally. Figuratively speaking I would imagine this occurred from the first grunt languages when Og tried to tell Gog about the better way to make a club.

But you know that. If you dont, then you should.

Funny how you utterly and absolutely either dont know of this throwdown, or are willfully unaware of it. I dont find the throwdown out of order.

Quote: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.

A throwdown of go back home and do it yourself is now a constitutional concern? Holy ****. Take a serious chill pill. Lolz.

Actually as an afterthought, if you are so seriously deprived of real world experiences so as to not even fing know of that throwdown, hell, I can save some serious bourbon/entertainment value watching you tear your hair out over this..... lololololol.

This is like watching my neighbors dachshund fly off the handle chasing its stubby little body around in pretzel circles.

So were the chants cut off?

Did the people at the rally actually chang “Send her back! Send her back so she attempt to implement her ideas and prove that they work!”

But let's get back to the inverse here. I take it your thesis is that the entire Trump tweet is racist, and that 9000 fellow racists were chanting last night. Would that be an accurate statement regarding your view on that? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Please do tell *why* in your subjective opinion that 9000 people would chant that as you say. I am curious as to that insight.

As an ancillary question, did watch anything more of the rally aside from highly compressed, selected segments of it? I know what my gut answer will be, but I just want to confirm at this juncture.

Bluntly, last night it was pretty obvious that you hadnt bothered and were relying on edited, short clips for your insightful (lol) comments.

(07-18-2019 09:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 09:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 09:02 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 08:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

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

I'm sorry that you found my question so very confusing and badly formed. My assumption was that you could connect the dots relative the the conversation that we were in the middle of.

It's not "preening" to answer a question literally. It's preening to do so in the manner that you did (and quite often do).

*edit* You continue to imply that I call Trump supporters "knuckle draggers". As usual you are making something completely up. I said that the Trump base (remember when we worked hard to define that?) would be OK with his tweet. I was clearly right about that. You have turned that into me calling Trump supporters stupid. You are completely off base here.

For some odd, perhaps unfounded, reason, I seriously doubt that you hold the Trump (base, supporters, followers, hangerons, etc.) with a deep, undying, and unchallenged respect, 93.

Considering the (rather continuous from the left) 'chop, edit, and alter' to get the tweet where *you* wanted it, and your view of how terrible that 'chop, edit, and alter' was to you, then immediately follow it up with a comment on the Trump people, yes, I do see it as your slur on them. In a rather ispo facto manner.

What I do see, is a group of people who dont believe in the principles of Santa Claus 'democratic socialism', and are rather sick and tired of the government referred to as nazis at every turn.

But that consideration doesnt enter your head, because the tweet is 'bad'. It is bad after the edit job, and bad prior to the chop, alter, edit that was performed on it.
Does that about sum it up there?

Supposition here to a great extent.

By the way, as opposed to lad, I will also assume that you are aware of the throwdown, 'get out of here and go do it yourself', right?

Give it a rest that anyone is tired of the government being called nazis. They’re tired of this administration being called nazis. They had no problem criticizing the government and using similar language while Obama was in control...

By the way, can you provide a list of all the Republican congressmen that called or referred to the Obama administration as Nazis? I am thinking you are headed down the lad 'expand the crap out if avenue here' (much as you were last night with your factcheck). So I would be interested in seeing that number of instances, if you dont mind.

As another ancillary, perhaps you can tell us how you are so certain that such a large number of the 9000 people at the rally "had no problem ... using similar language while Obama was in control" if that is whom you are referring to. I'll spot you that they probably didnt like the previous administration once, but I am fascinated as to your basis on the certainty the 9000 at rally (if that is whom you are referring to) "us[ed] similar language while Obama was in control".

(07-18-2019 09:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 09:02 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 08:53 AM)tanqtonic 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.

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.

I'm sorry that you found my question so very confusing and badly formed. My assumption was that you could connect the dots relative the the conversation that we were in the middle of.

It's not "preening" to answer a question literally. It's preening to do so in the manner that you did (and quite often do).

*edit* You continue to imply that I call Trump supporters "knuckle draggers". As usual you are making something completely up. I said that the Trump base (remember when we worked hard to define that?) would be OK with his tweet. I was clearly right about that. You have turned that into me calling Trump supporters stupid. You are completely off base here.

Considering the (rather continuous from the left) 'chop, edit, and alter' to get the tweet where *you* wanted it, and your view of how terrible that 'chop, edit, and alter' was to you, then immediately follow it up with a comment on the Trump people, yes, I do see it as your slur on them. In a rather ispo facto manner.
What I do see, is a group of people who dont believe in the principles of Santa Claus 'democratic socialism', and are rather sick and tired of the government referred to as nazis at every turn.

But that consideration doesnt enter your head, because the tweet is 'bad'. It is bad after the edit job, and bad prior to the chop, alter, edit that was performed on it.
Does that about sum it up there?

This is so disingenuous, Tanq. I explained to you directly how in no way was I editing or trying to misrepresent Trump's tweet. You nicely accepted my explanation.

And yet you continue to act as if that exchange never happened. You continue to attack your straw man. I'm not going to repeat my explanation. You can go back and read the exchange verbatim.

(07-18-2019 10:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 09:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 09:02 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 08:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

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

I'm sorry that you found my question so very confusing and badly formed. My assumption was that you could connect the dots relative the the conversation that we were in the middle of.

It's not "preening" to answer a question literally. It's preening to do so in the manner that you did (and quite often do).

*edit* You continue to imply that I call Trump supporters "knuckle draggers". As usual you are making something completely up. I said that the Trump base (remember when we worked hard to define that?) would be OK with his tweet. I was clearly right about that. You have turned that into me calling Trump supporters stupid. You are completely off base here.

Considering the (rather continuous from the left) 'chop, edit, and alter' to get the tweet where *you* wanted it, and your view of how terrible that 'chop, edit, and alter' was to you, then immediately follow it up with a comment on the Trump people, yes, I do see it as your slur on them. In a rather ispo facto manner.
What I do see, is a group of people who dont believe in the principles of Santa Claus 'democratic socialism', and are rather sick and tired of the government referred to as nazis at every turn.

But that consideration doesnt enter your head, because the tweet is 'bad'. It is bad after the edit job, and bad prior to the chop, alter, edit that was performed on it.
Does that about sum it up there?

This is so disingenuous, Tanq. I explained to you directly how in no way was I editing or trying to misrepresent Trump's tweet. You nicely accepted my explanation.

And yet you continue to act as if that exchange never happened. You continue to attack your straw man. I'm not going to repeat my explanation. You can go back and read the exchange verbatim.

Do you disagree that the tweet has been utterly edited to hell and back by the MSM at this point? And it appears at that point? To the net effect is that 'chop, alter, edit' version was presented as ipso facto 'the tweet', by yourself, correct?

Whether you intended the bad representation or not is utterly non-germane to the point being made 93. That point being "that consideration doesnt enter your head, because the tweet is 'bad'. It is bad after the edit job, and bad prior to the chop, alter, edit that was performed on it. " Is that an accurate summation?

Or did the tweet (in any form) give the warm feel goodies in any way?

(07-18-2019 10:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 10:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 09:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 09:02 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 08:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]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.

I'm sorry that you found my question so very confusing and badly formed. My assumption was that you could connect the dots relative the the conversation that we were in the middle of.

It's not "preening" to answer a question literally. It's preening to do so in the manner that you did (and quite often do).

*edit* You continue to imply that I call Trump supporters "knuckle draggers". As usual you are making something completely up. I said that the Trump base (remember when we worked hard to define that?) would be OK with his tweet. I was clearly right about that. You have turned that into me calling Trump supporters stupid. You are completely off base here.

Considering the (rather continuous from the left) 'chop, edit, and alter' to get the tweet where *you* wanted it, and your view of how terrible that 'chop, edit, and alter' was to you, then immediately follow it up with a comment on the Trump people, yes, I do see it as your slur on them. In a rather ispo facto manner.
What I do see, is a group of people who dont believe in the principles of Santa Claus 'democratic socialism', and are rather sick and tired of the government referred to as nazis at every turn.

But that consideration doesnt enter your head, because the tweet is 'bad'. It is bad after the edit job, and bad prior to the chop, alter, edit that was performed on it.
Does that about sum it up there?

This is so disingenuous, Tanq. I explained to you directly how in no way was I editing or trying to misrepresent Trump's tweet. You nicely accepted my explanation.

And yet you continue to act as if that exchange never happened. You continue to attack your straw man. I'm not going to repeat my explanation. You can go back and read the exchange verbatim.

Do you disagree that the tweet has been utterly edited to hell and back by the MSM at this point? And it appears at that point? To the net effect is that 'chop, alter, edit' version was presented as ipso facto 'the tweet', by yourself, correct?

Whether you intended the bad representation or not is utterly non-germane to the point being made 93. That point being "that consideration doesnt enter your head, because the tweet is 'bad'. It is bad after the edit job, and bad prior to the chop, alter, edit that was performed on it. " Is that an accurate summation?

Or did the tweet (in any form) give the warm feel goodies in any way?

I didn't like the tweet. I then postulated that Trump's base wouldn't have a problem with it. Was I wrong?

Am I allowed to say that I don't like the same things that Trump's base likes? I'm not sure why you take such issue with that. Is that such a terrible, disparaging, condescending, smug position to take? Do you like the same things that Bernie's base likes?

I found this summation, and this facet seems utterly unimaginable to our fine friends on the left. I would like your comments on this, as it seems that those on the left are absolutely clueless that this view *just might exist*.

Here is the summation:

Some people believe that there are two hands at play in the politics of the United States. On the one hand is a group of people who think America is the source of all evil that should spend the rest of its historical existence atoning for the mischief it has loosed in the world. On the other hand is a group who believe that for all its faults it is the greatest country in the world and that those who want to destroy it should go back to Somalia.

What exactly about this seems unfathomable to you all?

But in the race to not even consider this, the kneejerk whiplash event of 'RRRAAAAACCCCIIISSST' is so blindingly tossed to not even consider that this point of view exists, and everything in this fracas is the result of a racial animus (note the lad's breathless recantation of an 'animalistic chant', from an event he probably saw a whole fing 8 or 9 secs of.)

Note the breathless 'how *dare* they complain of our government referred to as Nazi' that accompanies his 'animalistic chant' mantra. I mean, what is so hard to be just sick and fing tired of the OAC gang in that respect? Seriously.

You all exhibit the same view of being sick and fing tired of Trump in an equal charge and manner. I can actually appreciate that and process that. So why the absolute steel shutter view of the pig headed 'animalistic chanters' from your quarters? Again, seriously.

I know the principle of Focault's pendulum, and the summation does a decent job of that for me. Yet for some, even here, Focault's pendulum seems to default to the word 'racist' at the drop of a short bus seat. That is really stunning to me.

Maybe this is our permanent mode now. From the left's standpoint, must be a tough time when the supposed mentally deficient side decides to actually stand up and take their own swings in the opposite direction. The horrors of the mentally deficient actually having the *temerity* to do that.

(07-18-2019 10:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 09:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 09:02 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 08:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

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

I'm sorry that you found my question so very confusing and badly formed. My assumption was that you could connect the dots relative the the conversation that we were in the middle of.

It's not "preening" to answer a question literally. It's preening to do so in the manner that you did (and quite often do).

*edit* You continue to imply that I call Trump supporters "knuckle draggers". As usual you are making something completely up. I said that the Trump base (remember when we worked hard to define that?) would be OK with his tweet. I was clearly right about that. You have turned that into me calling Trump supporters stupid. You are completely off base here.

Considering the (rather continuous from the left) 'chop, edit, and alter' to get the tweet where *you* wanted it, and your view of how terrible that 'chop, edit, and alter' was to you, then immediately follow it up with a comment on the Trump people, yes, I do see it as your slur on them. In a rather ispo facto manner.
What I do see, is a group of people who dont believe in the principles of Santa Claus 'democratic socialism', and are rather sick and tired of the government referred to as nazis at every turn.

But that consideration doesnt enter your head, because the tweet is 'bad'. It is bad after the edit job, and bad prior to the chop, alter, edit that was performed on it.
Does that about sum it up there?

This is so disingenuous, Tanq. I explained to you directly how in no way was I editing or trying to misrepresent Trump's tweet. You nicely accepted my explanation.

And yet you continue to act as if that exchange never happened. You continue to attack your straw man. I'm not going to repeat my explanation. You can go back and read the exchange verbatim.

I do and have read your 'excuse'. It to me is as disingenuous as you whine about here. So be it. Funny how that is, isnt it?

Perhaps you might be a little more careful making what could be considered snide ass comments about a group. Perhaps not.

Good Morning everyone.

I first heard "America, Love it or Leave it" about 50 years ago, during the VietNam war. It was the slogan used by pro-war people (mostly Democrats, as it was a Democratic war) toward anti-war people(mostly hippies) - all Americans. It was on bumper stickers.

At one time it was Lincoln's solution to send the freed slaves back where they came from - Africa. Didn't Liberia arise from such a plan?

I think 9000 people who traveled long miles and paid good money to hear Trump speak can be called his base, just as a similar crowd at a Sanders rally could be called his base. I don't think those 9000 people were Nazis, and I don't think they were racists, as a group. May have been a couple of nazis and a couple of dozen racists, unless we are using the left's definitions, in which case they all should be shipped off to re-education camps.

It has become more and more obvious that racism is the axle that turns Democrat's/the left's wheels. That's why their militant arm, Antifa, is based on anti-racism. It's why every action (border control) is cast in terms of the skin color of people (Nazis running concentration camps to keep out brown people). It was the basis for the impeachment attempt yesterday. It was the basis to oppose the tax cuts.

Trump doesn't help when he calls certain countries shithole countries. The left jumps on that as racist, but the truth is, no leftist is scheduling a vacation in any of those countries. Much easier to sit in their gated communities and point fingers.

My list of concerns for this country start with Economics - jobs for people, earning money and taking it home. Next is foreign policy - are we making deals with other countries that are beneficial to America? And so the list goes on down, and somewhere on it is fighting racism. Subcategories of that would be about how, where, and when to fight it. I would not have sent people to oppose the marchers in Charlottesville or anywhere else. Let them march without an audience. Then it becomes a non-happening. But the left feels compelled to always fight, in every way, because on their list of important things for America, fighting racism has the top ten spots. Well ahead of economics and foreign policy.

It is hard to reason with a fanatic, and so I will no longer try.

93, and Lad, you are definitely part of the Thought Police, although I think Thought Militia would be a better description. Like Hitler's Brown shirts, you stand ready and willing to attack where you see a need.

One of them asked Tanq where he thought he got the RIGHT to use words like short bus. I think if people who think like that can, they will modify the Constitution to outlaw certain words that, in their minds, have no lawful use. Then we will have Thought Police, for real.

Scary to me that half the nation thinks like that. And THAT half thinks half the other half are racist deplorables, so whatever happens to them is only what they deserve, racist bastards.

I have always thought a straight ticket vote was anathema to thinking, but I think I shall vote all Republican from now on. The Democrats scare me. They remind me of the 1930's Nazi's, just with a different target.

Now, note the difference. I did not call you Nazis, just Nazi-like in your devotion to a cause. I guess I could have gone back hundreds of years, and compared yall to the Spanish Inquisition or some other faction that wanted to cleanse the populace of wrong attitudes. Hitler did not invent intolerance. Savonarola did not invent the desire to cleanse the population of bad influences.

In any case, I am sure yall will continue your good fight against wrong thinking and wrong speaking. If yall get President Harris elected, you can slap each other on the back on displaying your lack of prejudice by electing a black female, and go imagining half of America is gnashing their teeth because they cannot stand her because of her race/sex. I am sure you will attribute 100% of the opposition to her programs to racist/sexist attitudes in Republicans. After, that is the hub of your universe, and correcting racism/sexism if much more important than making America prosperous.

(07-18-2019 11:15 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I found this summation, and this facet seems utterly unimaginable to our fine friends on the left. I would like your comments on this, as it seems that those on the left are absolutely clueless that this view *just might exist*.

Here is the summation:

Some people believe that there are two hands at play in the politics of the United States. On the one hand is a group of people who think America is the source of all evil that should spend the rest of its historical existence atoning for the mischief it has loosed in the world. On the other hand is a group who believe that for all its faults it is the greatest country in the world and that those who want to destroy it should go back to Somalia.

What exactly about this seems unfathomable to you all?

But in the race to not even consider this, the kneejerk whiplash event of 'RRRAAAAACCCCIIISSST' is so blindingly tossed to not even consider that this point of view exists, and everything in this fracas is the result of a racial animus (note the lad's breathless recantation of an 'animalistic chant', from an event he probably saw a whole fing 8 or 9 secs of.)

Note the breathless 'how *dare* they complain of our government referred to as Nazi' that accompanies his 'animalistic chant' mantra. I mean, what is so hard to be just sick and fing tired of the OAC gang in that respect? Seriously.

You all exhibit the same view of being sick and fing tired of Trump in an equal charge and manner. I can actually appreciate that and process that. So why the absolute steel shutter view of the pig headed 'animalistic chanters' from your quarters? Again, seriously.

I know the principle of Focault's pendulum, and the summation does a decent job of that for me. Yet for some, even here, Focault's pendulum seems to default to the word 'racist' at the drop of a short bus seat. That is really stunning to me.

Maybe this is our permanent mode now. From the left's standpoint, must be a tough time when the supposed mentally deficient side decides to actually stand up and take their own swings in the opposite direction. The horrors of the mentally deficient actually having the *temerity* to do that.

Has anyone here said “how dare they complain about what AOC, et al have said?” Or have we been criticizing how those people complaining have responded? This like if I was robbed by a black person, and instead of telling a cop, “Arrest that man” I said “Arrest that :insert racial slur here:.” The issue isn’t that I’m telling a cop to arrest a person who robbed me, it is that I am being racist while doing it.

See, the chants weren’t “Vote her out” or “Prove her wrong” or anything else that doesn’t rely on the racist trope of “go back to where you came from.” They instead used a common racist attack of someone who isn’t white to go back where they came from.

And to your question - if I have to pick an absolute answer like the political compass quiz, then yes, Trump’a tweet and the chant were racist. Note that when you watch the video, you can clearly see a lot of people in the crowd not join in that chant. I wonder why they didn’t? Probably because they disagreed with what was being chanted.

(07-18-2019 11:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 10:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 09:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 09:02 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2019 08:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]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.

I'm sorry that you found my question so very confusing and badly formed. My assumption was that you could connect the dots relative the the conversation that we were in the middle of.

It's not "preening" to answer a question literally. It's preening to do so in the manner that you did (and quite often do).

*edit* You continue to imply that I call Trump supporters "knuckle draggers". As usual you are making something completely up. I said that the Trump base (remember when we worked hard to define that?) would be OK with his tweet. I was clearly right about that. You have turned that into me calling Trump supporters stupid. You are completely off base here.

Considering the (rather continuous from the left) 'chop, edit, and alter' to get the tweet where *you* wanted it, and your view of how terrible that 'chop, edit, and alter' was to you, then immediately follow it up with a comment on the Trump people, yes, I do see it as your slur on them. In a rather ispo facto manner.
What I do see, is a group of people who dont believe in the principles of Santa Claus 'democratic socialism', and are rather sick and tired of the government referred to as nazis at every turn.

But that consideration doesnt enter your head, because the tweet is 'bad'. It is bad after the edit job, and bad prior to the chop, alter, edit that was performed on it.
Does that about sum it up there?

This is so disingenuous, Tanq. I explained to you directly how in no way was I editing or trying to misrepresent Trump's tweet. You nicely accepted my explanation.

And yet you continue to act as if that exchange never happened. You continue to attack your straw man. I'm not going to repeat my explanation. You can go back and read the exchange verbatim.

I do and have read your 'excuse'. It to me is as disingenuous as you whine about here. So be it. Funny how that is, isnt it?

That's interesting. Two nights ago I gave you my explanation and this was your response:

"I now understand our non-congruent posts on the content of the comment; you are correct in your first comments to me is that it doesnt appear racist. Hopefully you can understand why I was making those assumptions given what was in quotes.

I will take you at your word, and accept your comments above."

Now this morning you tell me that you found my explanation disingenuous. Which is it? Seems that you'll flip-flop as needed to create your daily straw man.

(07-18-2019 11:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]93, and Lad, you are definitely part of the Thought Police, although I think Thought Militia would be a better description. Like Hitler's Brown shirts, you stand ready and willing to attack where you see a need.

One of them asked Tanq where he thought he got the RIGHT to use words like short bus. I think if people who think like that can, they will modify the Constitution to outlaw certain words that, in their minds, have no lawful use. Then we will have Thought Police, for real.

Scary to me that half the nation thinks like that. And THAT half thinks half the other half are racist deplorables, so whatever happens to them is only what they deserve, racist bastards.

Dude... I was being completely tongue-in-cheek when I "granted" Tanq the "right" to use those crummy terms. (Tanq, when I call those words crummy I am referring to their use as it pertains to disabled people, cool?). Did you miss that it was tongue-in-cheek? I'm pretty sure there was no other instance where I questioned his RIGHT to use those words. It's a free country and I believe in the 1st amendment. He can say just about anything he wants and I support his right to do so. He can use terms that disparage disable people to his heart's content.

(07-18-2019 08:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]*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?

Depends on how you define “leftist policies.” I thought Bill Clinton was left of center, but I supported many of his policies and I certainly see how a thinking person could support them.

But people like Bernie have taken a hard turn left into idiocy. Any thinking person who looks at Bernie’s ideas will almost certainly conclude that his numbers are ludicrous fairy tales. AOC has ratcheted the needle even further away from any pretense of reality with her unattainable Green New Deal. And you have the likes of Tlaib and Omar voicing, or giving at least implied assent to, ideas that are anti-Semitic, anti-American, and even pro-terrorist. I don’t see how any thinking person can go there.

What I don't understand is what happened to reasonable, sensible democrats. Yes, there were some. These are people who supported Bill Clinton, and I was okay to that. Then they moved to supporting Obama, which I thought was clearly a different matter. Now they are voicing support for the likes of Bernie and AOC and Tlaib and Omar. I look at them and I'm like, "Dude, WTF happened to you?"