Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 182: Vesuvius of Mendacities

Topic List	Page List: 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
xp1337 06/27/18 6:53:48 PM #301:	LordoftheMorons posted... Don't know how our norms are gonna get unfucked anytime soon, though. They won't. I truly believed the last chance for that was the 2016 election. Now? Even if a Blue Wave happens and a win in 2020, etc. I think we've crossed the Rubicon. I don't see how we can go back. I'd like to be wrong, but I just don't see a way out. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:904083958] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>Don't know how our norms are gonna get unfucked anytime soon, though.</quote> They won't. I truly believed the last chance for that was the 2016 election. Now? Even if a Blue Wave happens and a win in 2020, etc. I think we've crossed the Rubicon. I don't see how we can go back. I'd like to be wrong, but I just don't see a way out.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 06/27/18 6:55:17 PM #302:	ChaosTonyV4 posted... LordoftheMorons posted... I've seen quite a few people on reddit supporting packing the court as soon as the Dems regain majorities (which I vehemently disagree with) tbh this is why Dems are getting crushed. Republicans have literally no shame in forcing their agenda through, on the basis that they say they "love the country" and "want whats best", while Democrats continue to hold themselves to a farrrrrr higher standard. Which would be "admirable", if the end result wasn't their constituents getting fucked by the GOP. Add in the fact that the Republicans favorite tool is to morally demean their opposition while clutching pearls at the slightest counterpunch, and you have a situation where Dem's simultaneously look self-righteous AND lose. In this case Im not against it from an ethical standpoint. Im more against it from the stance that it could backfire against them when Conservatives got power again I kinda feel like the unspoken agreement to keep it at 9 is the political version of Mutually Assured Destruction --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:904084062] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>I've seen quite a few people on reddit supporting packing the court as soon as the Dems regain majorities (which I vehemently disagree with) </quote> tbh this is why Dems are getting crushed. Republicans have literally no shame in forcing their agenda through, on the basis that they say they "love the country" and "want whats best", while Democrats continue to hold themselves to a farrrrrr higher standard. Which would be "admirable", if the end result wasn't their constituents getting fucked by the GOP. Add in the fact that the Republicans favorite tool is to morally demean their opposition while clutching pearls at the slightest counterpunch, and you have a situation where Dem's simultaneously look self-righteous AND lose.</quote> In this case Im not against it from an ethical standpoint. Im more against it from the stance that it could backfire against them when Conservatives got power again I kinda feel like the unspoken agreement to keep it at 9 is the political version of Mutually Assured Destruction</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Eddv 06/27/18 6:55:28 PM #303:	Its gonna take some boring times where we are as a nation fairly prosperous to reverse all of this. So yeah, never. --- Board 8's Voice of Reason https://imgur.com/chXIw06 <cite>Eddv posted [p:904084077] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote>Its gonna take some boring times where we are as a nation fairly prosperous to reverse all of this. So yeah, never.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 06/27/18 6:56:14 PM #304:	Can you imagine if Trump wins 2020 and Ginsburg retires also? Isn't another one up there? --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:904084129] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote>Can you imagine if Trump wins 2020 and Ginsburg retires also? Isn't another one up there?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 06/27/18 6:57:33 PM #305:	Jakyl25 posted... I kinda feel like the unspoken agreement to keep it at 9 is the political version of Mutually Assured Destruction I'm pretty torn on this, honestly. I think you're right that once one side does it, you've opened Pandora's Box and with each party change you'll see the number get bigger. But at the same time, I think you have the Garland situation as one that attacked right at this idea. It gets worse depending on what Mueller finds. So in a sense, I feel like the first move was already made here. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:904084208] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>I kinda feel like the unspoken agreement to keep it at 9 is the political version of Mutually Assured Destruction</quote> I'm pretty torn on this, honestly. I think you're right that once one side does it, you've opened Pandora's Box and with each party change you'll see the number get bigger. But at the same time, I think you have the Garland situation as one that attacked right at this idea. It gets worse depending on what Mueller finds. So in a sense, I feel like the first move was already made here.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CelesMyUserName 06/27/18 6:58:08 PM #306:	Jakyl25 posted... In this case Im not against it from an ethical standpoint. Im more against it from the stance that it could backfire against them when Conservatives got power again I kinda feel like the unspoken agreement to keep it at 9 is the political version of Mutually Assured Destruction Conservatives are already fucking the norms while Dems still cry restraint. The question is why Dems aren't letting it backfire on the Conservatives for crossing the line already. So long as the GOP think Dems are pushovers and they can keep crossing the line with no consequences, they're just gonna keep doing it. --- https://imgtc.com/i/1LkkaGU.jpg something something hung something horse something <cite>CelesMyUserName posted [p:904084239] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>In this case Im not against it from an ethical standpoint. Im more against it from the stance that it could backfire against them when Conservatives got power again I kinda feel like the unspoken agreement to keep it at 9 is the political version of Mutually Assured Destruction</quote> Conservatives are already fucking the norms while Dems still cry restraint. The question is why Dems aren't letting it backfire on the Conservatives for crossing the line already. So long as the GOP think Dems are pushovers and they can keep crossing the line with no consequences, they're just gonna keep doing it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 06/27/18 7:00:04 PM #307:	CelesMyUserName posted... Jakyl25 posted... In this case Im not against it from an ethical standpoint. Im more against it from the stance that it could backfire against them when Conservatives got power again I kinda feel like the unspoken agreement to keep it at 9 is the political version of Mutually Assured Destruction Conservatives are already fucking the norms while Dems still cry restraint. The question is why Dems aren't letting it backfire on the Conservatives for crossing the line already. Not sure how you can get it to backfire on them when they have all the power? --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:904084338] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>CelesMyUserName posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>In this case Im not against it from an ethical standpoint. Im more against it from the stance that it could backfire against them when Conservatives got power again I kinda feel like the unspoken agreement to keep it at 9 is the political version of Mutually Assured Destruction</quote> Conservatives are already fucking the norms while Dems still cry restraint. The question is why Dems aren't letting it backfire on the Conservatives for crossing the line already.</quote> Not sure how you can get it to backfire on them when they have all the power?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChaosTonyV4 06/27/18 7:00:46 PM #308:	CelesMyUserName posted... Conservatives are already f*ing the norms while Dems still cry restraint. The question is why Dems aren't letting it backfire on the Conservatives for crossing the line already. Exactly. How many talking heads constantly said "This obstructionism and do-nothing Congress will backfire on the GOP and give us two consecutive Democrat Presidents?" I heard it everywhere. And they were wrong because the Democrats "went high" while they "went low", and the low stuff catches more attention and gets people more pumped, so the rubber band never snapped back --- Phantom Dust. "I'll just wait for time to prove me right again." - Vlado <cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted [p:904084381] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>CelesMyUserName posted...</cite> <quote>Conservatives are already f*ing the norms while Dems still cry restraint. The question is why Dems aren't letting it backfire on the Conservatives for crossing the line already. </quote> Exactly. How many talking heads constantly said "This obstructionism and do-nothing Congress will backfire on the GOP and give us two consecutive Democrat Presidents?" I heard it everywhere. And they were wrong because the Democrats "went high" while they "went low", and the low stuff catches more attention and gets people more pumped, so the rubber band never snapped back</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 06/27/18 7:01:19 PM #309:	xp1337 posted... Jakyl25 posted... I kinda feel like the unspoken agreement to keep it at 9 is the political version of Mutually Assured Destruction I'm pretty torn on this, honestly. I think you're right that once one side does it, you've opened Pandora's Box and with each party change you'll see the number get bigger. But at the same time, I think you have the Garland situation as one that attacked right at this idea. It gets worse depending on what Mueller finds. So in a sense, I feel like the first move was already made here. Im not against Dems doing a version of the Garland tactic, as I said earlier. --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:904084418] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>I kinda feel like the unspoken agreement to keep it at 9 is the political version of Mutually Assured Destruction</quote> I'm pretty torn on this, honestly. I think you're right that once one side does it, you've opened Pandora's Box and with each party change you'll see the number get bigger. But at the same time, I think you have the Garland situation as one that attacked right at this idea. It gets worse depending on what Mueller finds. So in a sense, I feel like the first move was already made here.</quote> Im not against Dems doing a version of the Garland tactic, as I said earlier.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 06/27/18 7:01:21 PM #310:	I think the number of seats in the House has been kept at 435 for a long time, too, by unspoken agreement. Our constitution has some loopholes that haven't been exploited yet. In theory, Republicans could take the Texas Panhandle and divide it into 436 states, each of which would get 1 seat in the House, 2 senators, and 3 electoral votes. With a majority of all the levers of government, the Texas Panhandle and Republicans would enjoy power forever. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:904084421] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote>I think the number of seats in the House has been kept at 435 for a long time, too, by unspoken agreement. Our constitution has some loopholes that haven't been exploited yet. In theory, Republicans could take the Texas Panhandle and divide it into 436 states, each of which would get 1 seat in the House, 2 senators, and 3 electoral votes. With a majority of all the levers of government, the Texas Panhandle and Republicans would enjoy power forever.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CelesMyUserName 06/27/18 7:01:45 PM #311:	Jakyl25 posted... CelesMyUserName posted... Jakyl25 posted... In this case Im not against it from an ethical standpoint. Im more against it from the stance that it could backfire against them when Conservatives got power again I kinda feel like the unspoken agreement to keep it at 9 is the political version of Mutually Assured Destruction Conservatives are already fucking the norms while Dems still cry restraint. The question is why Dems aren't letting it backfire on the Conservatives for crossing the line already. Not sure how you can get it to backfire on them when they have all the power? Your phrase "when Conservatives got power again" made me think you were speaking more generally, when Dems get back in power again (as things are building for them undeniably) they need to go full Punisher on their shit. --- https://imgtc.com/i/1LkkaGU.jpg something something hung something horse something <cite>CelesMyUserName posted [p:904084437] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CelesMyUserName posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>In this case Im not against it from an ethical standpoint. Im more against it from the stance that it could backfire against them when Conservatives got power again I kinda feel like the unspoken agreement to keep it at 9 is the political version of Mutually Assured Destruction</quote> Conservatives are already fucking the norms while Dems still cry restraint. The question is why Dems aren't letting it backfire on the Conservatives for crossing the line already.</quote> Not sure how you can get it to backfire on them when they have all the power?</quote> Your phrase "when Conservatives got power again" made me think you were speaking more generally, when Dems get back in power again (as things are building for them undeniably) they need to go full Punisher on their shit.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 06/27/18 7:02:34 PM #312:	Jakyl25 posted... Not sure how you can get it to backfire on them when they have all the power? I think there was that one crazy scenario where right before the 2016 class was sworn in of the 66-67 Senators who comprised the Senate were a Dem majority and could hypothetically have called a vote on Garland right then and there. Like there window was an hour or so but IIRC it would have been valid. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:904084484] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>Not sure how you can get it to backfire on them when they have all the power?</quote> I think there was that one crazy scenario where right before the 2016 class was sworn in of the 66-67 Senators who comprised the Senate were a Dem majority and could hypothetically have called a vote on Garland right then and there. Like there window was an hour or so but IIRC it would have been valid.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 06/27/18 7:04:52 PM #313:	ChaosTonyV4 posted... CelesMyUserName posted... Conservatives are already f*ing the norms while Dems still cry restraint. The question is why Dems aren't letting it backfire on the Conservatives for crossing the line already. Exactly. How many talking heads constantly said "This obstructionism and do-nothing Congress will backfire on the GOP and give us two consecutive Democrat Presidents?" I heard it everywhere. And they were wrong because the Democrats "went high" while they "went low", and the low stuff catches more attention and gets people more pumped, so the rubber band never snapped back Jakyl25 posted... Yo Moderate Democrats and Never-Trumpers Yall go ahead and start your own third party together. Pearl Clutchers Party. Leave us progressive democratic socialists to fight the nationalists. --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:904084603] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CelesMyUserName posted...</cite> <quote>Conservatives are already f*ing the norms while Dems still cry restraint. The question is why Dems aren't letting it backfire on the Conservatives for crossing the line already. </quote> Exactly. How many talking heads constantly said "This obstructionism and do-nothing Congress will backfire on the GOP and give us two consecutive Democrat Presidents?" I heard it everywhere. And they were wrong because the Democrats "went high" while they "went low", and the low stuff catches more attention and gets people more pumped, so the rubber band never snapped back</quote> <cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>Yo Moderate Democrats and Never-Trumpers Yall go ahead and start your own third party together. Pearl Clutchers Party. Leave us progressive democratic socialists to fight the nationalists.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 06/27/18 7:05:24 PM #314:	red sox 777 posted... I think the number of seats in the House has been kept at 435 for a long time, too, by unspoken agreement. By statue. Apportionment Act of 1911 (and 1929) Should be repealed and something like the Wyoming Rule should be instated instead. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:904084635] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>I think the number of seats in the House has been kept at 435 for a long time, too, by unspoken agreement.</quote> By statue. Apportionment Act of 1911 (and 1929) Should be repealed and something like the Wyoming Rule should be instated instead.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 06/27/18 7:05:56 PM #315:	CelesMyUserName posted... Jakyl25 posted... CelesMyUserName posted... Jakyl25 posted... In this case Im not against it from an ethical standpoint. Im more against it from the stance that it could backfire against them when Conservatives got power again I kinda feel like the unspoken agreement to keep it at 9 is the political version of Mutually Assured Destruction Conservatives are already fucking the norms while Dems still cry restraint. The question is why Dems aren't letting it backfire on the Conservatives for crossing the line already. Not sure how you can get it to backfire on them when they have all the power? Your phrase "when Conservatives got power again" made me think you were speaking more generally, when Dems get back in power again (as things are building for them undeniably) they need to go full Punisher on their shit. I was, I think I was confused by your use of arent in the present tense --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:904084666] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>CelesMyUserName posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CelesMyUserName posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>In this case Im not against it from an ethical standpoint. Im more against it from the stance that it could backfire against them when Conservatives got power again I kinda feel like the unspoken agreement to keep it at 9 is the political version of Mutually Assured Destruction</quote> Conservatives are already fucking the norms while Dems still cry restraint. The question is why Dems aren't letting it backfire on the Conservatives for crossing the line already.</quote> Not sure how you can get it to backfire on them when they have all the power?</quote> Your phrase "when Conservatives got power again" made me think you were speaking more generally, when Dems get back in power again (as things are building for them undeniably) they need to go full Punisher on their shit.</quote> I was, I think I was confused by your use of arent in the present tense</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 06/27/18 7:06:40 PM #316:	The moment when you realize you would have won the 2016 presidency and the Supreme Court if you hadn't made a stand on transgender bathrooms. = / --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:904084710] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote>The moment when you realize you would have won the 2016 presidency and the Supreme Court if you hadn't made a stand on transgender bathrooms. = /</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Suprak the Stud 06/27/18 7:07:12 PM #317:	Corrik posted... Can you imagine if Trump wins 2020 and Ginsburg retires also? Isn't another one up there? The next two oldest judges are both liberals, with Ginsburg and Breyer. Somehow Thomas is only 70. I thought that dude was closer to 80. He's the oldest conservative justice, and there aren't any others that are close. --- Moops? "I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion." <cite>Suprak the Stud posted [p:904084740] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>Can you imagine if Trump wins 2020 and Ginsburg retires also? Isn't another one up there?</quote> The next two oldest judges are both liberals, with Ginsburg and Breyer. Somehow Thomas is only 70. I thought that dude was closer to 80. He's the oldest conservative justice, and there aren't any others that are close.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 06/27/18 7:08:27 PM #318:	Corrik posted... The moment when you realize you would have won the 2016 presidency and the Supreme Court if you hadn't made a stand on human rights. = / --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:904084814] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>The moment when you realize you would have won the 2016 presidency and the Supreme Court if you hadn't made a stand on human rights. = /</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Inviso 06/27/18 7:10:17 PM #319:	Corrik posted... The moment when you realize you would have won the 2016 presidency and the Supreme Court if you hadn't made a stand on transgender bathrooms. = / Oh fuck off. --- Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier. Inviso <cite>Inviso posted [p:904084918] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>The moment when you realize you would have won the 2016 presidency and the Supreme Court if you hadn't made a stand on transgender bathrooms. = /</quote> Oh fuck off.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337 06/27/18 7:10:50 PM #320:	I'm sure a lot of you think I have no room to say this but there are some posts just not worth responding to. I'd like to think - though I'm sure some of you disagree - that I can just immediately disengage if/when it occurs. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:904084945] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote>I'm sure a lot of you think I have no room to say this but there are some posts just not worth responding to. I'd like to think - though I'm sure some of you disagree - that I can just immediately disengage if/when it occurs.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 06/27/18 7:11:01 PM #321:	There's a point at which you've torn down so many norms that government just ceases to function. This gives the GOP an inherent advantage (since they fundamentally think government matters less than Democrats do). However, if you're swinging back and forth between things being ruled constitutional or unconstitutional every 4 years, or eliminate the filibuster and swing back and forth between single payer healthcare and no government healthcare it's going to be a fucking disaster. --- Congrats to BKSheikah for winning the BYIG Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:904084960] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote>There's a point at which you've torn down so many norms that government just ceases to function. This gives the GOP an inherent advantage (since they fundamentally think government matters less than Democrats do). However, if you're swinging back and forth between things being ruled constitutional or unconstitutional every 4 years, or eliminate the filibuster and swing back and forth between single payer healthcare and no government healthcare it's going to be a fucking disaster.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Suprak the Stud 06/27/18 7:11:39 PM #322:	The interesting thing is both of the justices Obama replaced during his presidency were appointed by Republicans, and it didn't make the court more significantly liberal than it already was. It was a strange time before Clinton when more moderate judges were considered, I suppose. Garland actually would have been a nice return to that tradition, but we all know how well that went. --- Moops? "I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion." <cite>Suprak the Stud posted [p:904084994] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote>The interesting thing is both of the justices Obama replaced during his presidency were appointed by Republicans, and it didn't make the court more significantly liberal than it already was. It was a strange time before Clinton when more moderate judges were considered, I suppose. Garland actually would have been a nice return to that tradition, but we all know how well that went.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 06/27/18 7:12:54 PM #323:	xp1337 posted... I'm sure a lot of you think I have no room to say this but there are some posts just not worth responding to. I'd like to think - though I'm sure some of you disagree - that I can just immediately disengage if/when it occurs. Im not engaging. Hes not intellectually capable of understanding his awfulness --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:904085073] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote>I'm sure a lot of you think I have no room to say this but there are some posts just not worth responding to. I'd like to think - though I'm sure some of you disagree - that I can just immediately disengage if/when it occurs.</quote> Im not engaging. Hes not intellectually capable of understanding his awfulness</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 06/27/18 7:15:28 PM #324:	Jakyl25 posted... xp1337 posted... I'm sure a lot of you think I have no room to say this but there are some posts just not worth responding to. I'd like to think - though I'm sure some of you disagree - that I can just immediately disengage if/when it occurs. Im not engaging. Hes not intellectually capable of understanding his awfulness Ad hominem. Surprising. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:904085209] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote>I'm sure a lot of you think I have no room to say this but there are some posts just not worth responding to. I'd like to think - though I'm sure some of you disagree - that I can just immediately disengage if/when it occurs.</quote> Im not engaging. Hes not intellectually capable of understanding his awfulness</quote> Ad hominem. Surprising.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 06/27/18 7:19:40 PM #325:	LordoftheMorons posted... There's a point at which you've torn down so many norms that government just ceases to function. This gives the GOP an inherent advantage (since they fundamentally think government matters less than Democrats do). However, if you're swinging back and forth between things being ruled constitutional or unconstitutional every 4 years, or eliminate the filibuster and swing back and forth between single payer healthcare and no government healthcare it's going to be a fucking disaster. Government is really really hard to reduce once it's in place. Just look at Obamacare and how hard it's been to repeal that. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:904085448] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>There's a point at which you've torn down so many norms that government just ceases to function. This gives the GOP an inherent advantage (since they fundamentally think government matters less than Democrats do). However, if you're swinging back and forth between things being ruled constitutional or unconstitutional every 4 years, or eliminate the filibuster and swing back and forth between single payer healthcare and no government healthcare it's going to be a fucking disaster.</quote> Government is really really hard to reduce once it's in place. Just look at Obamacare and how hard it's been to repeal that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 06/27/18 7:23:59 PM #326:	Our military makes a living reducing governments --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:904085722] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote>Our military makes a living reducing governments</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Eddv 06/27/18 7:28:06 PM #327:	Suprak the Stud posted... The interesting thing is both of the justices Obama replaced during his presidency were appointed by Republicans, and it didn't make the court more significantly liberal than it already was. It was a strange time before Clinton when more moderate judges were considered, I suppose. Garland actually would have been a nice return to that tradition, but we all know how well that went. There is an arc of The West Wing about this where they decried the necessity of moderate judges forever and how courageous bartlett was to nominate an actual liberal. Those days are gone. Obama should have nominated like a 21 year old socialist for the spot for as much play as they let Garland get. --- Board 8's Voice of Reason https://imgur.com/chXIw06 <cite>Eddv posted [p:904086004] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>Suprak the Stud posted...</cite> <quote>The interesting thing is both of the justices Obama replaced during his presidency were appointed by Republicans, and it didn't make the court more significantly liberal than it already was. It was a strange time before Clinton when more moderate judges were considered, I suppose. Garland actually would have been a nice return to that tradition, but we all know how well that went.</quote> There is an arc of The West Wing about this where they decried the necessity of moderate judges forever and how courageous bartlett was to nominate an actual liberal. Those days are gone. Obama should have nominated like a 21 year old socialist for the spot for as much play as they let Garland get.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pyresword 06/27/18 7:31:13 PM #328:	Corrik you are the one who started a discussion in bad faith so I'm not sure why you're acting incredulous when someone else responds in kind. --- Congratulations to BK_Sheikah00, this year's guru to achieve contest enlightenment! <cite>pyresword posted [p:904086189] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote>Corrik you are the one who started a discussion in bad faith so I'm not sure why you're acting incredulous when someone else responds in kind.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 06/27/18 7:35:33 PM #329:	pyresword posted... Corrik you are the one who started a discussion in bad faith so I'm not sure why you're acting incredulous when someone else responds in kind. Tell me what I said in bad faith, then I will tell you how it wasn't. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:904086457] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>pyresword posted...</cite> <quote>Corrik you are the one who started a discussion in bad faith so I'm not sure why you're acting incredulous when someone else responds in kind.</quote> Tell me what I said in bad faith, then I will tell you how it wasn't.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChaosTonyV4 06/27/18 7:36:47 PM #330:	Corrik posted... pyresword posted... Corrik you are the one who started a discussion in bad faith so I'm not sure why you're acting incredulous when someone else responds in kind. Tell me what I said in bad faith, then I will tell you how it wasn't. Corrik posted... The moment when you realize you would have won the 2016 presidency and the Supreme Court if you hadn't made a stand on transgender bathrooms. = / --- Phantom Dust. "I'll just wait for time to prove me right again." - Vlado <cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted [p:904086538] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>pyresword posted...</cite> <quote>Corrik you are the one who started a discussion in bad faith so I'm not sure why you're acting incredulous when someone else responds in kind.</quote> Tell me what I said in bad faith, then I will tell you how it wasn't.</quote> <cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>The moment when you realize you would have won the 2016 presidency and the Supreme Court if you hadn't made a stand on transgender bathrooms. = /</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 06/27/18 7:39:23 PM #331:	I don't think Dems lost support or will lose support for standing up for what they believe in, in general. Even if one disagrees, one can respect that. It's the attacks on others and the failure to stand up for people that's the problem. I used to think Ann Coulter was out of her mind for saying that Republicans would lose support if they tried to be "Democrats-lite" but I've come around on that. It's bigger with the Dems, since they've tried really hard to be Republicans-lite for years - to their own detriment. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:904086696] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote>I don't think Dems lost support or will lose support for standing up for what they believe in, in general. Even if one disagrees, one can respect that. It's the attacks on others and the failure to stand up for people that's the problem. I used to think Ann Coulter was out of her mind for saying that Republicans would lose support if they tried to be "Democrats-lite" but I've come around on that. It's bigger with the Dems, since they've tried really hard to be Republicans-lite for years - to their own detriment.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mr Lasastryke 06/27/18 7:42:56 PM #332:	red sox 777 posted... I don't think Dems lost support or will lose support for standing up for what they believe in, in general. Even if one disagrees, one can respect that. It's the attacks on others and the failure to stand up for people that's the problem. what if attacks on others IS what democrats believe in? thinking emoji --- Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta <cite>Mr Lasastryke posted [p:904086891] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>I don't think Dems lost support or will lose support for standing up for what they believe in, in general. Even if one disagrees, one can respect that. It's the attacks on others and the failure to stand up for people that's the problem.</quote> what if attacks on others IS what democrats believe in? thinking emoji</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 06/27/18 7:49:54 PM #333:	ChaosTonyV4 posted... Corrik posted... pyresword posted... Corrik you are the one who started a discussion in bad faith so I'm not sure why you're acting incredulous when someone else responds in kind. Tell me what I said in bad faith, then I will tell you how it wasn't. Corrik posted... The moment when you realize you would have won the 2016 presidency and the Supreme Court if you hadn't made a stand on transgender bathrooms. = / Okay thanks for saying what you feel is in bad faith. I don't know about your states, but leading up to the presidency I am 99% sure they ran anti hillary ads on the transgender bathroom stuff going on. I find it likely in a lot of midwestern states. The vote spread in Wisconsin and PA was what like 19k combined? (off memory). I feel there was no doubt a net less on that issue as far as voters from the more moderate democrats, which I know at least PA has a bevy of. If my memory is correct, yes, a net loss of 20k on that issue would have been enough to lose the election and thus the Supreme Court as well. I know Hillary kind of tried to punt on the issue during her campaign, but that Carolina shit going on was run in ads against democrats a bunch. It might be a big hit for the further left of the spectrum democrats, but I do not think it is as strongly supported further towards the middle, especially independents. From what I understand, there is even a bit of a chasm between the LGBT themselves within their own alliance in regards to the T aspect. Yes, I think that issue swung enough voters over to take the election for Republicans. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:904087313] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>pyresword posted...</cite> <quote>Corrik you are the one who started a discussion in bad faith so I'm not sure why you're acting incredulous when someone else responds in kind.</quote> Tell me what I said in bad faith, then I will tell you how it wasn't.</quote> <cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>The moment when you realize you would have won the 2016 presidency and the Supreme Court if you hadn't made a stand on transgender bathrooms. = /</quote></quote> Okay thanks for saying what you feel is in bad faith. I don't know about your states, but leading up to the presidency I am 99% sure they ran anti hillary ads on the transgender bathroom stuff going on. I find it likely in a lot of midwestern states. The vote spread in Wisconsin and PA was what like 19k combined? (off memory). I feel there was no doubt a net less on that issue as far as voters from the more moderate democrats, which I know at least PA has a bevy of. If my memory is correct, yes, a net loss of 20k on that issue would have been enough to lose the election and thus the Supreme Court as well. I know Hillary kind of tried to punt on the issue during her campaign, but that Carolina shit going on was run in ads against democrats a bunch. It might be a big hit for the further left of the spectrum democrats, but I do not think it is as strongly supported further towards the middle, especially independents. From what I understand, there is even a bit of a chasm between the LGBT themselves within their own alliance in regards to the T aspect. Yes, I think that issue swung enough voters over to take the election for Republicans.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 06/27/18 7:50:04 PM #334:	Mr Lasastryke posted... red sox 777 posted... I don't think Dems lost support or will lose support for standing up for what they believe in, in general. Even if one disagrees, one can respect that. It's the attacks on others and the failure to stand up for people that's the problem. what if attacks on others IS what democrats believe in? thinking emoji That's...... really dark. I guess, a party that's lost it's way so badly should suffer defeat in elections until its members wake up and either disband it or change it. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:904087325] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mr Lasastryke posted...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>I don't think Dems lost support or will lose support for standing up for what they believe in, in general. Even if one disagrees, one can respect that. It's the attacks on others and the failure to stand up for people that's the problem.</quote> what if attacks on others IS what democrats believe in? thinking emoji</quote> That's...... really dark. I guess, a party that's lost it's way so badly should suffer defeat in elections until its members wake up and either disband it or change it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pyresword 06/27/18 7:50:26 PM #335:	Corrik posted... pyresword posted... Corrik you are the one who started a discussion in bad faith so I'm not sure why you're acting incredulous when someone else responds in kind. Tell me what I said in bad faith, then I will tell you how it wasn't. Corrik posted... The moment when you realize you would have won the 2016 presidency and the Supreme Court if you hadn't made a stand on transgender bathrooms. = / The content of the post is at best tangentially relevant to anything that was being discussed, is about a topic that should be known to be highly important to some of the people in this topic, and is phrased in a way so as to appear to be mocking those who take that issue seriously. ("That moment when you realize...") I don't necessarily think any of those merited Jakyl's response either, but I think it's better to improve the discussion atmosphere by calling out those trying to rile people up than by calling out those who get riled up. --- Congratulations to BK_Sheikah00, this year's guru to achieve contest enlightenment! <cite>pyresword posted [p:904087345] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>pyresword posted...</cite> <quote>Corrik you are the one who started a discussion in bad faith so I'm not sure why you're acting incredulous when someone else responds in kind.</quote> Tell me what I said in bad faith, then I will tell you how it wasn't.</quote> <cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>The moment when you realize you would have won the 2016 presidency and the Supreme Court if you hadn't made a stand on transgender bathrooms. = /</quote> The content of the post is at best tangentially relevant to anything that was being discussed, is about a topic that should be known to be highly important to some of the people in this topic, and is phrased in a way so as to appear to be mocking those who take that issue seriously. ("That moment when you realize...") I don't necessarily think any of those merited Jakyl's response either, but I think it's better to improve the discussion atmosphere by calling out those trying to rile people up than by calling out those who get riled up.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Eddv 06/27/18 7:50:53 PM #336:	Lasa I can assure you that no one thinks this line of inquiry is interesting --- Board 8's Voice of Reason https://imgur.com/chXIw06 <cite>Eddv posted [p:904087372] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote>Lasa I can assure you that no one thinks this line of inquiry is interesting</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 06/27/18 7:52:51 PM #337:	Corrik posted... ChaosTonyV4 posted... Corrik posted... pyresword posted... Corrik you are the one who started a discussion in bad faith so I'm not sure why you're acting incredulous when someone else responds in kind. Tell me what I said in bad faith, then I will tell you how it wasn't. Corrik posted... The moment when you realize you would have won the 2016 presidency and the Supreme Court if you hadn't made a stand on transgender bathrooms. = / Okay thanks for saying what you feel is in bad faith. I don't know about your states, but leading up to the presidency I am 99% sure they ran anti hillary ads on the transgender bathroom stuff going on. I find it likely in a lot of midwestern states. The vote spread in Wisconsin and PA was what like 19k combined? (off memory). I feel there was no doubt a net less on that issue as far as voters from the more moderate democrats, which I know at least PA has a bevy of. If my memory is correct, yes, a net loss of 20k on that issue would have been enough to lose the election and thus the Supreme Court as well. I know Hillary kind of tried to punt on the issue during her campaign, but that Carolina shit going on was run in ads against democrats a bunch. It might be a big hit for the further left of the spectrum democrats, but I do not think it is as strongly supported further towards the middle, especially independents. From what I understand, there is even a bit of a chasm between the LGBT themselves within their own alliance in regards to the T aspect. Yes, I think that issue swung enough voters over to take the election for Republicans. You gotta look at the big picture. If Democrats cave on this issue what else will they cave on? It's thinking like that that got so many Democrats to vote for the Iraq War. If they cave on almost everything, there's no reason to vote for them. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:904087485] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>pyresword posted...</cite> <quote>Corrik you are the one who started a discussion in bad faith so I'm not sure why you're acting incredulous when someone else responds in kind.</quote> Tell me what I said in bad faith, then I will tell you how it wasn't.</quote> <cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>The moment when you realize you would have won the 2016 presidency and the Supreme Court if you hadn't made a stand on transgender bathrooms. = /</quote></quote> Okay thanks for saying what you feel is in bad faith. I don't know about your states, but leading up to the presidency I am 99% sure they ran anti hillary ads on the transgender bathroom stuff going on. I find it likely in a lot of midwestern states. The vote spread in Wisconsin and PA was what like 19k combined? (off memory). I feel there was no doubt a net less on that issue as far as voters from the more moderate democrats, which I know at least PA has a bevy of. If my memory is correct, yes, a net loss of 20k on that issue would have been enough to lose the election and thus the Supreme Court as well. I know Hillary kind of tried to punt on the issue during her campaign, but that Carolina shit going on was run in ads against democrats a bunch. It might be a big hit for the further left of the spectrum democrats, but I do not think it is as strongly supported further towards the middle, especially independents. From what I understand, there is even a bit of a chasm between the LGBT themselves within their own alliance in regards to the T aspect. Yes, I think that issue swung enough voters over to take the election for Republicans.</quote> You gotta look at the big picture. If Democrats cave on this issue what else will they cave on? It's thinking like that that got so many Democrats to vote for the Iraq War. If they cave on almost everything, there's no reason to vote for them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mr Lasastryke 06/27/18 7:53:01 PM #338:	red sox 777 posted... That's...... really dark. I guess, a party that's lost it's way so badly should suffer defeat in elections until its members wake up and either disband it or change it. yeah, it's incredibly dark to have a problem with racists, homophobes and sexists. --- Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta <cite>Mr Lasastryke posted [p:904087494] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>That's...... really dark. I guess, a party that's lost it's way so badly should suffer defeat in elections until its members wake up and either disband it or change it.</quote> yeah, it's incredibly dark to have a problem with racists, homophobes and sexists.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Reg 06/27/18 7:53:25 PM #339:	Jakyl25 posted... Corrik posted... The moment when you realize you would have won the 2016 presidency and the Supreme Court if you hadn't made a stand on human rights. = / How many times do I have to ask you people not to do this? --- Congratulations to BKSheikah, winner of the BYIG Guru Contest <cite>Reg posted [p:904087523] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>The moment when you realize you would have won the 2016 presidency and the Supreme Court if you hadn't made a stand on human rights. = /</quote></quote> How many times do I have to ask you people not to do this?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik 06/27/18 7:53:56 PM #340:	red sox 777 posted... Corrik posted... ChaosTonyV4 posted... Corrik posted... pyresword posted... Corrik you are the one who started a discussion in bad faith so I'm not sure why you're acting incredulous when someone else responds in kind. Tell me what I said in bad faith, then I will tell you how it wasn't. Corrik posted... The moment when you realize you would have won the 2016 presidency and the Supreme Court if you hadn't made a stand on transgender bathrooms. = / Okay thanks for saying what you feel is in bad faith. I don't know about your states, but leading up to the presidency I am 99% sure they ran anti hillary ads on the transgender bathroom stuff going on. I find it likely in a lot of midwestern states. The vote spread in Wisconsin and PA was what like 19k combined? (off memory). I feel there was no doubt a net less on that issue as far as voters from the more moderate democrats, which I know at least PA has a bevy of. If my memory is correct, yes, a net loss of 20k on that issue would have been enough to lose the election and thus the Supreme Court as well. I know Hillary kind of tried to punt on the issue during her campaign, but that Carolina shit going on was run in ads against democrats a bunch. It might be a big hit for the further left of the spectrum democrats, but I do not think it is as strongly supported further towards the middle, especially independents. From what I understand, there is even a bit of a chasm between the LGBT themselves within their own alliance in regards to the T aspect. Yes, I think that issue swung enough voters over to take the election for Republicans. You gotta look at the big picture. If Democrats cave on this issue what else will they cave on? It's thinking like that that got so many Democrats to vote for the Iraq War. If they cave on almost everything, there's no reason to vote for them. I think at the end of the day it was a net loss in votes in especially the wrong places to lose them. --- LoL ID = imajericho XBL GT = Corrik <cite>Corrik posted [p:904087558] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote><cite>pyresword posted...</cite> <quote>Corrik you are the one who started a discussion in bad faith so I'm not sure why you're acting incredulous when someone else responds in kind.</quote> Tell me what I said in bad faith, then I will tell you how it wasn't.</quote> <cite>Corrik posted...</cite> <quote>The moment when you realize you would have won the 2016 presidency and the Supreme Court if you hadn't made a stand on transgender bathrooms. = /</quote></quote> Okay thanks for saying what you feel is in bad faith. I don't know about your states, but leading up to the presidency I am 99% sure they ran anti hillary ads on the transgender bathroom stuff going on. I find it likely in a lot of midwestern states. The vote spread in Wisconsin and PA was what like 19k combined? (off memory). I feel there was no doubt a net less on that issue as far as voters from the more moderate democrats, which I know at least PA has a bevy of. If my memory is correct, yes, a net loss of 20k on that issue would have been enough to lose the election and thus the Supreme Court as well. I know Hillary kind of tried to punt on the issue during her campaign, but that Carolina shit going on was run in ads against democrats a bunch. It might be a big hit for the further left of the spectrum democrats, but I do not think it is as strongly supported further towards the middle, especially independents. From what I understand, there is even a bit of a chasm between the LGBT themselves within their own alliance in regards to the T aspect. Yes, I think that issue swung enough voters over to take the election for Republicans.</quote> You gotta look at the big picture. If Democrats cave on this issue what else will they cave on? It's thinking like that that got so many Democrats to vote for the Iraq War. If they cave on almost everything, there's no reason to vote for them.</quote> I think at the end of the day it was a net loss in votes in especially the wrong places to lose them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mr Lasastryke 06/27/18 7:54:03 PM #341:	Eddv posted... Lasa I can assure you that no one thinks this line of inquiry is interesting sorry, i momentarily forgot that my posts are held to a way higher standard than those by other people posting here. --- Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta <cite>Mr Lasastryke posted [p:904087568] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>Eddv posted...</cite> <quote>Lasa I can assure you that no one thinks this line of inquiry is interesting</quote> sorry, i momentarily forgot that my posts are held to a way higher standard than those by other people posting here.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Eddv 06/27/18 7:55:02 PM #342:	You're literally the only one who not only enagages, but probes. Even Jakyl has cut that shit out. --- Board 8's Voice of Reason https://imgur.com/chXIw06 <cite>Eddv posted [p:904087638] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote>You're literally the only one who not only enagages, but probes. Even Jakyl has cut that shit out.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 06/27/18 7:55:31 PM #343:	Mr Lasastryke posted... red sox 777 posted... That's...... really dark. I guess, a party that's lost it's way so badly should suffer defeat in elections until its members wake up and either disband it or change it. yeah, it's incredibly dark to have a problem with racists, homophobes and sexists. Wait a minute. You said what they believed in was attacking people. This sounds different. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:904087664] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mr Lasastryke posted...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>That's...... really dark. I guess, a party that's lost it's way so badly should suffer defeat in elections until its members wake up and either disband it or change it.</quote> yeah, it's incredibly dark to have a problem with racists, homophobes and sexists.</quote> Wait a minute. You said what they believed in was attacking people. This sounds different.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mr Lasastryke 06/27/18 7:56:29 PM #344:	Eddv posted... You're literally the only one who not only enagages, but probes. Even Jakyl has cut that shit out. Mr Lasastryke posted... i promise i'll stop responding to red sox when people stop engaging sephyg, who's far worse than red sox (i.e. never). --- Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta <cite>Mr Lasastryke posted [p:904087734] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>Eddv posted...</cite> <quote>You're literally the only one who not only enagages, but probes. Even Jakyl has cut that shit out.</quote> <cite>Mr Lasastryke posted...</cite> <quote>i promise i'll stop responding to red sox when people stop engaging sephyg, who's far worse than red sox (i.e. never).</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mr Lasastryke 06/27/18 7:58:18 PM #345:	red sox 777 posted... Wait a minute. You said what they believed in was attacking people. This sounds different. you meant physically attacking rather than verbally? if that's the case i misunderstood you. --- Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta <cite>Mr Lasastryke posted [p:904087845] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>Wait a minute. You said what they believed in was attacking people. This sounds different.</quote> you meant physically attacking rather than verbally? if that's the case i misunderstood you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pyresword 06/27/18 8:01:40 PM #346:	Also while I'm on the subject, actively advertising that you don't think certain people are worth engaging with is also pretty poor discussion etiquette. If you truly think a comment isn't worth your time to read/discuss then just ignore it. Don't go out of your way to say that something isn't worth your time or act like other people are obligated to feel the same way. --- Congratulations to BK_Sheikah00, this year's guru to achieve contest enlightenment! <cite>pyresword posted [p:904088058] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote>Also while I'm on the subject, actively advertising that you don't think certain people are worth engaging with is also pretty poor discussion etiquette. If you truly think a comment isn't worth your time to read/discuss then just ignore it. Don't go out of your way to say that something isn't worth your time or act like other people are obligated to feel the same way.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Inviso 06/27/18 8:02:05 PM #347:	The reason I'm pissed at Corrik's post is less "hurr durr, transgender people suck and you guys are idiots for supporting them" and more the implication that it was Democrats that made transgender bathroom rights an issue, rather than the Republicans playing identity politics (and never catching flak for identity politics the way Democrats do.) --- Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier. Inviso <cite>Inviso posted [p:904088084] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote>The reason I'm pissed at Corrik's post is less "hurr durr, transgender people suck and you guys are idiots for supporting them" and more the implication that it was Democrats that made transgender bathroom rights an issue, rather than the Republicans playing identity politics (and never catching flak for identity politics the way Democrats do.)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 06/27/18 8:02:06 PM #348:	This is kind of a good social experiment actually. There are a couple people here who insist that I'm trolling, and they seem to respond to all of my posts with insults. Lately they've been attacking others merely for talking to me. Like, if you would take your own advice, you wouldn't have this problem... Considering that I am not even trolling I guess it should be no surprise that a lot of people continue to fall hook line and sinker for master troll Donald Trump. I guess people are just incapable of not responding to things they perceive as trolling. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:904088085] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote>This is kind of a good social experiment actually. There are a couple people here who insist that I'm trolling, and they seem to respond to all of my posts with insults. Lately they've been attacking others merely for talking to me. Like, if you would take your own advice, you wouldn't have this problem... Considering that I am not even trolling I guess it should be no surprise that a lot of people continue to fall hook line and sinker for master troll Donald Trump. I guess people are just incapable of not responding to things they perceive as trolling.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 06/27/18 8:03:12 PM #349:	Mr Lasastryke posted... red sox 777 posted... Wait a minute. You said what they believed in was attacking people. This sounds different. you meant physically attacking rather than verbally? if that's the case i misunderstood you. I thought you meant attacking in general, as in it doesn't matter who is being attacked, the act of attacking is the goal --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:904088153] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mr Lasastryke posted...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>Wait a minute. You said what they believed in was attacking people. This sounds different.</quote> you meant physically attacking rather than verbally? if that's the case i misunderstood you.</quote> I thought you meant attacking in general, as in it doesn't matter who is being attacked, the act of attacking is the goal</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChaosTonyV4 06/27/18 8:03:35 PM #350:	Mr Lasastryke posted... Eddv posted... You're literally the only one who not only enagages, but probes. Even Jakyl has cut that shit out. Mr Lasastryke posted... i promise i'll stop responding to red sox when people stop engaging sephyg, who's far worse than red sox (i.e. never). I dunno why you'd want to repeat one of the worsts post I've ever read in the history of the politics topic series. --- Phantom Dust. "I'll just wait for time to prove me right again." - Vlado <cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted [p:904088170] in Politics C... [t:76746634]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mr Lasastryke posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Eddv posted...</cite> <quote>You're literally the only one who not only enagages, but probes. Even Jakyl has cut that shit out.</quote> <cite>Mr Lasastryke posted...</cite> <quote>i promise i'll stop responding to red sox when people stop engaging sephyg, who's far worse than red sox (i.e. never).</quote></quote> I dunno why you'd want to repeat one of the worsts post I've ever read in the history of the politics topic series.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 182: Vesuvius of Mendacities (+) Yeah! (+)

Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 182: Vesuvius of Mendacities