(08-05-2020 02:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 01:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 11:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're right, he could have made it worse by speculating who the attack came from.

I still think it's irresponsible for POTUS to spit ball like he did

Okay... you don't like much of anything he does... I get it. I don't consider reporting the professional opinion of his military advisors to be 'spit balling'.

These people are professionals and advisors to the POTUS... My father used to work directly for Colin Powell in such a capacity. Explosives wasn't his area, but he would have been giving him his professional opinion, and it would be treated as such. They don't spit-ball. Obviously the evidence they see in the explosions supports the idea that there were other chemicals and weapons involved and not merely the reported chemicals. They can't prove what those chemicals or weapons were because they don't have ALL the evidence.

Quote:- he didn't provide rationale as to why the "generals (unclear if there were actually three as you keep mentioning) seem to feel it was an attack." This isn't a situation where an opinion matters, it's a situation where facts and then analysis should lead the way - public speculation about an intentional act so early on could have unforeseen and unintended consequences.

Wait... so now he has to explain the thinking of others to everyone? Good lord, You complain when you think he doesn't listen to professionals and now you complain when he does.

The 'three' comment was a mistake by me... conflating two lines... you just can't help but get lost in minutiae.... Whatever... You have Presidential Military Advisors (he did use the plural), a named, retired ATF explosives investigator and a named, CIA Middle East expert all suspecting the same thing.... so that's at least 4 and could be 50.... and then you have three 'unnamed, DOD officials' who could quite literally be anybody in the DOD.

Quote:The implications of an attack on Beirut's port are far different than an industrial accident. Can we agree on that? If we can agree, doesn't it behoove our Commander in Chief to wait for more information to come in to provide the public with his personal theory?

Again, you call it his 'personal' theory. Did you even read your own article?

I think we agree on the different implications... but we disagree on what those implications are. The government carelessly storing high explosives in such an area isn't an industrial accident. Again, if the US government were storing seized explosives at the Port Authority Terminal in NYC, would you call that an 'industrial accident'?

As I said, the government has already admitted that they failed for 6 years to secure the explosives. Our military experts apparently told the President that they thought it was an attack. He reported that to the press.... and he even said it was their opinions, their EXPERT/PROFESSIONAL opinions.

Quote:Think about it, it's not like Trump went through the gamut of possible options - he started the presser by saying "It looks like a terrible attack."

I believe there is a time and place for everything, and providing a speculative theory about the exact cause of the explosion a few hours after happened seems to be a bit too soon.

and yet he'd already consulted with his advisors... hmmmm. You simply assume that he didn't consider the options. Maybe you don't have any idea what was considered?

Seriously, there are tell-tale signs of different types of explosions. The fact that you think that people like the ATF explosives expert and the Military don't consider the facts and instead just throw wild speculation at the President... ANY President is troubling.

My issue with the thrust of your argument is we don't have evidence that our military advisers did what you allege in the bold.

You are 100% correct that Trump reported that to the press, but when other military representatives were asked, they basically refuted the idea that the military thinks it was an attack. Frankly, three unnamed DOD officials are equally as credible as this POTUS, unfortunately, this POTUS is who makes the headlines.

I don't think his advisers threw unverified information at POTUS, I think they carefully chose what they wanted to tell him and likely gave him a complete picture of all possibilities. I think that the discussion was more detailed and nuanced than POTUS made it out to be.

By the way, Esper has now publicly stated that most believe the explosion was an accident, but that information was still being collected. You know, discussing the issue in a way where he provides information about the most likely outcome, without jumping to a conclusion. You may call that PC, but it's important for leaders to provide the entire picture (which Trump did not do).

Same ol', same ol'. OMB.

So why do YOU think Benghazi was attacked? The video, as your future VP candidate reported on five nettwork shows?

Lol, what? We're on Benghazi now?

I do think that is a perfect example of speaking with too much certainty too soon. It creates confusion and can do more harm than good by distracting from the issue at hand. Definitely a moment where the Obama administration should have acted differently and not run full steam ahead with the initial intelligence talking points/

If you have any issue with the initial public response to Benghazi, then you should have a similar issue with Trump's remarks here.

(08-05-2020 03:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 02:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 01:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 11:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're right, he could have made it worse by speculating who the attack came from.

I still think it's irresponsible for POTUS to spit ball like he did

Okay... you don't like much of anything he does... I get it. I don't consider reporting the professional opinion of his military advisors to be 'spit balling'.

These people are professionals and advisors to the POTUS... My father used to work directly for Colin Powell in such a capacity. Explosives wasn't his area, but he would have been giving him his professional opinion, and it would be treated as such. They don't spit-ball. Obviously the evidence they see in the explosions supports the idea that there were other chemicals and weapons involved and not merely the reported chemicals. They can't prove what those chemicals or weapons were because they don't have ALL the evidence.

Quote:- he didn't provide rationale as to why the "generals (unclear if there were actually three as you keep mentioning) seem to feel it was an attack." This isn't a situation where an opinion matters, it's a situation where facts and then analysis should lead the way - public speculation about an intentional act so early on could have unforeseen and unintended consequences.

Wait... so now he has to explain the thinking of others to everyone? Good lord, You complain when you think he doesn't listen to professionals and now you complain when he does.

The 'three' comment was a mistake by me... conflating two lines... you just can't help but get lost in minutiae.... Whatever... You have Presidential Military Advisors (he did use the plural), a named, retired ATF explosives investigator and a named, CIA Middle East expert all suspecting the same thing.... so that's at least 4 and could be 50.... and then you have three 'unnamed, DOD officials' who could quite literally be anybody in the DOD.

Quote:The implications of an attack on Beirut's port are far different than an industrial accident. Can we agree on that? If we can agree, doesn't it behoove our Commander in Chief to wait for more information to come in to provide the public with his personal theory?

Again, you call it his 'personal' theory. Did you even read your own article?

I think we agree on the different implications... but we disagree on what those implications are. The government carelessly storing high explosives in such an area isn't an industrial accident. Again, if the US government were storing seized explosives at the Port Authority Terminal in NYC, would you call that an 'industrial accident'?

As I said, the government has already admitted that they failed for 6 years to secure the explosives. Our military experts apparently told the President that they thought it was an attack. He reported that to the press.... and he even said it was their opinions, their EXPERT/PROFESSIONAL opinions.

Quote:Think about it, it's not like Trump went through the gamut of possible options - he started the presser by saying "It looks like a terrible attack."

I believe there is a time and place for everything, and providing a speculative theory about the exact cause of the explosion a few hours after happened seems to be a bit too soon.

and yet he'd already consulted with his advisors... hmmmm. You simply assume that he didn't consider the options. Maybe you don't have any idea what was considered?

Seriously, there are tell-tale signs of different types of explosions. The fact that you think that people like the ATF explosives expert and the Military don't consider the facts and instead just throw wild speculation at the President... ANY President is troubling.

My issue with the thrust of your argument is we don't have evidence that our military advisers did what you allege in the bold.

You are 100% correct that Trump reported that to the press, but when other military representatives were asked, they basically refuted the idea that the military thinks it was an attack. Frankly, three unnamed DOD officials are equally as credible as this POTUS, unfortunately, this POTUS is who makes the headlines.

I don't think his advisers threw unverified information at POTUS, I think they carefully chose what they wanted to tell him and likely gave him a complete picture of all possibilities. I think that the discussion was more detailed and nuanced than POTUS made it out to be.

By the way, Esper has now publicly stated that most believe the explosion was an accident, but that information was still being collected. You know, discussing the issue in a way where he provides information about the most likely outcome, without jumping to a conclusion. You may call that PC, but it's important for leaders to provide the entire picture (which Trump did not do).

Same ol', same ol'. OMB.

So why do YOU think Benghazi was attacked? The video, as your future VP candidate reported on five nettwork shows?

Lol, what? We're on Benghazi now?

I do think that is a perfect example of speaking with too much certainty too soon. It creates confusion and can do more harm than good by distracting from the issue at hand. Definitely a moment where the Obama administration should have acted differently and not run full steam ahead with the initial intelligence talking points/

If you have any issue with the initial public response to Benghazi, then you should have a similar issue with Trump's remarks here.

I think Trump should have hedged his statements more, but hedging is not his style. Not engaging in political doublespeak is one thing I like about Trump, but it does once in a while backfire.

I think Obama flat out lied. Did a little ass-covering exercise.

I see a difference. It's a pity you don't.

(08-05-2020 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 01:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Our military experts apparently told the President that they thought it was an attack.

My issue with the thrust of your argument is we don't have evidence that our military advisers did what you allege in the bold.

You are 100% correct that Trump reported that to the press, but when other military representatives were asked, they basically refuted the idea that the military thinks it was an attack. Frankly, three unnamed DOD officials are equally as credible as this POTUS, unfortunately, this POTUS is who makes the headlines.

I don't think his advisers threw unverified information at POTUS, I think they carefully chose what they wanted to tell him and likely gave him a complete picture of all possibilities. I think that the discussion was more detailed and nuanced than POTUS made it out to be.

By the way, Esper has now publicly stated that most believe the explosion was an accident, but that information was still being collected. You know, discussing the issue in a way where he provides information about the most likely outcome, without jumping to a conclusion. You may call that PC, but it's important for leaders to provide the entire picture (which Trump did not do).

I missed this... This demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about... and you're so blinded by 'outrage' that you can't even see it in yourself.

The President said it... and CNN also named two other experts who agree. To act as if this is 'spit balling' or 'the first thing that comes to his mouth' is without any evidence whatsoever. You simply don't believe anything he says... and prefer the comments by unnamed sources.... This is why I say, he could spit gold and you'd have an issue with it. OMB

Let's look at what Esper actually said...
'most believe' that it was an accident as reported. Well yeah, that's true. That doesn't mean its right, nor does it mean that he believes it, nor does it mean that our military leaders who consulted Trump believe it. "Most' believe all sorts of things that turn out to be wrong. Yes, he's being more politically correct, but he is not directly contradicting Trump. You choose to believe that's the case, but the English language is quite specific.

Now let's look at the 'defense officials who declined to be identified' said...
if there were indications anyone in the region pulled something off of this scale, it would trigger automatic increases in force protection for US troops and assets in the region -- if for no other reason than worry about retribution attacks.... That's only if it were caused by a foreign power. If it were internal, we might not do anything at all. The Lebanese are calling it an accident, so there is little reason to suspect there will be quick retaliation.

I mean, you're upset about Americans being detained without a polite explanation... We're talking about a government being directly culpable for the deaths of thousands.

The 'unidentified defense officials' are not even looking at the explosion.... their evidence is the 'reaction'.

Or maybe it's as simple as him reporting what 'people in the know' have reported to him and he's accepting it with clear reservations. No, it can't remotely be that. It has to somehow fit what you've been saying for 4 years now.

Other than a clear difference of opinion in a developing situation.... I don't see a meaningful difference between,...
"I've met with some of our great generals and they just seem to feel that it was not a -- some kind of manufacturing explosion type of event. This was a -- seems to be according to them, they would know better than I would, but they seem to think it was an attack. It was a bomb of some kind."
and Esper said he's still getting information but "most believe that it was an accident as reported and beyond that, I have nothing further to report on that.

Both are presenting what they've been told by others... neither is presenting their own opinion. Neither is stating anything as fact.

(08-05-2020 05:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 01:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Our military experts apparently told the President that they thought it was an attack.

My issue with the thrust of your argument is we don't have evidence that our military advisers did what you allege in the bold.

You are 100% correct that Trump reported that to the press, but when other military representatives were asked, they basically refuted the idea that the military thinks it was an attack. Frankly, three unnamed DOD officials are equally as credible as this POTUS, unfortunately, this POTUS is who makes the headlines.

I don't think his advisers threw unverified information at POTUS, I think they carefully chose what they wanted to tell him and likely gave him a complete picture of all possibilities. I think that the discussion was more detailed and nuanced than POTUS made it out to be.

By the way, Esper has now publicly stated that most believe the explosion was an accident, but that information was still being collected. You know, discussing the issue in a way where he provides information about the most likely outcome, without jumping to a conclusion. You may call that PC, but it's important for leaders to provide the entire picture (which Trump did not do).

I missed this... This demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about... and you're so blinded by 'outrage' that you can't even see it in yourself.

The President said it... and CNN also named two other experts who agree. To act as if this is 'spit balling' or 'the first thing that comes to his mouth' is without any evidence whatsoever. You simply don't believe anything he says... and prefer the comments by unnamed sources.... This is why I say, he could spit gold and you'd have an issue with it. OMB

Let's look at what Esper actually said...
'most believe' that it was an accident as reported. Well yeah, that's true. That doesn't mean its right, nor does it mean that he believes it, nor does it mean that our military leaders who consulted Trump believe it. "Most' believe all sorts of things that turn out to be wrong. Yes, he's being more politically correct, but he is not directly contradicting Trump. You choose to believe that's the case, but the English language is quite specific.

Now let's look at the 'defense officials who declined to be identified' said...
if there were indications anyone in the region pulled something off of this scale, it would trigger automatic increases in force protection for US troops and assets in the region -- if for no other reason than worry about retribution attacks.... That's only if it were caused by a foreign power. If it were internal, we might not do anything at all. The Lebanese are calling it an accident, so there is little reason to suspect there will be quick retaliation.

I mean, you're upset about Americans being detained without a polite explanation... We're talking about a government being directly culpable for the deaths of thousands.

The 'unidentified defense officials' are not even looking at the explosion.... their evidence is the 'reaction'.

Or maybe it's as simple as him reporting what 'people in the know' have reported to him and he's accepting it with clear reservations. No, it can't remotely be that. It has to somehow fit what you've been saying for 4 years now.

Other than a clear difference of opinion in a developing situation.... I don't see a meaningful difference between,...
"I've met with some of our great generals and they just seem to feel that it was not a -- some kind of manufacturing explosion type of event. This was a -- seems to be according to them, they would know better than I would, but they seem to think it was an attack. It was a bomb of some kind."
and Esper said he's still getting information but "most believe that it was an accident as reported and beyond that, I have nothing further to report on that.

Both are presenting what they've been told by others... neither is presenting their own opinion. Neither is stating anything as fact.

You're slipping into Tanq's West Texas bluntness by labeling other's criticism as "outrage."

I'd rather our leaders err on the side of caution when making public statements - Esper did that by pointing out we're still collecting information and not jumping to the most provocative conclusion. If our leaders are going to publicly state that this may have been an attack - which means someone planned to blow up 2,500+ tons of ammonium nitrate - there needs to be more than speculation behind it. It's not as if Option A and Option B are of equal weight.

Maybe the fact that I view the implications of the two scenarios being different is why we disagree.

(08-05-2020 08:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'd rather our leaders err on the side of caution when making public statements

So would I.

But a far greater concern for me is that I'd prefer they err on the side of capitalism when setting policies. And that's what I don't feel that I can count on from the democrats.

(08-05-2020 08:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 05:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I missed this... This demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about... and you're so blinded by 'outrage' that you can't even see it in yourself.


I mean, you're upset about Americans being detained without a polite explanation... We're talking about a government being directly culpable for the deaths of thousands.

You're slipping into Tanq's West Texas bluntness by labeling other's criticism as "outrage."

You were so nonplussed, calm, and collected about the incident, you decided to do a multi-paragraph, couple hundred word post, along with detailed cites, and start a brand new thread about it. Sound good to you now?

(08-05-2020 08:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're slipping into Tanq's West Texas bluntness by labeling other's criticism as "outrage."

Every time I see a post like this, I cringe a bit because I think I'm the first poster who ever linked Tanq's bluntness to West Texas.

I'll say this, about 99.99% of the time, when I read anything Tanq posts, my reaction is, "Dang, I wish I had said that."

(08-05-2020 08:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 08:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 05:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I missed this... This demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about... and you're so blinded by 'outrage' that you can't even see it in yourself.


I mean, you're upset about Americans being detained without a polite explanation... We're talking about a government being directly culpable for the deaths of thousands.

You're slipping into Tanq's West Texas bluntness by labeling other's criticism as "outrage."

You were so nonplussed, calm, and collected about the incident, you decided to do a multi-paragraph, couple hundred word post, along with detailed cites, and start a brand new thread about it. Sound good to you now?

I feel like there's some distance between outrage and dislike, but to each their own.

You're absolutely correct that I made a new post about it. It felt appropriate given that this has been a common refrain throughout the many other threads through the last three years.

But let's call it like it is - I wrote a 56 word post and copied in quotes from two articles I had read. I appreciate you giving me so much credit, but I may have spent more time copying and pasting the original post into Word to get a word count since I didn't think it had taken me that much effort to make.

(08-05-2020 09:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 08:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're slipping into Tanq's West Texas bluntness by labeling other's criticism as "outrage."

Every time I see a post like this, I cringe a bit because I think I'm the first poster who ever linked Tanq's bluntness to West Texas.

I'll say this, about 99.99% of the time, when I read anything Tanq posts, my reaction is, "Dang, I wish I had said that."

If it makes you feel any better, I cringed the first time I saw you post it - likely why it's stuck in my mind for so long.

(08-05-2020 09:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 09:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 08:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're slipping into Tanq's West Texas bluntness by labeling other's criticism as "outrage."

Every time I see a post like this, I cringe a bit because I think I'm the first poster who ever linked Tanq's bluntness to West Texas.
I'll say this, about 99.99% of the time, when I read anything Tanq posts, my reaction is, "Dang, I wish I had said that."

If it makes you feel any better, I cringed the first time I saw you post it - likely why it's stuck in my mind for so long.

I mean, it is accurate. He's from about as far west Texas as he could be, he's blunt and matter-of-fact, and so are most west Texans in my experience. Not a lot of beating around the bush in west Texas.

So why did you cringe?

I'll go first. I cringe because I think this comment has been blown way out of proportion.

I’m looking forward to visiting Yosemite National Park after all of this. Right after I visit Yogentiles National Park.

(08-05-2020 09:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 08:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 08:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 05:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I missed this... This demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about... and you're so blinded by 'outrage' that you can't even see it in yourself.


I mean, you're upset about Americans being detained without a polite explanation... We're talking about a government being directly culpable for the deaths of thousands.

You're slipping into Tanq's West Texas bluntness by labeling other's criticism as "outrage."

You were so nonplussed, calm, and collected about the incident, you decided to do a multi-paragraph, couple hundred word post, along with detailed cites, and start a brand new thread about it. Sound good to you now?

I feel like there's some distance between outrage and dislike, but to each their own.

You're absolutely correct that I made a new post about it. It felt appropriate given that this has been a common refrain throughout the many other threads through the last three years.

But let's call it like it is - I wrote a 56 word post and copied in quotes from two articles I had read. I appreciate you giving me so much credit, but I may have spent more time copying and pasting the original post into Word to get a word count since I didn't think it had taken me that much effort to make.

Im just making a note of how nonplussed you are about the subject of Donald and the Beirut boomy thing. So lets add the time and effort on the word count into that 'how nonplussed you are' count-o-meter.

(08-05-2020 09:46 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  I’m looking forward to visiting Yosemite National Park after all of this. Right after I visit Yogentiles National Park.

I am in awe of that wordplay there westside.

(08-05-2020 08:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'd prefer they err on the side of capitalism when setting policies.

No chance of that from the Democrats.

when they get the Dow down to 22,000, the unemployment up to 14%, and gasoline to $3.95, they will be telling us how much worse it would have been if they hadn't gotten Trump out of the WH.

(08-05-2020 10:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 09:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 08:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 08:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 05:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I missed this... This demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about... and you're so blinded by 'outrage' that you can't even see it in yourself.


I mean, you're upset about Americans being detained without a polite explanation... We're talking about a government being directly culpable for the deaths of thousands.

You're slipping into Tanq's West Texas bluntness by labeling other's criticism as "outrage."

You were so nonplussed, calm, and collected about the incident, you decided to do a multi-paragraph, couple hundred word post, along with detailed cites, and start a brand new thread about it. Sound good to you now?

I feel like there's some distance between outrage and dislike, but to each their own.

You're absolutely correct that I made a new post about it. It felt appropriate given that this has been a common refrain throughout the many other threads through the last three years.

But let's call it like it is - I wrote a 56 word post and copied in quotes from two articles I had read. I appreciate you giving me so much credit, but I may have spent more time copying and pasting the original post into Word to get a word count since I didn't think it had taken me that much effort to make.

Im just making a note of how nonplussed you are about the subject of Donald and the Beirut boomy thing. So lets add the time and effort on the word count into that 'how nonplussed you are' count-o-meter.

Honestly, what’s you’re point in trying to tell me how much I cared about Trump’s statement while actively ignoring what I’m saying?

Do you think you have greater insight into my opinions than I do?

(08-05-2020 09:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 09:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 09:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 08:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're slipping into Tanq's West Texas bluntness by labeling other's criticism as "outrage."

Every time I see a post like this, I cringe a bit because I think I'm the first poster who ever linked Tanq's bluntness to West Texas.
I'll say this, about 99.99% of the time, when I read anything Tanq posts, my reaction is, "Dang, I wish I had said that."

If it makes you feel any better, I cringed the first time I saw you post it - likely why it's stuck in my mind for so long.

I mean, it is accurate. He's from about as far west Texas as he could be, he's blunt and matter-of-fact, and so are most west Texans in my experience. Not a lot of beating around the bush in west Texas.

So why did you cringe?

I'll go first. I cringe because I think this comment has been blown way out of proportion.

I cringed because it was basically a way to excuse someone’s poor behavior - an obvious euphemism that plays politics with deriding language and overly hostile responses. It has nothing to do with being matter of fact - one can do that without adding the superlatives and hyperbole that have so often meandered through Tanq’s responses.

(08-06-2020 06:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 10:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 09:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 08:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 08:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're slipping into Tanq's West Texas bluntness by labeling other's criticism as "outrage."

You were so nonplussed, calm, and collected about the incident, you decided to do a multi-paragraph, couple hundred word post, along with detailed cites, and start a brand new thread about it. Sound good to you now?

I feel like there's some distance between outrage and dislike, but to each their own.

You're absolutely correct that I made a new post about it. It felt appropriate given that this has been a common refrain throughout the many other threads through the last three years.

But let's call it like it is - I wrote a 56 word post and copied in quotes from two articles I had read. I appreciate you giving me so much credit, but I may have spent more time copying and pasting the original post into Word to get a word count since I didn't think it had taken me that much effort to make.

Im just making a note of how nonplussed you are about the subject of Donald and the Beirut boomy thing. So lets add the time and effort on the word count into that 'how nonplussed you are' count-o-meter.

Honestly, what’s you’re point in trying to tell me how much I cared about Trump’s statement while actively ignoring what I’m saying?

Do you think you have greater insight into my opinions than I do?

Im just making a comment on how much effort you spend (two pages of thread, mind you) over how much you profess you dont give rats ass about it versus your defensiveness about being noted as 'outraged'. They stand in kind of opposition to one another. And interestingly that is still the bone you are still gnawing on four responses deep.

And, in all honesty lad, I dont have any clue as to your mindset. You seem rather 'juiced' about any comment regarding your external reactions to the subject.

Pardon any hyperbolic or whatever thingies you also seemingly get juiced about here. Maybe I will find an opportunity to use the word 'although' somewhere, which at one point you called out as 'overly antagonistic' or some weird offshoot of at one point.

(08-06-2020 07:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-06-2020 06:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 10:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 09:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 08:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You were so nonplussed, calm, and collected about the incident, you decided to do a multi-paragraph, couple hundred word post, along with detailed cites, and start a brand new thread about it. Sound good to you now?

I feel like there's some distance between outrage and dislike, but to each their own.

You're absolutely correct that I made a new post about it. It felt appropriate given that this has been a common refrain throughout the many other threads through the last three years.

But let's call it like it is - I wrote a 56 word post and copied in quotes from two articles I had read. I appreciate you giving me so much credit, but I may have spent more time copying and pasting the original post into Word to get a word count since I didn't think it had taken me that much effort to make.

Im just making a note of how nonplussed you are about the subject of Donald and the Beirut boomy thing. So lets add the time and effort on the word count into that 'how nonplussed you are' count-o-meter.

Honestly, what’s you’re point in trying to tell me how much I cared about Trump’s statement while actively ignoring what I’m saying?

Do you think you have greater insight into my opinions than I do?

Im just making a comment on how much effort you spend (two pages of thread, mind you) over how much you profess you dont give rats ass about it versus your defensiveness about being noted as 'outraged'. They stand in kind of opposition to one another.

And, in all honesty lad, I dont have any clue as to your mindset. You seem rather 'juiced' about any comment regarding your external reactions to the subject.

Pardon any hyperbolic or whatever thingies you also seemingly get juiced about here. Maybe I will find an opportunity to use the word 'although' somewhere, which at one point you called out as 'overly antagonistic' or some weird offshoot of at one point.

I read the news and saw Trump’s quote. I thought it was worth a discussion on this time suck. Since there wasn’t another thread open where it was appropriate, I figured a new thread would work best - especially since this isn’t a new criticism of mine.

You are right that I’m much more juiced over you and Ham exaggerating my opinion on the matter, than this instance of Trump speaking without a filter. I don’t really appreciate people trying to tell me how I feel when their only resource is a post on an internet message board. It doesn’t add to the discussion or do anything but antagonize and divert the conversation.

Let’s just make a new thread title “How liberal posters feel and what they think” so you can focus these kinds of posts there.

Quote:You are right that I’m much more juiced over you and Ham exaggerating my opinion on the matter, than this instance of Trump speaking without a filter. I don’t really appreciate people trying to tell me how I feel when their only resource is a post on an internet message board. It doesn’t add to the discussion or do anything but antagonize and divert the conversation.

Where am I 'exaggerating your opinion', lad? As I noted above (something that you obviously failed to read), well let me just quote it again --- I will bold it and italicize it this time so you dont miss it:

Quote:And, in all honesty lad, I dont have any clue as to your mindset.

The funny thing is that you so nonplussed about the subject that you are still gnawing on that bone five responses deep.

(08-06-2020 07:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And, in all honesty lad, I dont have any clue as to your mindset.

I don't either, Lad.

But I think Tanq and I both have a pretty good idea about the mindset of the character you play on the Internet.