(06-22-2020 05:36 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Why do you keep using quotation marks? I haven't called anyone here a Trumpbot at any time in the last few months (other than maybe GoodOwl). Do you realize that I don't think you, OO, Tanq, Hambone, George, or really anyone else is a Trumpbot?

Quote:Actually, "drawers in a wad" is much better. It is easy to complain about "political correctness" in your position (or my position for that matter). But if one of my daughters was upset about something at school (or work someday) and a male teacher, professor, or boss told her not to get her panties in a was, it would be extremely sexist. I understand things are a little different when a guy says it to a guy, but the saying itself is still inherently sexist and I feel compelled to point it out.

(06-22-2020 05:28 PM)mrbig Wrote:  They weren't strictly partisan. Amash and Romney sided with the Democrats while Peterson, Van Drew, and Golden voted with the Republicans. The result fell along mostly partisan lines.

(06-22-2020 05:04 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I never said you or anyone else "takes your marching orders from Fox & Friends".

Quote:Ok. I literally said on multiple occasions today that I do not consider any of the conservatives or libertarians here to be Trump bots. And I use the word "literally" in the literal sense. I can understand how At Ease (or whomever it was) could make the mistake of believing it because some of arguments (but not all!) of some of the conservatives or libertarians here (but not all, or at least not at all times!) are indistinguishable or extremely similar to the arguments repeated by the Trump bots. I made a similar accusation once to OO and retracted it with an apology (I believe back in March but it could have been earlier).
Satisfied?

(06-22-2020 05:04 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 04:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am ignoring what is a black swan event. It is as if a farmer was trying some new techniques, and was raising a bumper crop when all of a sudden a wild fire burnt half his crop, and and you want to to say, "See? He is a lousy farmer". Worse yet, you want me to say it.

That's not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that, to use your analogy, Farmer Brown had some forewarning about the risk of fire (risk of pandemic) and knew the fire was burning beforehand and had opportunities to reduce the impact to his crops (even if he couldn't save his entire field). When Farmer Brown then gets hit hard by the fire, I think he should be judged, in part, by his preparedness for the fire and response to the fire once he knew about it and before it devastated his livelihood (in addition to how his crops were doing before the fire). If he had the best crop ever and ignored the smoke, are we supposed to pat him on the back and say "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job"?

(06-22-2020 06:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 05:36 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Why do you keep using quotation marks? I haven't called anyone here a Trumpbot at any time in the last few months (other than maybe GoodOwl). Do you realize that I don't think you, OO, Tanq, Hambone, George, or really anyone else is a Trumpbot?

To be fair, I think FBO was the one using the "Trumpbot" language. I (probably incorrectly and unfairly) tend to lump all you leftists together. You're all my enemies, just to differing degrees.

Quote:Actually, "drawers in a wad" is much better. It is easy to complain about "political correctness" in your position (or my position for that matter). But if one of my daughters was upset about something at school (or work someday) and a male teacher, professor, or boss told her not to get her panties in a was, it would be extremely sexist. I understand things are a little different when a guy says it to a guy, but the saying itself is still inherently sexist and I feel compelled to point it out.

God forbid anyone should ever do anything that anyone might consider sexist. I really am tired of PC crap. I was well aware that I was addressing another male, and frankly used it with that knowledge. In the hypothetical you describe, I would say the teacher/professor/boss was wrong on many levels, and sexism was one of the least of the problems.

I will adopt George's suggestion of, "knickers in a twist," although if you were speaking to a Brit, that would be decidedly sexist.

(06-22-2020 04:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

Quote:I never said you or anyone else "takes your marching orders from Fox & Friends". To quote a great philosopher, "So far, you're doing a pretty good job of suggesting that you are at least incapable of understanding basic statements from me." I said that your arguments are frequently the same as that cohort. Also, I don't mean that in the literal sense.

So please explain what you said and distinguish it from that.

Quote:
Fox & Friends ladies and gentlemen!

(06-22-2020 01:08 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I don't wear panties

(06-22-2020 04:44 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 04:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 03:46 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 02:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:26 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I leave it to you to point it out if I did ... son!

Well if you want to start the asshat train, good for you. Son.

If you have stopped talking down to people on this forum by repeatedly referring to them as "son" since I left, then I apologize for my comment. I assumed you were still doing it. My only solace is your apparent admission that referring to others as "son" makes you an asshat (and obviously me as well for doing it a few times)!

I guess in your zeal for particularity, that might have bothered to notice the use of the term 'son' is reserved for one person, and most notably always in response to that person stating something along the lines of 'ignorant' or something like that.

I absolutely use that term in a counter-punch, just as I did with your initial sling of **** there, big. Note the adjective 'initial' in the preceding sentence rather closely.

We used to be rather nice towards one another. Seemingly now, at least twice and recently, you have felt to jump off the ad-hom bridge. And I add the term 'initially' to that very specifically. I suggest you stew on that a tad.

My only 'solace' is your apparent inability to note the temporal issues dealing with my use of the term 'son'.

You referred to me as "son" on multiple occasions. That is why I started using it back toward you. When I use it, I'm not actually trying to insult you by calling you "son". I'm using it a little tongue-in-cheek and a little ironically, mostly to make fun of your use of it. Same reason I sometimes quote 69/70/75 back to himself where I just swap 1-2 words. I will stop doing it, as I thought you realized my use of "son" wasn't meant to be insulting in the same way you use it toward others.

(06-22-2020 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 05:04 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 04:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am ignoring what is a black swan event. It is as if a farmer was trying some new techniques, and was raising a bumper crop when all of a sudden a wild fire burnt half his crop, and and you want to to say, "See? He is a lousy farmer". Worse yet, you want me to say it.

That's not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that, to use your analogy, Farmer Brown had some forewarning about the risk of fire (risk of pandemic) and knew the fire was burning beforehand and had opportunities to reduce the impact to his crops (even if he couldn't save his entire field). When Farmer Brown then gets hit hard by the fire, I think he should be judged, in part, by his preparedness for the fire and response to the fire once he knew about it and before it devastated his livelihood (in addition to how his crops were doing before the fire). If he had the best crop ever and ignored the smoke, are we supposed to pat him on the back and say "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job"?

Sticking with the analogy, you are the guy with the Farm Bureau who says 'If you had started watering your field earlier, you would have cut your losses by half, and if you had, you would have still been a lousy farmer."

(06-22-2020 06:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 05:04 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 04:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am ignoring what is a black swan event. It is as if a farmer was trying some new techniques, and was raising a bumper crop when all of a sudden a wild fire burnt half his crop, and and you want to to say, "See? He is a lousy farmer". Worse yet, you want me to say it.

That's not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that, to use your analogy, Farmer Brown had some forewarning about the risk of fire (risk of pandemic) and knew the fire was burning beforehand and had opportunities to reduce the impact to his crops (even if he couldn't save his entire field). When Farmer Brown then gets hit hard by the fire, I think he should be judged, in part, by his preparedness for the fire and response to the fire once he knew about it and before it devastated his livelihood (in addition to how his crops were doing before the fire). If he had the best crop ever and ignored the smoke, are we supposed to pat him on the back and say "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job"?

Sticking with the analogy, you are the guy with the Farm Bureau who says 'If you had started watering your field earlier, you would have cut your losses by half, and if you had, you would have still been a lousy farmer."

I still want to know the thought process that enables planning for an entire country lockdown to not impact an economy. I mean, somehow someone (anyone) can plan a lockdown and economic halt with zero impact is mind boggling in scope.

I guess big thinks that having a week more prep wouldve had a yuuuugggeee impact on the economy to the upside based on his (very stilted) hypo above.

(06-22-2020 05:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 04:44 PM)mrbig Wrote:  You referred to me as "son" on multiple occasions. That is why I started using it back toward you. When I use it, I'm not actually trying to insult you by calling you "son".

IIRC, I've used it to you twice. Each time in response to your use of it. I think the first time you used it with me I told you to Fk off.

If I used it other than those two times as a counter-punch, my humblest apologies. I actually do respect you and your opinions for the most part.

(06-22-2020 02:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess you are clueless that you posted that same stupid ass gif as a direct response to me in post 12365 (or somefink like that).

(06-22-2020 02:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  For all your dancing there, these simple facts remain:

You used the gif 'Let the Hate Flow Through You' twice in your preaching post to #s.

You next use the exact same gif in response to a comment I made.

You seem to want to equate #s speech as full of hate, and one would presume that when you use the same exact gif as a pithy and stupid rejoinder to me you are saying the exact same message.

I noted that if you want to preach the fk about hate, perhaps you should use a little more reflexive tact in your observations.

Funny, to this dumb ass redneck, the posting of the same gif means the exact same message.

(06-22-2020 05:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So do tell -- how the fk do you plan for shutting people into their homes and literally shutting down the economy?

It is mind boggling that you think that is an anywhere near 'plannable' event for anything less than a twenty year time scale. Yet here you are apparently promulgating that it is.

I suggest you return to the real world for your next iteration at this version of 'It's Trump's fault, all of it'. That one doesnt meet the laugh test.

(06-22-2020 05:45 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  I can settle this for you guys: the preferred expression is "knickers in a twist".

Now, back to the fight!

(06-22-2020 06:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:08 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I don't wear panties

Nothing wrong with being a transvestite - in fact, aren't transvestites a protected class in the Democratic Party? Your statement sounds anti-transvestite to me.

Or maybe you just meant you go commando.

(06-22-2020 06:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 04:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

Quote:I never said you or anyone else "takes your marching orders from Fox & Friends". To quote a great philosopher, "So far, you're doing a pretty good job of suggesting that you are at least incapable of understanding basic statements from me." I said that your arguments are frequently the same as that cohort. Also, I don't mean that in the literal sense.

So please explain what you said and distinguish it from that.

His comment:

Quote:
Fox & Friends ladies and gentlemen!

That is his *response* to an issue.

I too would greatly like to see our skilled dance master distinguish his glib response above from your paraphrase.

(06-23-2020 01:27 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 05:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So do tell -- how the fk do you plan for shutting people into their homes and literally shutting down the economy?

It is mind boggling that you think that is an anywhere near 'plannable' event for anything less than a twenty year time scale. Yet here you are apparently promulgating that it is.

I suggest you return to the real world for your next iteration at this version of 'It's Trump's fault, all of it'. That one doesnt meet the laugh test.

I mean, both of the prior USA presidents expressed extreme concern for exactly this sort of pandemic. H1N1 and ebola were essentially dry-runs that should have helped the USA gets is $h!t together on responding to a pandemic. I do think it is plannable and I do think we should be planning for the next iteration because there will be something else in the next 20 years (or less) and it could be worse. Its like a hurricane. It doesn't always hit New Orleans, but eventually another one will hit New Orleans so we better make damn sure the levees and pumps are ready beforehand.

Quote:Its like a hurricane

(06-23-2020 01:47 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 06:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 04:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

Quote:I never said you or anyone else "takes your marching orders from Fox & Friends". To quote a great philosopher, "So far, you're doing a pretty good job of suggesting that you are at least incapable of understanding basic statements from me." I said that your arguments are frequently the same as that cohort. Also, I don't mean that in the literal sense.

So please explain what you said and distinguish it from that.

His comment:

Quote:
Fox & Friends ladies and gentlemen!

That is his *response* to an issue.

I too would greatly like to see our skilled dance master distinguish his glib response above from your paraphrase.

Haha, nice try dad (a joke, please roll with me on that one!). My response was indeed glib! Meaning it was insincere or shallow or nonchalant (various definitions of glib).

Additionally, I think we can agree that a Trumpbot (or really most uses of "bot" in similar circumstances) suggests that a person agrees/defends that individual (or party) in virtually all circumstances by parroting the same arguments. This whole discussion kicked off with me noting "that I often found the tone and substance of many of the arguments made here by the “non-Trumpbots” to be indistinguishable from the MAGA-hat wearing crowd or the Fox and Friends folks. ... I found this to be particularly true during discussions about impeachment, Kavanaugh, Charlottesville/very fine people...." I made that comment before 69/70/75's post (which was about Kavanaugh) so my glib response was merely a reaffirmation of what I had already written - that on this specific topic (but not on all topics), 69/70/75 was saying the same kind of things I would expect from Fox & Friends. That doesn't mean he "takes his marching orders from Fox & Friends", it means his argument on that specific issue is basically indistinguishable. Which is exactly what I wrote before 69/70/75's comment or my glib response.

(06-23-2020 01:24 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 05:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 04:44 PM)mrbig Wrote:  You referred to me as "son" on multiple occasions. That is why I started using it back toward you. When I use it, I'm not actually trying to insult you by calling you "son".

IIRC, I've used it to you twice. Each time in response to your use of it. I think the first time you used it with me I told you to Fk off.

If I used it other than those two times as a counter-punch, my humblest apologies. I actually do respect you and your opinions for the most part.

I have no interest in digging through old posts to see whether my memory is correct or whether your memory is correct. I'm happy to hit the reset button (as I would tell my kids) and just stop calling each other son. Still not sure why you feel compelled to do it with anyone on this forum, but that is on you and everyone around here is a grown up who can respond as they please if someone is disrespectful.

(06-22-2020 02:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess you are clueless that you posted that same stupid ass gif as a direct response to me in post 12365 (or somefink like that).

(06-22-2020 02:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  For all your dancing there, these simple facts remain:

You used the gif 'Let the Hate Flow Through You' twice in your preaching post to #s.

You next use the exact same gif in response to a comment I made.

You seem to want to equate #s speech as full of hate, and one would presume that when you use the same exact gif as a pithy and stupid rejoinder to me you are saying the exact same message.

I noted that if you want to preach the fk about hate, perhaps you should use a little more reflexive tact in your observations.

Funny, to this dumb ass redneck, the posting of the same gif means the exact same message.

OK. I used the gif in response to 2 of 69/70/75's posts where he explicitly expressed hate for Democrats and I think my pithy gif was fully justified. You "merely" referred to democrats as "grotesque" and "rancid" when I used the gif with you. So if "grotesque" and "rancid" exist in some less severe level of detestation than "hate" then I guess I concede the point. To me it all looks like 50 shades of gray, but what the hell do I know, I am color blind.

(06-22-2020 06:43 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 04:44 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 04:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 03:46 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 02:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Well if you want to start the asshat train, good for you. Son.

If you have stopped talking down to people on this forum by repeatedly referring to them as "son" since I left, then I apologize for my comment. I assumed you were still doing it. My only solace is your apparent admission that referring to others as "son" makes you an asshat (and obviously me as well for doing it a few times)!

I guess in your zeal for particularity, that might have bothered to notice the use of the term 'son' is reserved for one person, and most notably always in response to that person stating something along the lines of 'ignorant' or something like that.

I absolutely use that term in a counter-punch, just as I did with your initial sling of **** there, big. Note the adjective 'initial' in the preceding sentence rather closely.

We used to be rather nice towards one another. Seemingly now, at least twice and recently, you have felt to jump off the ad-hom bridge. And I add the term 'initially' to that very specifically. I suggest you stew on that a tad.

My only 'solace' is your apparent inability to note the temporal issues dealing with my use of the term 'son'.

You referred to me as "son" on multiple occasions. That is why I started using it back toward you. When I use it, I'm not actually trying to insult you by calling you "son". I'm using it a little tongue-in-cheek and a little ironically, mostly to make fun of your use of it. Same reason I sometimes quote 69/70/75 back to himself where I just swap 1-2 words. I will stop doing it, as I thought you realized my use of "son" wasn't meant to be insulting in the same way you use it toward others.

Me when I see Tanq complain about ad homs (esp. as one as benign as "son"):

(06-23-2020 02:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 06:43 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 04:44 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 04:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 03:46 PM)mrbig Wrote:  If you have stopped talking down to people on this forum by repeatedly referring to them as "son" since I left, then I apologize for my comment. I assumed you were still doing it. My only solace is your apparent admission that referring to others as "son" makes you an asshat (and obviously me as well for doing it a few times)!

I guess in your zeal for particularity, that might have bothered to notice the use of the term 'son' is reserved for one person, and most notably always in response to that person stating something along the lines of 'ignorant' or something like that.

I absolutely use that term in a counter-punch, just as I did with your initial sling of **** there, big. Note the adjective 'initial' in the preceding sentence rather closely.

We used to be rather nice towards one another. Seemingly now, at least twice and recently, you have felt to jump off the ad-hom bridge. And I add the term 'initially' to that very specifically. I suggest you stew on that a tad.

My only 'solace' is your apparent inability to note the temporal issues dealing with my use of the term 'son'.

You referred to me as "son" on multiple occasions. That is why I started using it back toward you. When I use it, I'm not actually trying to insult you by calling you "son". I'm using it a little tongue-in-cheek and a little ironically, mostly to make fun of your use of it. Same reason I sometimes quote 69/70/75 back to himself where I just swap 1-2 words. I will stop doing it, as I thought you realized my use of "son" wasn't meant to be insulting in the same way you use it toward others.

Me when I see Tanq complain about ad homs (esp. as one as benign as "son"):

Me when I see 93 actually respond substantively to a topic:

(06-23-2020 01:30 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 05:45 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  I can settle this for you guys: the preferred expression is "knickers in a twist".

Now, back to the fight!

Nice! I had actually heard "knickers in a twist" and "panties in a twist" but never "panties in a wad". Knickers is un-American enough (or just not modern enough) that I wouldn't have thought of it as sexist, regardless of whether knickers refers to male or female undergarments.