magical lad interpretive dance..... read a whole slew of words into a sentence that arent there and utterly turn the literal meaning on its head. By the way, lad, that isnt the only time you have pulled that wording about the 'march' killing someone.

Yet, when one does that in other posts, lad dances up and down, flaps his wings furiously, then says that that the poster is making strawman argument by putting words into his mouth.

Here he says 'you should be SMART enough to add other words to the statement'.

Then he neglects that he unendingly states Trump was absolutely incorrect that there were no good people because everyone at the rally/march were nazis, skinheads, racists, and klanners.

Un-fing-believable.

(02-18-2020 04:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 03:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 03:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:Can you should me where I have "doggedly" and "absolutely" castigated the people for the murder? From my memory, the closest I've come is saying that their presence helped to create the situation that led to the murder. But I could be wrong - sounds like you've got a good memory for what I type, since you can speak about it with such vigor.

On well more than one occasion you have noted how the group was responsible for the murder. 'Doggedly' for well more than a couple of times; 'castigate' for the responsibility you continuously lay on their shoulders as a collective. Sound good to you?

Or how about a simple search example?

Quote:Not hard to say that one shouldn't give any credence to a march full of literal Nazi's and Klansmen that ended up killing someone.

The above sounds a tad more than 'the presence of the match helped create situation' to me. How does it sound to you?

Multiply by a god score over the last number of years, and there you go. You 'doggedly' refer to the collective 'march' that somehow killed someone. That is opposed to saying 'some shitbag in the rally killed someone'. Shall I find more for you?

If you want to interpret that last sentence that way, where you believe that I'm saying multiple people killed Heather Heyer, that is your prerogative. But, as my response to this comment clearly indicated, I was talking about one of the many Nazi's/White Supremacists that killed Heather Heyer.

You should read that as "a march full of literal Nazi's and Klansmen, one of which ended up killing someone."

So he should read it using words that aren't there as opposed to using the ones that are?

I get what you're saying Lad, but it seems once again, you're either bothered because people read something into something you said, or that they didn't. Just as an aside... In comment one, it is 'the march' that killed someone, implicating everyone there. In the second, it is one person who attended the march. Especially in that it is being implied that (at least almost) everyone at the march was a nazi or klansman and thus deplorable to begin with

I also think it not just unlikely, but virtually IMPOSSIBLE that every single person there who was against the renaming of the park was a literal nazi or klansman. I've never seen a true nazi or klansman who would show their face, but miss an opportunity to display their 'colors', yet there were plenty of people there not carrying nazi signs or wearing hoods etc etc etc.

Tanq should ask for clarification without accusation. Ironically, I did that to Owl#s with respect to the use of Holland, and Tanq and OO got rather cranky about asking for clarification.

If y’all wanna tell me my grammar sucks, or I write confusing sentences that aren’t clear, I’ve got no problem with that. Half my posts are made hurriedly between work tasks and what not - they certainly aren’t works of journalistic magic.

I take issue with someone jumping to a conclusion, and then attacking that conclusion that was jumped to, repeatedly, when it was not the conclusion I was trying to convey.

Frankly, the sentence I wrote wasn’t exactly clear because the word “that” wasn’t clearly associated with the march or the klansmen/Nazi’s.

(02-18-2020 05:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  magical lad interpretive dance..... read a whole slew of words into a sentence that arent there and utterly turn the literal meaning on its head. By the way, lad, that isnt the only time you have pulled that wording about the 'march' killing someone.

Yet, when one does that in other posts, lad dances up and down, flaps his wings furiously, then says that that the poster is making strawman argument by putting words into his mouth.

Here he says 'you should be SMART enough to add other words to the statement'.

Then he neglects that he unendingly states Trump was absolutely incorrect that there were no good people because everyone at the rally/march were nazis, skinheads, racists, and klanners.

Un-fing-believable.

Dude, why add words to a quote that someone didn’t use?

I said nothing about intelligence. My issue with you is almost always your inability to realize you may be misunderstanding or misinterpreting something, and the zeal you have with jumping to false conclusions. I clarified what I meant once before, right under that post. But you still found it necessary to ignore the clarification and try and bring that issue back up.

And my whole original point was Trump shouldn’t have given credence to the march in the first place by saying there were good people on both sides. The march was literally filled with Nazi’s and White Supremacists. And one of those White Supremacists killed someone. What value is added by saying there were good people involved with the Unite The Right march?

(02-18-2020 06:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  and Tanq and OO got rather cranky about asking for clarification.

Actually, I wasn't cranky at all, and I put the wiki link there for Numbers. But even if that was not the way I meant it, apparently that is the way you took it. And you are stating it a given and agreed upon fact.

Few things on here have less import than the difference between Holland and the Netherlands. If you prefer, we can can it/them the Low Countries. Although maybe that would include Florida.

Quote:I take issue with someone jumping to a conclusion, and then attacking that conclusion that was jumped to, repeatedly, when it was not the conclusion I was trying to convey.

Pot, look in a mirror.

(02-18-2020 06:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  and Tanq and OO got rather cranky about asking for clarification.

Actually, I wasn't cranky at all, and I put the wiki link there for Numbers. But even if that was not the way I meant it, apparently that is the way you took it. And you are stating your perception as a given and agreed upon fact.

Few things on here have less import than the difference between Holland and the Netherlands. If you prefer, we can call it/them the Low Countries. Although maybe that would include Florida.

Quote:I take issue with someone jumping to a conclusion, and then attacking that conclusion that was jumped to, repeatedly, when it was not the conclusion I was trying to convey.

Pot, look in a mirror.

(02-18-2020 06:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 04:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 03:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 03:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:Can you should me where I have "doggedly" and "absolutely" castigated the people for the murder? From my memory, the closest I've come is saying that their presence helped to create the situation that led to the murder. But I could be wrong - sounds like you've got a good memory for what I type, since you can speak about it with such vigor.

On well more than one occasion you have noted how the group was responsible for the murder. 'Doggedly' for well more than a couple of times; 'castigate' for the responsibility you continuously lay on their shoulders as a collective. Sound good to you?

Or how about a simple search example?

Quote:Not hard to say that one shouldn't give any credence to a march full of literal Nazi's and Klansmen that ended up killing someone.

The above sounds a tad more than 'the presence of the match helped create situation' to me. How does it sound to you?

Multiply by a god score over the last number of years, and there you go. You 'doggedly' refer to the collective 'march' that somehow killed someone. That is opposed to saying 'some shitbag in the rally killed someone'. Shall I find more for you?

If you want to interpret that last sentence that way, where you believe that I'm saying multiple people killed Heather Heyer, that is your prerogative. But, as my response to this comment clearly indicated, I was talking about one of the many Nazi's/White Supremacists that killed Heather Heyer.

You should read that as "a march full of literal Nazi's and Klansmen, one of which ended up killing someone."

So he should read it using words that aren't there as opposed to using the ones that are?

I get what you're saying Lad, but it seems once again, you're either bothered because people read something into something you said, or that they didn't. Just as an aside... In comment one, it is 'the march' that killed someone, implicating everyone there. In the second, it is one person who attended the march. Especially in that it is being implied that (at least almost) everyone at the march was a nazi or klansman and thus deplorable to begin with

I also think it not just unlikely, but virtually IMPOSSIBLE that every single person there who was against the renaming of the park was a literal nazi or klansman. I've never seen a true nazi or klansman who would show their face, but miss an opportunity to display their 'colors', yet there were plenty of people there not carrying nazi signs or wearing hoods etc etc etc.

Tanq should ask for clarification without accusation. Ironically, I did that to Owl#s with respect to the use of Holland, and Tanq and OO got rather cranky about asking for clarification.

I did ask for clarification. I asked you 'if there is a group, and a member of that group commits a crime, then in lad's world that group should be culpable as a whole for that crime'. to which you responded 'Bingo, right on point.'

Seems right on line with your continued terminology that the 'march' was responsible there. That is until the stark urgency to backtrack.

Funny that.

Sometimes, law school sucks for non-lawyers.

(02-18-2020 06:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Pot, look in a mirror.

lol

(10-23-2019 03:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:   Another source

ANd yet another offering, same author

Hate to tell you these arent from Rudy's notes, lad.

The main problem is that there are indications that what Biden relates isnt the entire story -- you know, the story you have accepted lock, stock, and two smoking barrels. Just because...... I guess. I guess if lad accepts that as gold-plated the rest of the fing world should.....

Two sources quoted by Tanq to peddle the Biden-Ukraine theory, both written by John Solomon, formally with the Hill.

Click the links again and and read the updates at the bottom. And read, this rather lengthy, brutal, and quite embarassing, review of Solomon's work that The Hill just self-reported.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/483600...on-ukraine

I have Casey Michel to thank for this article popping up on my Twitter feed.

(02-19-2020 10:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 03:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:   Another source

ANd yet another offering, same author

Hate to tell you these arent from Rudy's notes, lad.

The main problem is that there are indications that what Biden relates isnt the entire story -- you know, the story you have accepted lock, stock, and two smoking barrels. Just because...... I guess. I guess if lad accepts that as gold-plated the rest of the fing world should.....

Two sources quoted by Tanq to peddle the Biden-Ukraine theory, both written by John Solomon, formally with the Hill.

Click the links again and and read the updates at the bottom. And read, this rather lengthy, brutal, and quite embarassing, review of Solomon's work that The Hill just self-reported.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/483600...on-ukraine

I have Casey Michel to thank for this article popping up on my Twitter feed.

This is good news - more evidence that Joe and Hunter are as pure as the driven snow, something I thought was apparent from the D after their names. I am sure an investigation would have cleared their names, if only the Democrats had not resisted it tooth and nail. After all, we have the Mueller example of how an investigation can clear one of spurious charges. Contrary to the reporting on the MSM, Ukraine was not asked to "dig up dirt" - just to investigate. It's in the transcript.

Of course, the brouhaha was whipped to a froth because it appeared to the Democrats like the investigation was targeting their frontrunner. Since he is now an also ran, does that change anything? What if Trump had asked for an investigation into, say, Hillary? Is an ex-foe the same as a potential foe in the eyes of the Resistance?

Personally, I would like to know the facts regarding both Hunter's and Joe's involvements in Ukraine, but there is a concerted effort on the part of "some" to keep this knowledge from me. Strange, coming from a group that thinks looking at tax returns will tell them something.

(02-19-2020 11:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What if Trump had asked for an investigation into, say, Hillary?

Trump shouldn't be asking DOJ to investigate anyone. He appoints the AG, DAG, US Attorneys, the head of the FBI and DEA, and various other top DOJ officials. He has the capacity to fire any of those appointees. But the President is not supposed to be able to order them to conduct investigations or stop investigations. There is supposed to be an arms-length relationship. DOJ should conduct its investigations and prosecutions by following the facts and applying the law.

(02-18-2020 06:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Tanq should ask for clarification without accusation. Ironically, I did that to Owl#s with respect to the use of Holland, and Tanq and OO got rather cranky about asking for clarification.

I'm asking for clarification... so it's 'our' responsibility to suspect that what you've written doesn't most often mean what you intended it to mean? So now you can accuse me of jumping to that conclusion.

It's a circuitous argument.

Quote:If y’all wanna tell me my grammar sucks, or I write confusing sentences that aren’t clear, I’ve got no problem with that. Half my posts are made hurriedly between work tasks and what not - they certainly aren’t works of journalistic magic.

Thats true for most of us, including me. The problem isn't that your grammar sucks or whatever... it's that you're blaming others for not knowing the difference between what you wrote and what you meant... and getting upset when they assume you wrote what you meant.

Quote:I take issue with someone jumping to a conclusion, and then attacking that conclusion that was jumped to, repeatedly, when it was not the conclusion I was trying to convey.

Frankly, the sentence I wrote wasn’t exactly clear because the word “that” wasn’t clearly associated with the march or the klansmen/Nazi’s.

So you admit that you unintentionally created the false impression (as we all often do)... so they didn't jump to a conclusion... your writing lead them to it.

Wouldn't this be much simpler and less confrontational if we accept that people on here, many of whom actually know eachother IRL don't merely jump to conclusions, but instead by some measure, feel lead there? The whole purpose of this forum is that we are a closer-knit community and not yahoos on a public forum. I don't know about you, but I presume a relatively low level of discourse on most forums, and a higher one here. Certainly you can find educated people anywhere, but the presumption on this forum is that we are all relatively well informed and read.

The discourse in this forum is mostly terrible semantic nitpicking. We'd all be much better off to acknowledge how low the stakes are here and have a laugh when someone drops a phrase like, "Pot, look in a mirror."

(02-19-2020 11:40 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  The discourse in this forum is mostly terrible semantic nitpicking. We'd all be much better off to acknowledge how low the stakes are here and have a laugh when someone drops a phrase like, "Pot, look in a mirror."

Depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.

(02-19-2020 11:10 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 11:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What if Trump had asked for an investigation into, say, Hillary?

Trump shouldn't be asking DOJ to investigate anyone. He appoints the AG, DAG, US Attorneys, the head of the FBI and DEA, and various other top DOJ officials. He has the capacity to fire any of those appointees. But the President is not supposed to be able to order them to conduct investigations or stop investigations. There is supposed to be an arms-length relationship. DOJ should conduct its investigations and prosecutions by following the facts and applying the law.

"following the facts and applying the law"

yes that is the ideal. We could ask Eric Holder, Obama's wing man, about that.

My question, though, was less of "is he supposed to do this at all" and more of 'What if it was about a different person?"

Much of the angst/anger/impeachment frenzy was because Biden was perceived to a front runner. So would the response be the same for an also ran?

(02-19-2020 11:10 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Trump shouldn't be asking DOJ to investigate anyone. He appoints the AG, DAG, US Attorneys, the head of the FBI and DEA, and various other top DOJ officials. He has the capacity to fire any of those appointees. But the President is not supposed to be able to order them to conduct investigations or stop investigations. There is supposed to be an arms-length relationship. DOJ should conduct its investigations and prosecutions by following the facts and applying the law.

You mean, like Comey did in deciding not to prosecute Hillary, when if I had done exactly what she did, I'd have gotten 20 to 40 in Leavenworth? And don't give me the tired "but.. but..." about how Colin Powell and Conde Rice did the same thing. No, they didn't.

Or do you mean like the whole dossier/FISA court misadventure? Or Strzok and Page and "Andy's" insurance policy?

How do you mean, following the facts and applying the law?

Trump had such a strong record on fighting corruption until now. I just don't get it.

(02-19-2020 01:20 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

Trump had such a strong record on fighting corruption until now. I just don't get it.

This is a great example of Trump reaching across the aisle.

Is he being coy, or does he not understand that conspiracy to commit a crime is still a crime even if you don't pull it off successfully?