(05-25-2022 08:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-25-2022 07:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And holy hell, I wish I had read the whole post before responding. Your lack of self awareness is actually jaw dropping. Just mind boggling that you went ape **** about how you were corrected for speaking in extremes about Cruz’s support in the state, only to try and harp on me for speaking in extremes regarding your opinion of Biden’s impact.

At least you may have at this point some fing clue as to the difference between 'all' and 'not all'. We should be so fing lucky. A Rice guy like you should know the fing difference in a heartbeat. Maybe not.

Quote:And I’ve got zero issue being accused of being fixated on Cruz being an asshat. I’ll admit that freely - you can ignore any of those posts if you would like. Or you can get your kicks acting like an obvious hypocrite. I see you’ve clearly chosen the latter.

Hypocrite? What do *you* call someone who completely makes **** up on whether I am/was defending Cruz being in Uvalde? Rational?

I jokingly called Cruz your chew toy fixation, but, seemingly that isnt such a joke. Lolz.

And then morphs it into 'well..... you *did* defend Cruz at some point in the past'? But please play with new Uvalde chew toy some more. (and 93 noted that how dare I call you 'fixated' -- double lolz.)

I’m going to stop this flame war because all we are doing is flinging insults at each other that lack any sort of substance and do nothing but drive the quality of posts on this board into the ground. They aren’t “jokes,” and neither of us should try and argue otherwise.

I unabashedly dislike Ted Cruz for a multitude of reasons, and have zero interest in hiding that. I’ll probably post about that again, so I recommend you just ignore it.

(05-26-2022 05:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-25-2022 08:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-25-2022 07:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And holy hell, I wish I had read the whole post before responding. Your lack of self awareness is actually jaw dropping. Just mind boggling that you went ape **** about how you were corrected for speaking in extremes about Cruz’s support in the state, only to try and harp on me for speaking in extremes regarding your opinion of Biden’s impact.

At least you may have at this point some fing clue as to the difference between 'all' and 'not all'. We should be so fing lucky. A Rice guy like you should know the fing difference in a heartbeat. Maybe not.

Quote:And I’ve got zero issue being accused of being fixated on Cruz being an asshat. I’ll admit that freely - you can ignore any of those posts if you would like. Or you can get your kicks acting like an obvious hypocrite. I see you’ve clearly chosen the latter.

Hypocrite? What do *you* call someone who completely makes **** up on whether I am/was defending Cruz being in Uvalde? Rational?

I jokingly called Cruz your chew toy fixation, but, seemingly that isnt such a joke. Lolz.

And then morphs it into 'well..... you *did* defend Cruz at some point in the past'? But please play with new Uvalde chew toy some more. (and 93 noted that how dare I call you 'fixated' -- double lolz.)

I’m going to stop this flame war because all we are doing is flinging insults at each other that lack any sort of substance and do nothing but drive the quality of posts on this board into the ground. They aren’t “jokes,” and neither of us should try and argue otherwise.

I unabashedly dislike Ted Cruz for a multitude of reasons, and have zero interest in hiding that. I’ll probably post about that again, so I recommend you just ignore it.

Or perhaps you ignore retorts on your fixation on a chew toy. That alone apparently led you to literally make **** up on what I typed.

If I was playing the fixation on making sure you acknowledge an error as you did on an April oil surplus (and your inherent outrage therein, even when that 'gotcha' didnt make an iota of difference in the topic), maybe you might consider your 'on the other side of the coin' response to your literally made up and false assertion of something that I presently had not done. Outrage and insistence and continued bleatings of a 'required' acknowledgement (which occurred, but you skipped over that at the first since it wasnt done to your arrogant ass satisfaction) seem to be strangely absent in light of your literal 'made up' assertion about a present defense of Ted Cruz. Un-fing-believable the hypocrisy and inherent arrogance in that very explicit and stark hypocritical stance.

But given your previous view that you can discern subjective intent in anybody and everybody, and note that commenting on that impossibility is a 'trope' and 'misdirection' (did I get the quotes to your puerile satisfaction there?) I am not actually surprised at this point.

But interestingly the insistence on acknowledging an error only works in one direction from your POV I surmise. Not just on this thread, but on your arrogant, uninformed, incorrect assumption, and pissant response in another thread of ‘how dare one might have known of Joe Biden 40 years ago.’ And yes, sometimes almost 60 years of life provides a background and knowledge that a punk ass like you seemingly refuses to note. Maybe not as much in philosophical terms, but absolutely in terms of historical knowledge, something that you pooh-poohed at the outset with your mealy mouth piece of **** response there. And I assume you will scurry away from that one without comment as well as you seemingly always do in those types of cases.

Just saying.

(05-26-2022 05:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I unabashedly dislike Ted Cruz for a multitude of reasons, and have zero interest in hiding that.

I unabashedly dislike Robert Francis O'Rourke for a multitude of reasons, and have zero interest in hiding that.

(05-26-2022 06:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 05:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-25-2022 08:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-25-2022 07:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And holy hell, I wish I had read the whole post before responding. Your lack of self awareness is actually jaw dropping. Just mind boggling that you went ape **** about how you were corrected for speaking in extremes about Cruz’s support in the state, only to try and harp on me for speaking in extremes regarding your opinion of Biden’s impact.

At least you may have at this point some fing clue as to the difference between 'all' and 'not all'. We should be so fing lucky. A Rice guy like you should know the fing difference in a heartbeat. Maybe not.

Quote:And I’ve got zero issue being accused of being fixated on Cruz being an asshat. I’ll admit that freely - you can ignore any of those posts if you would like. Or you can get your kicks acting like an obvious hypocrite. I see you’ve clearly chosen the latter.

Hypocrite? What do *you* call someone who completely makes **** up on whether I am/was defending Cruz being in Uvalde? Rational?

I jokingly called Cruz your chew toy fixation, but, seemingly that isnt such a joke. Lolz.

And then morphs it into 'well..... you *did* defend Cruz at some point in the past'? But please play with new Uvalde chew toy some more. (and 93 noted that how dare I call you 'fixated' -- double lolz.)

I’m going to stop this flame war because all we are doing is flinging insults at each other that lack any sort of substance and do nothing but drive the quality of posts on this board into the ground. They aren’t “jokes,” and neither of us should try and argue otherwise.

I unabashedly dislike Ted Cruz for a multitude of reasons, and have zero interest in hiding that. I’ll probably post about that again, so I recommend you just ignore it.

Or perhaps you ignore retorts on your fixation on a chew toy. That alone apparently led you to literally make **** up on what I typed.

If I was playing the fixation on making sure you acknowledge an error as you did on an April oil surplus, maybe you might do so on your generation of outrage over something that I presently had not done.

But surprisingly that insistence on acknowledging an error only works in one direction from your POV I surmise. Not just on this, but on your arrogant, uninformed, incorrect assumption, and pissant response in another thread of ‘how dare one might have known of Joe Biden 40 years ago.’ I’m sure you will scurry away from that one without comment as well…

I unabashedly dislike many progressive politicians for a multitude of reasons, yet somehow find the will not to simply flap my lips like a knee jerk reaction the vast, vast majority of the time,

Just saying.

Ok.

(05-26-2022 08:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 06:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 05:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-25-2022 08:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-25-2022 07:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And holy hell, I wish I had read the whole post before responding. Your lack of self awareness is actually jaw dropping. Just mind boggling that you went ape **** about how you were corrected for speaking in extremes about Cruz’s support in the state, only to try and harp on me for speaking in extremes regarding your opinion of Biden’s impact.

At least you may have at this point some fing clue as to the difference between 'all' and 'not all'. We should be so fing lucky. A Rice guy like you should know the fing difference in a heartbeat. Maybe not.

Quote:And I’ve got zero issue being accused of being fixated on Cruz being an asshat. I’ll admit that freely - you can ignore any of those posts if you would like. Or you can get your kicks acting like an obvious hypocrite. I see you’ve clearly chosen the latter.

Hypocrite? What do *you* call someone who completely makes **** up on whether I am/was defending Cruz being in Uvalde? Rational?

I jokingly called Cruz your chew toy fixation, but, seemingly that isnt such a joke. Lolz.

And then morphs it into 'well..... you *did* defend Cruz at some point in the past'? But please play with new Uvalde chew toy some more. (and 93 noted that how dare I call you 'fixated' -- double lolz.)

I’m going to stop this flame war because all we are doing is flinging insults at each other that lack any sort of substance and do nothing but drive the quality of posts on this board into the ground. They aren’t “jokes,” and neither of us should try and argue otherwise.

I unabashedly dislike Ted Cruz for a multitude of reasons, and have zero interest in hiding that. I’ll probably post about that again, so I recommend you just ignore it.

Or perhaps you ignore retorts on your fixation on a chew toy. That alone apparently led you to literally make **** up on what I typed.

If I was playing the fixation on making sure you acknowledge an error as you did on an April oil surplus, maybe you might do so on your generation of outrage over something that I presently had not done.

But surprisingly that insistence on acknowledging an error only works in one direction from your POV I surmise. Not just on this, but on your arrogant, uninformed, incorrect assumption, and pissant response in another thread of ‘how dare one might have known of Joe Biden 40 years ago.’ I’m sure you will scurry away from that one without comment as well…

I unabashedly dislike many progressive politicians for a multitude of reasons, yet somehow find the will not to simply flap my lips like a knee jerk reaction the vast, vast majority of the time,

Just saying.

Ok.

Typical.

(05-26-2022 05:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I unabashedly dislike Ted Cruz for a multitude of reasons, and have zero interest in hiding that.

Care to share some of those reasons, or are they secret?

I dislike some politicians (and some people) more than others, also. Schiff, for example. But I can, and will, say why, if asked.

So far all you have mentioned is the Cancun trip, but I suspect you already hated him before that.

I bet you will hate it if he is named to the Supreme Court.

(05-26-2022 08:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 08:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 06:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 05:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-25-2022 08:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  At least you may have at this point some fing clue as to the difference between 'all' and 'not all'. We should be so fing lucky. A Rice guy like you should know the fing difference in a heartbeat. Maybe not.


Hypocrite? What do *you* call someone who completely makes **** up on whether I am/was defending Cruz being in Uvalde? Rational?

I jokingly called Cruz your chew toy fixation, but, seemingly that isnt such a joke. Lolz.

And then morphs it into 'well..... you *did* defend Cruz at some point in the past'? But please play with new Uvalde chew toy some more. (and 93 noted that how dare I call you 'fixated' -- double lolz.)

I’m going to stop this flame war because all we are doing is flinging insults at each other that lack any sort of substance and do nothing but drive the quality of posts on this board into the ground. They aren’t “jokes,” and neither of us should try and argue otherwise.

I unabashedly dislike Ted Cruz for a multitude of reasons, and have zero interest in hiding that. I’ll probably post about that again, so I recommend you just ignore it.

Or perhaps you ignore retorts on your fixation on a chew toy. That alone apparently led you to literally make **** up on what I typed.

If I was playing the fixation on making sure you acknowledge an error as you did on an April oil surplus, maybe you might do so on your generation of outrage over something that I presently had not done.

But surprisingly that insistence on acknowledging an error only works in one direction from your POV I surmise. Not just on this, but on your arrogant, uninformed, incorrect assumption, and pissant response in another thread of ‘how dare one might have known of Joe Biden 40 years ago.’ I’m sure you will scurry away from that one without comment as well…

I unabashedly dislike many progressive politicians for a multitude of reasons, yet somehow find the will not to simply flap my lips like a knee jerk reaction the vast, vast majority of the time,

Just saying.

Ok.

Typical.

Would you rather I return fire with similarly pointed insults? Look, the Quad has been a cesspool for a long time, and I fully admit that I contribute to that on a far too frequent basis. Our back and forths recently have been almost nothing but personal attacks, misconstrued rebuttals, and substance free. I don’t think we should continue the cycle.

(05-26-2022 08:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 05:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I unabashedly dislike Ted Cruz for a multitude of reasons, and have zero interest in hiding that.

Care to share some of those reasons, or are they secret?

I dislike some politicians (and some people) more than others, also. Schiff, for example. But I can, and will, say why, if asked.

So far all you have mentioned is the Cancun trip, but I suspect you already hated him before that.

I bet you will hate it if he is named to the Supreme Court.

I dislike the majority of the policy positions he takes/shifts on, for starters.

I dislike how he is so brazenly political - to the comment above, I find that he often blows in the wind based on how he perceives the Republican base will react, as opposed to having a clear stance on issues. And it’s not even on policy all of the time - he bowed to Trump after his wife and father were personally insulted, he publicly put his tail between his legs over using the word “terrorist” in response to Jan 6.

I think he plays dumb regularly, when he is really fricken smart. But he plays dumb a la Tucker Carlson, where it is obvious and he comes off as being smug and condescending with how he positions that “playing dumb.”

But mostly, he does everything for politics - he is clearly not interested in effective governing, but rather grandstanding and showboating for cameras so he can stay in power. Helping his constituents be damned. Green eggs and ham, for real.

There is a reason his fellow Republicans said he could be shot dead and the shooter wouldn’t be charged. Just a “miserable son of a *****.”

(05-26-2022 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I dislike the majority of the policy positions he takes/shifts on, for starters.

I assume those are ususally normal conservative positions? I feel the same way about a lot of Democrats, to many to name.

Quote:I dislike how he is so brazenly political - to the comment above, I find that he often blows in the wind based on how he perceives the Republican base will react, as opposed to having a clear stance on issues.

I find lots of politicians brazenly political, and reacting to polls. Biden for one.

Quote:And it’s not even on policy all of the time - he bowed to Trump after his wife and father were personally insulted,

I'm with you on this one.

Quote: he publicly put his tail between his legs over using the word “terrorist” in response to Jan 6.

I'm with Ted on this one. Terrorists don't take selfies and steal coffee cups and go sight-seeing, at least not until they have taken an objective, like Afghanistan. I think the terrorist designation is a politically motivated one, for the benefit of the DNC. Just like the Jan. 6 kangaroo court commission.

Quote:I think he plays dumb regularly, when he is really fricken smart. But he plays dumb a la Tucker Carlson, where it is obvious and he comes off as being smug and condescending with how he positions that “playing dumb.”

Could be. I don't watch Carlsen or Cruz.

Quote:But mostly, he does everything for politics - he is clearly not interested in effective governing, but rather grandstanding and showboating for cameras so he can stay in power. Helping his constituents be damned.

Sounds like a lot of politicians - Schiff, Schumer, Pelosi, Waters, Biden, Harris, Becerra, dozens of others. Of course, maybe you don't like them either. I sure don't.

Kind of like yesterday's George Floyd stuff was done for politics.

Quote:There is a reason his fellow Republicans said he could be shot dead and the shooter wouldn’t be charged. Just a “miserable son of a *****.”

hadn't heard that - who said it?

Thanks for the response.

(05-26-2022 11:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 08:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 08:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 06:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 05:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’m going to stop this flame war because all we are doing is flinging insults at each other that lack any sort of substance and do nothing but drive the quality of posts on this board into the ground. They aren’t “jokes,” and neither of us should try and argue otherwise.

I unabashedly dislike Ted Cruz for a multitude of reasons, and have zero interest in hiding that. I’ll probably post about that again, so I recommend you just ignore it.

Or perhaps you ignore retorts on your fixation on a chew toy. That alone apparently led you to literally make **** up on what I typed.

If I was playing the fixation on making sure you acknowledge an error as you did on an April oil surplus, maybe you might do so on your generation of outrage over something that I presently had not done.

But surprisingly that insistence on acknowledging an error only works in one direction from your POV I surmise. Not just on this, but on your arrogant, uninformed, incorrect assumption, and pissant response in another thread of ‘how dare one might have known of Joe Biden 40 years ago.’ I’m sure you will scurry away from that one without comment as well…

I unabashedly dislike many progressive politicians for a multitude of reasons, yet somehow find the will not to simply flap my lips like a knee jerk reaction the vast, vast majority of the time,

Just saying.

Ok.

Typical.

Would you rather I return fire with similarly pointed insults? Look, the Quad has been a cesspool for a long time, and I fully admit that I contribute to that on a far too frequent basis. Our back and forths recently have been almost nothing but personal attacks, misconstrued rebuttals, and substance free. I don’t think we should continue the cycle.

You do whatever you see fit, lad. Of no import to me what you say, type, do, or think.

I find it amazing you clamor for half a day to get an acknowledgement of a fact you put out being at odds with what was said, then when pointed out that such an acknowledgement was made -- it wasnt gd sufficient for you for another quarter of a day.

Even more amazing that given that clamorous angst you projected on the previous, you seemingly bolt for the blue when noted that you actually made up a full strawman position for me. Literally made it up.

And then had the balls to whine that somehow one didnt know of Joe Biden 40 years ago. The last point with zero fing first had knowledge of what happy Meal had done, let alone what he tried to do 40 years. Those simple facts never gd stop you from your whiny as fk crap like that. Got it -- in lad world Joe Biden didnt run for President in '88, and no one alive then would have known that, nor of his fing face plant on plagiarism then. Nor would have anyone known of him after he led the Borking of Bork.

So **** you, and **** your imputation of worldly knowledge on things and events that you werent even fing alive for, and **** your worldly ruling on those actual events that happened even before your birth.

Rather ******* arrogant to opine on what I did or did not know 40 years ago, and still might remember today -- but lo and fing behold you did that. Just fing amazing.

Again, do whatever you see fit, son.

(05-26-2022 12:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I dislike the majority of the policy positions he takes/shifts on, for starters.

I assume those are ususally normal conservative positions? I feel the same way about a lot of Democrats, to many to name.

Quote:I dislike how he is so brazenly political - to the comment above, I find that he often blows in the wind based on how he perceives the Republican base will react, as opposed to having a clear stance on issues.

I find lots of politicians brazenly political, and reacting to polls. Biden for one.

Quote:And it’s not even on policy all of the time - he bowed to Trump after his wife and father were personally insulted,

I'm with you on this one.

Quote: he publicly put his tail between his legs over using the word “terrorist” in response to Jan 6.

I'm with Ted on this one. Terrorists don't take selfies and steal coffee cups and go sight-seeing, at least not until they have taken an objective, like Afghanistan. I think the terrorist designation is a politically motivated one, for the benefit of the DNC. Just like the Jan. 6 kangaroo court commission.

Quote:I think he plays dumb regularly, when he is really fricken smart. But he plays dumb a la Tucker Carlson, where it is obvious and he comes off as being smug and condescending with how he positions that “playing dumb.”

Could be. I don't watch Carlsen or Cruz.

Quote:But mostly, he does everything for politics - he is clearly not interested in effective governing, but rather grandstanding and showboating for cameras so he can stay in power. Helping his constituents be damned.

Sounds like a lot of politicians - Schiff, Schumer, Pelosi, Waters, Biden, Harris, Becerra, dozens of others. Of course, maybe you don't like them either. I sure don't.

Kind of like yesterday's George Floyd stuff was done for politics.

Quote:There is a reason his fellow Republicans said he could be shot dead and the shooter wouldn’t be charged. Just a “miserable son of a *****.”

hadn't heard that - who said it?

Thanks for the response.

John Boehner

https://www.npr.org/2016/04/28/476016486...-than-cruz

(05-26-2022 12:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 11:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 08:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 08:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 06:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Or perhaps you ignore retorts on your fixation on a chew toy. That alone apparently led you to literally make **** up on what I typed.

If I was playing the fixation on making sure you acknowledge an error as you did on an April oil surplus, maybe you might do so on your generation of outrage over something that I presently had not done.

But surprisingly that insistence on acknowledging an error only works in one direction from your POV I surmise. Not just on this, but on your arrogant, uninformed, incorrect assumption, and pissant response in another thread of ‘how dare one might have known of Joe Biden 40 years ago.’ I’m sure you will scurry away from that one without comment as well…

I unabashedly dislike many progressive politicians for a multitude of reasons, yet somehow find the will not to simply flap my lips like a knee jerk reaction the vast, vast majority of the time,

Just saying.

Ok.

Typical.

Would you rather I return fire with similarly pointed insults? Look, the Quad has been a cesspool for a long time, and I fully admit that I contribute to that on a far too frequent basis. Our back and forths recently have been almost nothing but personal attacks, misconstrued rebuttals, and substance free. I don’t think we should continue the cycle.

You do whatever you see fit, lad. Of no import to me what you say, type, do, or think.

I find it amazing you clamor for half a day to get an acknowledgement of a fact you put out being at odds with what was said, then when pointed out that such an acknowledgement was made -- it wasnt gd sufficient for you for another quarter of a day.

Even more amazing that given that clamorous angst you projected on the previous, you seemingly bolt for the blue when noted that you actually made up a full strawman position for me. Literally made it up.

And then had the balls to whine that somehow one didnt know of Joe Biden 40 years ago. The last point with zero fing first had knowledge of what happy Meal had done, let alone what he tried to do 40 years. Those simple facts never gd stop you from your whiny as fk crap like that. Got it -- in lad world Joe Biden didnt run for President in '88, and no one alive then would have known that, nor of his fing face plant on plagiarism then. Nor would have anyone known of him after he led the Borking of Bork.

So **** you, and **** your imputation of worldly knowledge on things and events that you werent even fing alive for, and **** your worldly ruling on those actual events that happened even before your birth.

Rather ******* arrogant to opine on what I did or did not know 40 years ago, and still might remember today -- but lo and fing behold you did that. Just fing amazing.

Again, do whatever you see fit, son.

Ok.

(05-26-2022 12:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 12:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 11:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 08:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 08:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ok.

Typical.

Would you rather I return fire with similarly pointed insults? Look, the Quad has been a cesspool for a long time, and I fully admit that I contribute to that on a far too frequent basis. Our back and forths recently have been almost nothing but personal attacks, misconstrued rebuttals, and substance free. I don’t think we should continue the cycle.

You do whatever you see fit, lad. Of no import to me what you say, type, do, or think.

I find it amazing you clamor for half a day to get an acknowledgement of a fact you put out being at odds with what was said, then when pointed out that such an acknowledgement was made -- it wasnt gd sufficient for you for another quarter of a day.

Even more amazing that given that clamorous angst you projected on the previous, you seemingly bolt for the blue when noted that you actually made up a full strawman position for me. Literally made it up.

And then had the balls to whine that somehow one didnt know of Joe Biden 40 years ago. The last point with zero fing first had knowledge of what happy Meal had done, let alone what he tried to do 40 years. Those simple facts never gd stop you from your whiny as fk crap like that. Got it -- in lad world Joe Biden didnt run for President in '88, and no one alive then would have known that, nor of his fing face plant on plagiarism then. Nor would have anyone known of him after he led the Borking of Bork.

So **** you, and **** your imputation of worldly knowledge on things and events that you werent even fing alive for, and **** your worldly ruling on those actual events that happened even before your birth.

Rather ******* arrogant to opine on what I did or did not know 40 years ago, and still might remember today -- but lo and fing behold you did that. Just fing amazing.

Again, do whatever you see fit, son.

Ok.

Again, typical.

(05-25-2022 08:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I locked it behind the hidden swing door in the back of my MILLITARY ASSAULT-style vehicle.

FIFY

Quote:Now, there is no way for that to happen. Last one I purchased, while it was done in 20-30 min, there was a LOT more. ID, 10 page questionnaire for the ATF, him entering my SSN and other ID information, then waiting for the 'can do it' response from the instant check.

Brady passed in '94 which put a 5 day waiting period on all firearm sales, but allowed that wait period to be supplanted by an instant check that we see today.

This is the fallacy of the democrats argument. The kid passed a background check. That's 'all' they say they want. They say he 'planned' the event... even putting it on facebook. He purchased the guns 'over the last two weeks', meaning a 'waiting period' would also have been immaterial.

What I find troubling is that facebook has all sorts of algorithms to seek out HATE speech and ban it, but can't seem to locate someone threatening to kill people?!?! I just don't get that.

Maybe we should fix THAT and not be so fixated on a) politically charged rhetoric on gun laws that demonstrably wouldn't have made one difference to the outcome... or b) politically charged 'hate speech' which doesn't really have a definition, other than whatever fits someone's political agenda.... because if it DID have a definition, it would certainly include threats to kill someone, wouldn't it??

(05-26-2022 12:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-25-2022 08:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I locked it behind the hidden swing door in the back of my MILLITARY ASSAULT-style vehicle.

FIFY

Quote:Now, there is no way for that to happen. Last one I purchased, while it was done in 20-30 min, there was a LOT more. ID, 10 page questionnaire for the ATF, him entering my SSN and other ID information, then waiting for the 'can do it' response from the instant check.

Brady passed in '94 which put a 5 day waiting period on all firearm sales, but allowed that wait period to be supplanted by an instant check that we see today.

This is the fallacy of the democrats argument. The kid passed a background check. That's 'all' they say they want. They say he 'planned' the event... even putting it on facebook. He purchased the guns 'over the last two weeks', meaning a 'waiting period' would also have been immaterial.

What I find troubling is that facebook has all sorts of algorithms to seek out HATE speech and ban it, but can't seem to locate someone threatening to kill people?!?! I just don't get that.

Maybe we should fix THAT and not be so fixated on a) politically charged rhetoric on gun laws that demonstrably wouldn't have made one difference to the outcome... or b) politically charged 'hate speech' which doesn't really have a definition, other than whatever fits someone's political agenda.... because if it DID have a definition, it would certainly include threats to kill someone, wouldn't it??

Not 100% sure, but I believe private messages in FB messages are encrypted and not able to be reviewed by FB.

I believe the threats were via private messages to a person he met via an online chat service that lived in Germany. That person then alerted another friend in the US once they heard the news.

(05-26-2022 12:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 12:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 12:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 11:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 08:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Typical.

Would you rather I return fire with similarly pointed insults? Look, the Quad has been a cesspool for a long time, and I fully admit that I contribute to that on a far too frequent basis. Our back and forths recently have been almost nothing but personal attacks, misconstrued rebuttals, and substance free. I don’t think we should continue the cycle.

You do whatever you see fit, lad. Of no import to me what you say, type, do, or think.

I find it amazing you clamor for half a day to get an acknowledgement of a fact you put out being at odds with what was said, then when pointed out that such an acknowledgement was made -- it wasnt gd sufficient for you for another quarter of a day.

Even more amazing that given that clamorous angst you projected on the previous, you seemingly bolt for the blue when noted that you actually made up a full strawman position for me. Literally made it up.

And then had the balls to whine that somehow one didnt know of Joe Biden 40 years ago. The last point with zero fing first had knowledge of what happy Meal had done, let alone what he tried to do 40 years. Those simple facts never gd stop you from your whiny as fk crap like that. Got it -- in lad world Joe Biden didnt run for President in '88, and no one alive then would have known that, nor of his fing face plant on plagiarism then. Nor would have anyone known of him after he led the Borking of Bork.

So **** you, and **** your imputation of worldly knowledge on things and events that you werent even fing alive for, and **** your worldly ruling on those actual events that happened even before your birth.

Rather ******* arrogant to opine on what I did or did not know 40 years ago, and still might remember today -- but lo and fing behold you did that. Just fing amazing.

Again, do whatever you see fit, son.

Ok.

Again, typical.

Ok.

(05-26-2022 12:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 12:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-25-2022 08:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I locked it behind the hidden swing door in the back of my MILLITARY ASSAULT-style vehicle.

FIFY

Quote:Now, there is no way for that to happen. Last one I purchased, while it was done in 20-30 min, there was a LOT more. ID, 10 page questionnaire for the ATF, him entering my SSN and other ID information, then waiting for the 'can do it' response from the instant check.

Brady passed in '94 which put a 5 day waiting period on all firearm sales, but allowed that wait period to be supplanted by an instant check that we see today.

This is the fallacy of the democrats argument. The kid passed a background check. That's 'all' they say they want. They say he 'planned' the event... even putting it on facebook. He purchased the guns 'over the last two weeks', meaning a 'waiting period' would also have been immaterial.

What I find troubling is that facebook has all sorts of algorithms to seek out HATE speech and ban it, but can't seem to locate someone threatening to kill people?!?! I just don't get that.

Maybe we should fix THAT and not be so fixated on a) politically charged rhetoric on gun laws that demonstrably wouldn't have made one difference to the outcome... or b) politically charged 'hate speech' which doesn't really have a definition, other than whatever fits someone's political agenda.... because if it DID have a definition, it would certainly include threats to kill someone, wouldn't it??

Not 100% sure, but I believe private messages in FB messages are encrypted and not able to be reviewed by FB.

I believe the threats were via private messages to a person he met via an online chat service that lived in Germany. That person then alerted another friend in the US once they heard the news.

In a similar vein to the FB DMs, the Buffalo shooter invited 30 people to a Discord channel to review and discuss his plans for the shooting. Not one person who accepted the invitation alerted authorities. Authorities are investigating whether a former FBI official, who was invited to that channel, accepted the invitation and failed to alert authorities.

So a common link here is “public” notification of these activities, but either a failure by design to identify them and proactively alert authorities, or just a failure in general (I don’t believe Discord is encrypted the same way Facebook is).

The question becomes, do we collectively want these tech companies to be constantly going through these sort of private messages, private channels, etc., or do we want them to be hands off?

https://buffalonews.com/news/local/autho...95d6f.html

(05-27-2022 06:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 12:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Not 100% sure, but I believe private messages in FB messages are encrypted and not able to be reviewed by FB.

I believe the threats were via private messages to a person he met via an online chat service that lived in Germany. That person then alerted another friend in the US once they heard the news.

In a similar vein to the FB DMs, the Buffalo shooter invited 30 people to a Discord channel to review and discuss his plans for the shooting. Not one person who accepted the invitation alerted authorities. Authorities are investigating whether a former FBI official, who was invited to that channel, accepted the invitation and failed to alert authorities.

So a common link here is “public” notification of these activities, but either a failure by design to identify them and proactively alert authorities, or just a failure in general (I don’t believe Discord is encrypted the same way Facebook is).

The question becomes, do we collectively want these tech companies to be constantly going through these sort of private messages, private channels, etc., or do we want them to be hands off?

https://buffalonews.com/news/local/autho...95d6f.html

I don't know either about the encryption or whatever.... Here is my problem with this conversation....

1) just the other day, so in a similar timeframe to these events... My significant other posted a picture of me on the waterfront... My response to her, admittedly in an open forum was... Nice picture of the waterfront... too bad that ugly guy had to photobomb your picture. My post was censored by Facebook.

I understand the differences in forum, but I also clearly understand the differences in the meanings of the words.

2) The left seems 'hell bent' on eliminating a constitutionally protected right to bear arms... but places what seems to me to be an arbitrary line in the sand regarding 'free speech'
a) that is clearly 'hate' speech which is not protected, according to many of these same people
b) I'm not sure there is an expectation of 'privacy' if you're using public airwaves to communicate hate... just like cell phones. I obviously don't know the law, but I don't expect that anything,... including my PMs on here, can't be read by SOMEONE.

3) the reason the above is important is because the left wants to put limits on law abiding citizens to stop OTHER people from engaging in illegal acts.... Well, 90% of people don't threaten to kill other people or shoot up schools in ANY forum. (Almost) nobody is against it being 'illegal' to shout fire in a crowded theatre... (Almost) nobody would be against it being 'illegal' to threaten to kill someone or shoot up a school... ESPECIALLY if the 'response' is to seek some sort of 'help' for that person (because they haven't really done anything yet)

THIS is the sort of 'common sense' gun regulations that we need.... and not all of this lunacy being couched as 'common sense'. I mean, if being a member of a group that has never committed violence can get you put on an FBI watch list or no fly or whatever... then threatening to kill someone certainly should warrant being watched (and likely denied a gun) as well.

Does it mean we have terabytes of data being disseminated every second by what could be an intrusive government?? ABSOLUTELY... and could that become a problem?? ABSOLUTELY... and if it does, we will have the ability to communicate with each other, vote and if necessary, bear arms to 'prevent the abuse of its powers'.

I think enough people to over-ride the Constitution if necessary would support a very carefully worded bill/law that defined 'threatening to kill people' as 'hate speech' enough to warrant a 'welfare check' or a limited warrant to see if the person was merely musing, or actually planning something.... which is VASTLY different from telling 100mm that they have to give up a constitutionally protected right in order to do almost nothing to stop maniacs from killing people.

More of the 'if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't really have a concern'.... which isn't the case in the many proposed gun laws and regulations.

(05-27-2022 06:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 12:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 12:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-25-2022 08:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I locked it behind the hidden swing door in the back of my MILLITARY ASSAULT-style vehicle.

FIFY

Quote:Now, there is no way for that to happen. Last one I purchased, while it was done in 20-30 min, there was a LOT more. ID, 10 page questionnaire for the ATF, him entering my SSN and other ID information, then waiting for the 'can do it' response from the instant check.

Brady passed in '94 which put a 5 day waiting period on all firearm sales, but allowed that wait period to be supplanted by an instant check that we see today.

This is the fallacy of the democrats argument. The kid passed a background check. That's 'all' they say they want. They say he 'planned' the event... even putting it on facebook. He purchased the guns 'over the last two weeks', meaning a 'waiting period' would also have been immaterial.

What I find troubling is that facebook has all sorts of algorithms to seek out HATE speech and ban it, but can't seem to locate someone threatening to kill people?!?! I just don't get that.

Maybe we should fix THAT and not be so fixated on a) politically charged rhetoric on gun laws that demonstrably wouldn't have made one difference to the outcome... or b) politically charged 'hate speech' which doesn't really have a definition, other than whatever fits someone's political agenda.... because if it DID have a definition, it would certainly include threats to kill someone, wouldn't it??

Not 100% sure, but I believe private messages in FB messages are encrypted and not able to be reviewed by FB.

I believe the threats were via private messages to a person he met via an online chat service that lived in Germany. That person then alerted another friend in the US once they heard the news.

In a similar vein to the FB DMs, the Buffalo shooter invited 30 people to a Discord channel to review and discuss his plans for the shooting. Not one person who accepted the invitation alerted authorities. Authorities are investigating whether a former FBI official, who was invited to that channel, accepted the invitation and failed to alert authorities.

So a common link here is “public” notification of these activities, but either a failure by design to identify them and proactively alert authorities, or just a failure in general (I don’t believe Discord is encrypted the same way Facebook is).

The question becomes, do we collectively want these tech companies to be constantly going through these sort of private messages, private channels, etc., or do we want them to be hands off?

https://buffalonews.com/news/local/autho...95d6f.html

The much better question is why didn’t *any* of the people (the issue of them being ex fbi or not being superfluous) in these chats / messaging apps raise a single peep?

I'd be fine with either solution... The companies can be hands off and the government can do it, or the companies can be hands on and people can choose other forums....

What I have a problem with is that they are so hypervigilant in ONE of their modes where typing a commonly used phrase like 'photobomb' (which is not in any way threatening or hateful) is censored, but in ANOTHER of their modes, you can literally lay out your plans to kill people and they will hide behind 'free speech'.

An example on this site is that there are a few moderated forums and then also a few that are not. The censor lists still apply to both forums and of course, any threats of violence would be moderated... even in the 'unmoderated' forum... but moderators won't say a word about content or manner of delivery in the unmoderated forum, so long as there are no threats.

I am 100% confident that in 2022, AI can be used to scan PMs for threats of violence, human trafficking etc etc etc.... without requiring a 'person' to be reading your emails... and I am equally confident that the government could investigate the algorithms to ensure that they weren't being applied maliciously or used for marketing,