CSNbbs

I guess it doesn't hurt to provide a few more responses.

(06-25-2020 02:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]So you start off by completely rejecting the entire premise upon which my example was based... which is just a long way around avoiding the question.... and instead you answer the question you want to answer.

I didn't think your question or the premise of your question were valid because they were based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what I wrote and meant. So I tweaked them to help you understand what I meant and wrote, rather than what you misinterpreted my comment to mean.

(06-25-2020 02:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Note... I didn't say I called you a dembot... I said your conclusions were indistinguishable from theirs, just as you did.... so you made the same leap you are screaming at us about... to the point of saying... I'll be honest, sometimes I honestly wonder if some of you are much dumber than I give you credit for

If my argument was indistinguishable from that of a dembot and you said that my argument was indistinguishable from a dembot's, why would I be insulted for you stating the truth? I'd agree with you. If you accused me of being a dembot, I would provide you with my explanation for reaching those conclusions and any research I had done in coming to those conclusions (which I have done on this site numerous times). If you still insisted on calling me a dembot ... I'd probably just move on. I'm insulted if you call me a liar, not if you call me a dembot or Bidenbot or anything similar. It doesn't get my boxer-briefs in a wad.

(06-25-2020 02:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]You knew we would be offended by your comparison and you said it anyway.

You keep writing this. Sure I was poking the bear a little, but I didn't expect any of you to actually give two *****. It was like I was poking you with a piece of cotton fluff, and I definitely was not calling anyone a Trumpbot just by noting that some of the arguments made and conclusions reached on this forum by non-Trumpbots are the same as those made/reached by a trumpbot.

(06-25-2020 02:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]At this point, I really don't care anymore that you don't understand why we're offended.

That makes 2 of us...

(06-25-2020 02:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-25-2020 12:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Somehow one of Hambone's posts a few posts ago showed up under my name. Weird. I deleted it (sorry, Hambone).

No worries. I'm sure it wasn't important.

If you can delete all my posts since 6/21, go ahead and do that. Certainly none of them were important.

(06-25-2020 03:36 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't think your question or the premise of your question were valid because they were based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what I wrote and meant. So I tweaked them to help you understand what I meant and wrote, rather than what you misinterpreted my comment to mean.

You're admitting here that you were so insistent on making YOUR point, that you completely ignored OUR point. You keep saying we misinterpreted what you said, but that's because you knew we would be offended, but didn't understand why. Rather than seek to understand why, you continue to insist that we have no justification for it, even though ALL of us reached the same conclusion?

The reality is, as i understand it... At Ease DID directly compare at least some of us to bots, and you came to his defense.... and apparently for your own 'joy'.... and nothing in your defense of his position implied anything but that he was absolutely right to feel the way he did.

Quote:If my argument was indistinguishable from that of a dembot and you said that my argument was indistinguishable from a dembot's, why would I be insulted for you stating the truth? I'd agree with you. If you accused me of being a dembot, I would provide you with my explanation for reaching those conclusions and any research I had done in coming to those conclusions (which I have done on this site numerous times). If you still insisted on calling me a dembot ... I'd probably just move on. I'm insulted if you call me a liar, not if you call me a dembot or Bidenbot or anything similar. It doesn't get my boxer-briefs in a wad.

No. What seems to get our boxers in a wad is any flippant paraphrasing of 'your' words, while you enjoy free reign with ours.

Your premise above requires that you agree that you were indistinguishable from a 'bot'. That is precisely the premise we reject, and are insulted by, and you knew we would be insulted by the inference.

Quote:='Hambone10' pid='16877889' dateline='1593114738']
You knew we would be offended by your comparison and you said it anyway.

You keep writing this. Sure I was poking the bear a little, but I didn't expect any of you to actually give two *****. It was like I was poking you with a piece of cotton fluff, and I definitely was not calling anyone a Trumpbot just by noting that some of the arguments made and conclusions reached on this forum by non-Trumpbots are the same as those made/reached by a trumpbot. [/quote]

I keep saying it because you keep dismissing it and claiming an innocent 'misunderstanding' that is somehow, our collective fault and not yours. As I said earlier, when I insult someone, I own it. You said you did too... but you're clearly not.... because you don't agree we should be offended.

Our offense does not require your acquiescence.

Quote:

(06-25-2020 02:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]At this point, I really don't care anymore that you don't understand why we're offended.

That makes 2 of us...

Something you've made abundantly clear from the start.... and STILL you don't care to understand. You should think about that.

That's the issue for me. I think most of us assumed that when you said "I don't understand' that you would want help/information to understand... but you don't. In fact, it apparently 'brings you joy' to insult us, but doesn't 'bring you joy' to understand us.

You gave a perfect example in your response above... IF my argument was indistinguishable from a dembot. Well, our arguments are not only EASILY distinguishable from dembots, but they are CLEARLY distinguishable from each other.... so we don't agree. In fact, the mere fact that we are intelligent people who reach our own conclusions using our own sources differentiates our arguments from theirs.

I don't watch Fox... haven't watched it (other than occasionally local 26) since 2010. Visited an older friend who had OAN on in the background... was mildly offended by it, as I am of most network news... I SURE as hell don't have a MAGA hat (have never actually seen one in person) nor do I frequent right wing sites. 90% of what I say comes from seeing the regularly scheduled rant of the day from the left, and using my own knowledge and google searches, most often choosing sites like CNN or similar to ensure no confirmation bias, to come up with a determination on its relevance and accuracy. Any similarity between my position, what I said, why I said it, the argument that I used and any of the sources you mentioned is PURELY coincidental.... and yet you can't tell the difference.

And let's be honest... because you've danced around this as well. You clearly don't hold those groups or their arguments or conclusions in high regard. You choose the adjective... but none of them are flattering... and you find us or our arguments and conclusions frequently indistinguishable from them, yet you don't understand why that's insulting.

I'm sorry, Big... I don't believe that you don't understand why it's insulting... other than in the same sort of 'if I believe it's true, then it's not insulting' that you used in your example. YOU think it's true, so WE shouldn't be offended, even if we disagree that it is true. It's the fact that you think it's true that is offensive... not the 'poking the bear' joke about it.

One of the posters here could not understand why I would be insulted by Hillary's "deplorables" speech if I was not one of the deplorables, as in that case she wasn't talking about me.

Same people who see racism and racial profiling in every interaction with a black person.

Polarized vision.

FTR:

I DO watch some Fox, though not Fox and Friends. I record daily a panel discussion which always involves leftist panel members, so different viewpoints are represented. I also watch CNN and ABC, and will at times flip over to MSNBC. I believe in a balanced diet, and recommend it to Big. The CNN and MSNBC panels much more rarely present a conservative - often just a bunch of liberals agreeing with each other. Fox does a better job of presenting both sides.

I don't wear hats, but occasionally I wiil see somebody wearing a Trump hat. I don't know what Big thinks that says about the wearer, but I get the impression it is nothing good. I have yet to see a Biden hat. I guess the automatic Democrats feel no need to get that precise with their support. AnybodyButTrump - sound familiar to anybody?

(06-26-2020 09:35 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]And let's be honest... because you've danced around this as well. You clearly don't hold those groups or their arguments or conclusions in high regard. You choose the adjective... but none of them are flattering... and you find us or our arguments and conclusions frequently indistinguishable from them, yet you don't understand why that's insulting.

I'm sorry, Big... I don't believe that you don't understand why it's insulting... other than in the same sort of 'if I believe it's true, then it's not insulting' that you used in your example. YOU think it's true, so WE shouldn't be offended, even if we disagree that it is true. It's the fact that you think it's true that is offensive... not the 'poking the bear' joke about it.

Ham, I'll admit that if I had talked about MAGA hats or Fox & Friends viewers 6 months ago it would have had more of a negative connotation coming from me. I don't feel that way any more. I disagree with the opinions of that crowd and I think many of them are likely poorly informed on some issues, but I have no negative feelings toward them as people or a group. So when I wrote the initial comment, it wasn't meant as some slight or derogatory inference about their education or intelligence or humanity or personality as you obviously inferred.

(06-26-2020 01:25 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]I think many of them are likely poorly informed on some issues,

Based on their opinions being different from your "well-informed" ones?

So, IOW, if only those poor ignoramuses knew more, they would obviously agree with me?

I must confess, that is exactly my attitude toward the left's approach to economic issues. How else can one explain some of the stupid initiatives supported by Democrats - higher taxes, more regulations, rewards for not working, the GND?

So, the question becomes, how can we educate the people on the other side better, especially when their minds are closed?

(06-26-2020 03:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-26-2020 01:25 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]I think many of them are likely poorly informed on some issues,

Based on their opinions being different from your "well-informed" ones?

So, IOW, if only those poor ignoramuses knew more, they would obviously agree with me?

My opinion is not based on the fact that they disagree with me and I don't think they are "poor ignoramuses" at all. I suspect that many (but not all!) of them get information from a narrow range of sources. I also suspect that many (but not all!) of them would not change their beliefs even if they had information from more sources.

What the hell are we even debating and why the hell am I still bothering to respond?

Hope everyone out there is staying healthy. Wear a mask! Vote! Go Rice (eventually)!

(06-26-2020 05:11 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]I suspect that many (but not all!) of them get information from a narrow range of sources. I also suspect that many (but not all!) of them would not change their beliefs even if they had information from more sources.

This is exactly, to a T, word for word, my opinion of leftists/Democrats. So, Big's opinions of MAGA hat wearing, Fox and Friends watching people are exactly like my opinions of statue toppling, MSM watching people.

GTFO and stay TFO. Never fight a war that you don't intend to win.

And while we have our head in the sands of the Mideast, China has taken over the South China Sea and outflanked us in South Asia and Africa, and is starting to work on South America.

Go in, win, leave. Or don't go in at all.

(06-26-2020 05:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-26-2020 05:11 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]I suspect that many (but not all!) of them get information from a narrow range of sources. I also suspect that many (but not all!) of them would not change their beliefs even if they had information from more sources.

This is exactly, to a T, word for word, my opinion of leftists/Democrats. So, Big's opinions of MAGA hat wearing, Fox and Friends watching people are exactly like my opinions of statue toppling, MSM watching people.

Indeed, Big has perfectly described most people I know who have bad ideas. And most people I know who have bad ideas are leftists.

(06-27-2020 10:23 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-26-2020 05:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-26-2020 05:11 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]I suspect that many (but not all!) of them get information from a narrow range of sources. I also suspect that many (but not all!) of them would not change their beliefs even if they had information from more sources.

This is exactly, to a T, word for word, my opinion of leftists/Democrats. So, Big's opinions of MAGA hat wearing, Fox and Friends watching people are exactly like my opinions of statue toppling, MSM watching people.

Indeed, Big has perfectly described most people I know who have bad ideas. And most people I know who have bad ideas are leftists.

Happy to be of service

Here's my problem. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore, I don't trust any of those bastards in government. I don't trust Pelosi, don't trust Schumer, don't trust McConnell, don't trust Trump, don't trust Biden, particularly don't trust any of the nameless, faceless, unelected, and unaccountable bureaucrats. Not one of them.

But as Ronald Reagan said, the USA is the last, best hope of liberty and freedom. If we fall, the world is done for. And we are dangerously close to falling.

I just finished reading the Sullivan/Flynn mandamus decision.

Ouch.

First, even getting a mandamus petition reviewed is pretty much a very rare event. Having it granted even much rarer.

The text of the decision really slams Sullivan, using amazingly harsh language.

The decision cited Sullivan's actions as “unprecedented intrusions on individual liberty and the Executive’s charging authority.” This is language that is amazingly blunt and harsh for an appellate court.

The decision is chock full of other very blunt notice: “clear legal error,” “irregular,” and “unprecedented,” and saying it was “crystal clear” that Sullivan lacked the authority to do what he did. It also noted that Sullivan’s argument to the contrary “conflicts with black letter law.” For those unfamiliar with the phrase, “black letter law” is judge-speak for “any first-year law student should know this.”

Additionally, the court also notes that the charge of FBI misconduct was the basis, and in this issue fully justifies the DOJ actions. Further, the extent and depth of the FBI actions and inactions isnt to be read lightly --- the full extent of the issue was briefed fully to the court.

(06-29-2020 08:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I just finished reading the Sullivan/Flynn mandamus decision.

Ouch.

First, even getting a mandamus petition reviewed is pretty much a very rare event. Having it granted even much rarer.

The text of the decision really slams Sullivan, using amazingly harsh language.

The decision cited Sullivan's actions as “unprecedented intrusions on individual liberty and the Executive’s charging authority.” This is language that is amazingly blunt and harsh for an appellate court.

The decision is chock full of other very blunt notice: “clear legal error,” “irregular,” and “unprecedented,” and saying it was “crystal clear” that Sullivan lacked the authority to do what he did. It also noted that Sullivan’s argument to the contrary “conflicts with black letter law.” For those unfamiliar with the phrase, “black letter law” is judge-speak for “any first-year law student should know this.”

Additionally, the court also notes that the charge of FBI misconduct was the basis, and in this issue fully justifies the DOJ actions. Further, the extent and depth of the FBI actions and inactions isnt to be read lightly --- the full extent of the issue was briefed fully to the court.

What stands out to me is the word "unprecedented".

Strictly speaking, it just means it hasn't happened before. In common usage, it can also mean it is not the normal way of things.

I have seen the left used "unprecedented" against Trump a lot, as though doing something new and different is a crime. For example, his twitter usage, or the involvement of his family.

It used to be unprecedented in this country to integrate schools. It used to be unprecedented to send troops to guard them. But Eisenhower did both.

Of course, legal precedent is another thing entirely.

(06-26-2020 07:26 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]

Is this an actual conclusion, or is this some leak by a lackey who decided to do something to hurt Trump?

(06-29-2020 09:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-26-2020 07:26 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]

Is this an actual conclusion, or is this some leak by a lackey who decided to do something to hurt Trump?

I wonder what response President Perfect would have offered.

(06-26-2020 01:25 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-26-2020 09:35 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]And let's be honest... because you've danced around this as well. You clearly don't hold those groups or their arguments or conclusions in high regard. You choose the adjective... but none of them are flattering... and you find us or our arguments and conclusions frequently indistinguishable from them, yet you don't understand why that's insulting.

I'm sorry, Big... I don't believe that you don't understand why it's insulting... other than in the same sort of 'if I believe it's true, then it's not insulting' that you used in your example. YOU think it's true, so WE shouldn't be offended, even if we disagree that it is true. It's the fact that you think it's true that is offensive... not the 'poking the bear' joke about it.

Ham, I'll admit that if I had talked about MAGA hats or Fox & Friends viewers 6 months ago it would have had more of a negative connotation coming from me. I don't feel that way any more. I disagree with the opinions of that crowd and I think many of them are likely poorly informed on some issues, but I have no negative feelings toward them as people or a group. So when I wrote the initial comment, it wasn't meant as some slight or derogatory inference about their education or intelligence or humanity or personality as you obviously inferred.

With respect, Big.... This is precisely why I postulated early on that there might be things that you know about yourself and your opinions that aren't clear to anyone but you..... and you threw a fit about it.... and also why I kept harping on the 'you knew this'.

We don't know that you had some sort of change in the way you viewed those groups, and because you alluded to the 'offense' we would have, it seemed logical that your opinion was still the same. It is certainly not remotely uncommon for the left to feel today as you did 6 months ago... and unfortunately we don't get to see each other often enough to sense these sorts of changes.

I would point out that your comment about them being poorly informed applies to many on the left as well.... and the fact that you felt the need to point that out certainly does continue to support my idea that you don't think highly of those groups, hence being associated with them (or having opinions indistinguishable from their poorly informed ones) is still not remotely flattering.

Sometimes stupid people have stupid ideas. More often these days, stupid people are given good ideas by intelligent people, but they can't explain them or defend them well.... so it's easy to call the idea stupid, and then use their failed explanations as support for that conclusion, ignoring the 'smart' explanation. It's also easy to define 'something I disagree with' as 'stupid', even though there certainly are often extremely intelligent reasons behind them, but they involve either a resetting of priorities, or often... simply ignoring certain aspects (like whether something is fiscally sound) in order to accomplish a goal of 'moving that direction'.

The ACA wasn't stupid, but it did a number of things that make no logical, financial or fiscal sense... because it was more important for the left to 'move in this direction' than it was to have everything be 'smart'. I'll let you choose which items supported by the MAGA group you consider stupid, and I'm betting that for any of them that I ever remotely supported, whereby my argument might be indistinguishable from theirs.... that I can show you a smart argument.

(06-29-2020 09:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-26-2020 07:26 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]

Is this an actual conclusion, or is this some leak by a lackey who decided to do something to hurt Trump?

The "I'm anti-Democract, not a Trumpbot" facade takes another hit.

(06-29-2020 11:29 AM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]The "I'm anti-Democract, not a Trumpbot" facade takes another hit.

What does that mean?

Given the previously demonstrated hard left lean of recent intel chiefs, that's a reasonable anti-democrat question to ask.

(06-29-2020 11:29 AM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2020 09:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-26-2020 07:26 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]

Is this an actual conclusion, or is this some leak by a lackey who decided to do something to hurt Trump?

The "I'm anti-Democract, not a Trumpbot" facade takes another hit.

If there are photos in here or links to twitter, I can't see them. All I can see is the 'Is this an actual conclusion' comment and the 'facade' comment... and I am responding to that.

The fact that you think this shows the issue.... and why you can't tell the difference in our conclusions but anyone with a grain of sense can.

The stated goal of most of the left it to 'get Trump'. That's not an opinion... they have said as much. That's what most of you are all about. It doesn't matter that your guy is no better, it doesn't matter if your guy doesn't have a better plan or anything else. All that matters to you is that you 'get Trump'. If you don't see the difference between that... and someone who is considering the alternatives to Trump, including 'your' guy... then you're the one whose opinions are indistinguishable from those who simply follow the party line of 'get Trump'.... not the other way around.