Tanq every day: nothing is my fault and you are extremely stupid

(08-23-2019 09:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Poor innocent, naive, not in touch with the real world Kamala. (the implication from 93). Yeah, my ass. Kind of goes against the grain of everything people know about her.

Actually, although she is older and more experienced now, I agree that she was/is naive and not in touch with the real world, still.

I thought the sexual harassment laws were to protect young naive people.

I think she was naive then, and is relatively (for a president) naive now. JMHO, WIASATH.

Hope this was stated in terms acceptable to everybody.

I would probably like here better if she had deliberately used her body to achieve a career path. At least that would indicate some planning, some ruthlessness, some willingness to do whatever it takes to get the job done. Goal directed, at the least. I don't care about the morals - that is just the stereotype of the religious right the left likes to lean on.

(08-23-2019 09:50 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Tanq every day: nothing is my fault and you are extremely stupid

I guess you missed this:

Quote:Did I misinterpret *your* indistinct pronoun? Well yes I did. Mea culpa.

(08-23-2019 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 09:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Poor innocent, naive, not in touch with the real world Kamala. (the implication from 93). Yeah, my ass. Kind of goes against the grain of everything people know about her.

Actually, although she is older and more experienced now, I agree that she was/is naive and not in touch with the real world, still.

I thought the sexual harassment laws were to protect young naive people.

I think she was naive then, and is relatively (for a president) naive now. JMHO, WIASATH.

Hope this was stated in terms acceptable to everybody.

I'm comfortable basing my opinion of what her place on the naivete/conniving spectrum for that, and other situations, off of people that worked with her in the DA office at that time, and later, and with whom I have discussed this with.

(08-23-2019 09:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 09:50 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Tanq every day: nothing is my fault and you are extremely stupid

I guess you missed this:

Quote:Did I misinterpret *your* indistinct pronoun? Well yes I did. Mea culpa.

Looks like Fountains misinterpreted your mea culpa for "nothing is my fault".

(08-23-2019 10:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 09:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Poor innocent, naive, not in touch with the real world Kamala. (the implication from 93). Yeah, my ass. Kind of goes against the grain of everything people know about her.

Actually, although she is older and more experienced now, I agree that she was/is naive and not in touch with the real world, still.

I thought the sexual harassment laws were to protect young naive people.

I think she was naive then, and is relatively (for a president) naive now. JMHO, WIASATH.

Hope this was stated in terms acceptable to everybody.

I'm comfortable basing my opinion of what her place on the naivete/conniving spectrum for that, and other situations, off of people that worked with her in the DA office at that time, and later, and with whom I have discussed this with.

She worries me, because I think she would be just a figurehead President, and because I think she is nominate-able and if nominated, possibly electable. But others worry me more. Specifically. Warren

Aside: did you see the video of Warren "dancing"? Makes GWB look fluid and balanced. I bet Kamala would win the dance-off.

Warren goes full Elaine

JMHO.

(08-23-2019 09:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 09:50 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Tanq every day: nothing is my fault and you are extremely stupid

I guess you missed this:

Quote:Did I misinterpret *your* indistinct pronoun? Well yes I did. Mea culpa.

That mea culpa was snark and you know it.

OO:

I will definitely agree with you that I really dont care about the morality issue of Kamala doinking Willy to get ahead; or for that matter Willy doinking a very junior person because, in that position, he can.

And I dont care that Willy opened the door to Kamala politically, whether because he was smitten with her charm or just because she gave him a 60 year grin, or whether because she was an adept acolyte who could benefit from learning some ropes.

And even if it was a 'sugar daddy / sugar baby' arrangement I dont care --- lord knows I have seen more of that within government officials and very powerful people than I really care to remember.

But there are two things that I think are unusual about Kamala/Brown.

1) The absolute inability to actually call it for what it is/was. It was absolutely a sugar daddy / sugar baby arrangement --- one doesnt plop state commission nominations on seriously wet behind the ears 2 year attorneys. I dont care about the 'morality' of *that*, but people on one side of the aisle should be able to recognize it for what it was, and not go into contortions over the labeling of it as such.

2) The appointment to the commission isnt a moral problem --- but the use of 400k of state funds to pay the salaries is. Let's call it what it is --- it is an indirect payment for a sexual services. If it was limited to 'opening doors for her' with the appointments, Willy, let alone anyone, can extend that to anyone that they choose.

But when there is a payment of 400k by the state for it, then it evolves to a real issue.

And even a 2nd year attorney can realize that what Brown has a very real taint of corruption and illegality about it. They should. An attorney at the most influential DA office in the state of California absolutely should recognize the air of illegality to that. It is pretty much nepotism, simply change 'family member' to 'person I'm schtuffing'.

And yes, Willy is the brunt of any potential crime here. No doubt. But, asking that Kamala simply took the position/salary as naivete is really stretching it for me. Conversely, it doesnt say much that an attorney in DAs office would be *that* naive about the illegality of the act. On the other hand, it doesnt say much to the ethical fiber of someone (even more so an attorney at the DA) accepting such a position knowing the taint of illegality of the act. And yes, the person accepting the 'payoff' of state money does have a moral vestment in the corruptive act. Not as much as the donor, but one cannot escape that some moral vestment has to occur with the donee.

But please dont go down the absolute bull**** non-sequitor of 'we really dont know what happened'. The facts as they are dont require us to be a porno peeping Tom on the Willy Kamala bedsheet tango. State funds were used to pay a sex toy for a state position that she had no earthly background for. And, being a prosecutor at the most influential DA office in the state, absolutely had to realize the legal impropriety of the state funds issue. Those are really the only facts that are germane, notwithstanding the continual whitewashing by 93.

(08-23-2019 10:19 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 09:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 09:50 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Tanq every day: nothing is my fault and you are extremely stupid

I guess you missed this:

Quote:Did I misinterpret *your* indistinct pronoun? Well yes I did. Mea culpa.

That mea culpa was snark and you know it.

Actually it was meant as a comment that I... uhhh.... misinterpreted it. Much as I admit to there. Cant get much blunter than that. What about that stark sentence escapes interpretation?

(08-23-2019 10:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 10:19 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 09:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 09:50 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Tanq every day: nothing is my fault and you are extremely stupid

I guess you missed this:

Quote:Did I misinterpret *your* indistinct pronoun? Well yes I did. Mea culpa.

That mea culpa was snark and you know it.

Actually it was meant as a comment that I... uhhh.... misinterpreted it. Much as I admit to there. Cant get much blunter than that. What about that stark sentence escapes interpretation?

I detect an unwillingness to give the benefit of the doubt.

Quote:Me: What would *you* term the sex for advancement quid pro quo that seemingly occurred with that?

You: You seem to be the one who is confident in Harris' intentions when it comes to dating Brown. I'm not and that's why I'm not putting a name on it. If you wanted me to put a name on that generic situation I certainly wouldn't use the term "slut". "Sexual quid pro quo" is pretty good though.

I took your word 'that' to mean the situation we were talking about: Harris and Brown.

As to the 'misquote' -- to be blunt it was your use of an indistinct word 'that' that led to a confusion.

I didnt misquote anybody, asshat.

Not my problem if *you* use an indistinct pronoun that can easily be taken as a reference to the generic situation between Brown and Harris

Pull your fing head out of your ass, sparkles.

Did I misinterpret *your* indistinct pronoun? Well yes I did. Mea culpa. I suggest you use less indistinct verbiage.

At least be fing bright enough to recognize your own fing words. I recognize my misinterpretation of your words. But no, I did not misquote them. At *best* your sentence is horribly indistinct in what you are calling out there.

Sorry for assuming that your acknowledgement of error was not in earnest when it came book-ended by calling another poster an asshat and insulting their intelligence. Mea culpa.

I dont think implying someone of delberately changing words is overly friendly, thus the tone.

Conversly, there was very much a resulting error on my part. And it needed to be acknowledged. Notwithstanding your comment of my supposedly 'always being right'.

In deference I will readily admit to whatever errors on my part. Which were there. And admitted to.

But I will absolutely call out someone denoting me as misquoting with the distinct statement ('pretend') of it being intentionally deceptive. Coupled that that immediate call out as something intentionally deceptive is pretty gd stark contrast with that same poster's paeans to 'well...... none of us *really* know what happened.... we *shouldnt* rush to judgement....' whine in defense of his idols. But that is tangential. The singular issue for me is that he decided it was convenient to label me as intentionally deceptive, not that he did at the drop of a fking hat.

You call me brusque, blunt, an *******.... no problem. If you state that I am intentionally deceptive I will go out on you.

If you cant separate those concepts, to be blunt, not my problem.

(08-23-2019 10:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 10:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 10:19 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 09:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 09:50 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Tanq every day: nothing is my fault and you are extremely stupid

I guess you missed this:

Quote:Did I misinterpret *your* indistinct pronoun? Well yes I did. Mea culpa.

That mea culpa was snark and you know it.

Actually it was meant as a comment that I... uhhh.... misinterpreted it. Much as I admit to there. Cant get much blunter than that. What about that stark sentence escapes interpretation?

I detect an unwillingness to give the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe I should change my name to Kamala Harris to engender that benefit of the doubt. That is seemingly a magic elixir and difference for some.

"always being right".

Of course, the only reason to argue is because we think we are right and those who disagree with us are wrong. This is true of all posters, A to Z., left or right, top to bottom. No point in arguing if we think we are wrong.

Once in a while, some of us may find out we were wrong about something. That is a good time to stop arguing.

Sometimes it may require an apology or a statement of correction. That usually happens when somebody has the facts wrong.

Once in a very great while, some of us may be persuaded by the arguments of another to change our opinion. That has happened to me, just not recently. But I did not use to believe that a fetus was a human being. I have been persuaded that it is, through argument and reflection.

I will continue to present my thoughts when I think I am right, and I presume everybody else, left and right, top to bottom, A to Z, will do the same.

(08-23-2019 11:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 10:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 10:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 10:19 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(08-23-2019 09:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess you missed this:

That mea culpa was snark and you know it.

Actually it was meant as a comment that I... uhhh.... misinterpreted it. Much as I admit to there. Cant get much blunter than that. What about that stark sentence escapes interpretation?

I detect an unwillingness to give the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe I should change my name to Kamala Harris to engender that benefit of the doubt. That is seemingly a magic elixir and difference for some.

This will work, definitely do this.

+

Those tweets are ridiculous. As I said a few weeks ago, Trump is getting more and more insane with each passing day.

Speaking of Moulton, he basically said it's down to a 3-person race in his concession speech - Biden, Warren and Sanders. The folks obsession here with Kamala Harris is amazing. She isn't going to be the nominee. Mayor Pete has already caught her in some of the polls, and Yang isn't too far behind.

(08-23-2019 04:13 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Those tweets are ridiculous. As I said a few weeks ago, Trump is getting more and more insane with each passing day.

Speaking of Moulton, he basically said it's down to a 3-person race in his concession speech - Biden, Warren and Sanders. The folks obsession here with Kamala Harris is amazing. She isn't going to be the nominee. Mayor Pete has already caught her in some of the polls, and Yang isn't too far behind.

I hope that you are right about Harris, and I also hope Moulton is wrong about the final three.

But of course, what I really hope for is four more years of Trump. Those final three might just lock it in for him.

***I wonder how long this thread gets if the "Trump Administration" lasts eight years. It might someday provide an historical record. The first part of his term could be labeled "The Russia Hoax".

(08-23-2019 04:13 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Those tweets are ridiculous. As I said a few weeks ago, Trump is getting more and more insane with each passing day.

All the candidates are tweeting, and that appears to be the new wave of political communication.

I think it is insane to follow a socialist agenda, or to give Iran the bomb, but heck, that's just me. I'm not the one who fell for the "children in cages" meme only to find the cages were built during the the Obama-BIDEN administration.

(08-23-2019 11:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  "always being right".

Of course, the only reason to argue is because we think we are right and those who disagree with us are wrong. This is true of all posters, A to Z., left or right, top to bottom. No point in arguing if we think we are wrong.

Once in a while, some of us may find out we were wrong about something. That is a good time to stop arguing.

Sometimes it may require an apology or a statement of correction. That usually happens when somebody has the facts wrong.

Once in a very great while, some of us may be persuaded by the arguments of another to change our opinion. That has happened to me, just not recently. But I did not use to believe that a fetus was a human being. I have been persuaded that it is, through argument and reflection.

I will continue to present my thoughts when I think I am right, and I presume everybody else, left and right, top to bottom, A to Z, will do the same.

Just read this passage in a Dean Koontz book:

"These days, most people avoided thinking, especially about the future. They preferred the comfort of blind convictions to clear-eyed thought."

I am sure the left and right here will both think this is a good description of the other.

Of course, I wouldn't say so if I didn't think I was right.