-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 23, 2021, 08:37:32 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Beach Boys Britain
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Campaign 2016
Pages: 1 ... 52 53 54 55 56 [57] 58 59 60 61 62 ... 81   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Campaign 2016  (Read 331393 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1400 on: July 29, 2016, 10:38:52 AM »

I'm sorry, but I haven't reviewed this entire thread, FdP, so I'm sure you'll call me to task over some obscure detail here.  So explain to me how the Dems allowing a number of their people to express themselves, in all their frustration at not winning the primaries, are somehow diminishing Dems' values and validity.  Many horrified Repubs refused to attend this year's convention - including all the past President, so dissent wasn't visible, was it? Talk about empty seats, though - seriously empty seats!  And I couldn't think of a more dramatic statement against a Presidential candidate.  We saw lots of smoke and mirrors last week, just like everything the Donald says, or really doesn't say, because he knows frikkin' nothing but pandering to fools - certainly nothing about domestic or foreign policy.

The Democratic convention is called Democracy in action, not an embarrassment, nor a problem in the end.  That's why it's actually interesting, as opposed to another stupid reality show.

Debbie - the empty seats were the result of a Bernie delegate walkout which was hardly covered. Some videos were taken and show images of white noise machines above their seating which were installed to drown out their protests which were quite loud in opposition.   When the delegates returned they found their seats covered with "reserved" signs and were not allowed to sit where they were supposed to. The California delegation was particularly problematic to the DNC this year because of the very vocal Sanders support.  There were craigslist ads placed paying $50 a day for "actors"to fill the seats of the Sanders delegates.  

Danny Glover's interview is pretty descriptive as to the experience they had. I think the DNC was out of line to question Sanders' religious beliefs to potentially exploit them with a particular demographic.  

Yes, the Republicans are horrified because their party is over. There are an equal number of Dems who are horrified at what happened at the DNC so both major parties are almost up for grabs.  Some have jumped over parties, but are aligned more closely, or who would rather support a Dem than the Republican candidate.  And they did all sign a pledge.  

There were plenty of smoke and mirrors this week as well.  It was better than a reality show, and at least people are starting to pay attention.  

What I don't like that I heard coming from some analysts that the typical Trump voter was a male (caucasian) who did not graduate from college. Rather than looking at issues that are important, they pull out the ugly race card.  There are plenty of smart people out there who did not graduate, start or finish college and I think it is wrong to drop a label that is disparaging to a voter and find it completely elitist.  "Smart" has many faces.  Plenty of people who cannot read (dyslexic and other reasons) are pretty informed.  The college thing is not a voter requisite.  Wink


"When the delegates returned..." Lol. They came back after their walkout and were sad their seats were taken??!! Hahahahahah.
Emily - forgive me, I explained that poorly, and clearly you have not viewed the Bernie "elected delegates" video clips.

Upon return, the designated sections had been re-assigned to "others" "acting" in a work-for-hire capacity.     LOL


yeah I'm laughing at them coming back after their walk out.

Also, as we both know, no one was there in a "work-for-hire capacity."  Stop lying. It's not winning anyone over and it teaches people not to believe what you say even when you do tell the truth.
Emily - the craigslist hires to fill the seats, are common knowledge by now.  They could have cleaned out a couple of senior citizens facilities, fed them, and bussed them in to fill the seats.  That's the old school way.  Wink  
Wow. You didn't really go to law school, did you? If you did, what grade did you get when you made the argument "everyone says so so it must be true"?
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 10:46:17 AM by Emily » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1401 on: July 29, 2016, 10:40:08 AM »


The basic facts are that the Democrats have a reputation for being anti law enforcement

That reputation is based on what? Primarily republican propaganda and media, not anything Democrats actually say or do as a party. Both parties suck the dicks of law enforcement (and military) because that's how you win votes. Nobody wins on "let's think about complex, nuanced situations. Maybe we've been wrong in our approach to X." They win on "I'll be tough on crime." Both parties ALWAYS do this. But republicans have pushed an alternative narrative on Democrats for decades. We're the tough guys, we're the law-and-order party. Since Nixon, that has been their story.

But if we're going to trust reputations, then Republicans are racist, sexist, elitist, anti-science, gun-crazy, xenophobic Bible thumpers. That's their reputation. Gotta be true.

(Obviously not true, obviously not so simple. Nothing is. Simple stories are lies.)

Suck dicks of law enforcement and military?  At least you kept your response classy.   

The Democrats have earned their reputation for being anti law enforcement.  Under Obama, almost 800 officers have died in the line of duty.  Not one White House representative was sent to a funeral / memorial service.  Yet, Michael Brown, a thug who attacked an officer, had three staffers at his funeral. 




Actually, law enforcement deaths have dropped yet lower under every four year term since Clinton's. Including both of Obama's. I'm not saying that that's directly related to any president's actions, but it's simply untrue that they've gone up under Obama.

That's because I never said they went up. 
Ah. Ok. Misunderstanding then. Sorry.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1402 on: July 29, 2016, 10:44:05 AM »

That's funny.  I happen to have two college degrees and I'm voting for Trump.  Smiley

And that's a PERFECT example of a personal story from which you wouldn't want to draw any overarching conclusions when it comes to the country or the electorate, because in fact:

Trump overwhelmingly leads his rivals for support among the less educated, and draws more modest backing from college graduates and those with postgraduate study, according to exit polls conducted for the Associated Press and television networks by Edison Research.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-overwhelmingly-leads-rivals-in-support-from-less-educated-americans/

Indeed, this story pertains *specifically* to college education (as opposed to the somewhat less easily defined "dumb" versus "smart" versus "ignorant" measurements).

Trump supporters will call degree-holders elitist, etc. Trump detractors will draw the correlation, to some degree, that it means the less educated you are, the less ignorant you tend to be, and therefore ignorance breeds Trump voters.

Back to personal anecdotes from which no actual statistics can be drawn, my experience is pretty much the latter. Every Trump supporter I've seen either seems to be vastly ignorant or intellectually dishonest (with others if not themselves as well), or both.

Yes, this is an example.

The Mayor of Baltimore condoning riots that destroyed many businesses and negatively affected EVERY business in Baltimore City is NOT. 

I think one of the problems is not being able to see how one specific event/incident, even if *everything* about it (what occurred and the result, and the culpability and implications of it) seems crystal clear to *you*, may not be in fact so crystal clear.

And sometimes even if the event itself is crystal clear, the wider implications pertaining to an entire political party and political convention may not be so simple.

Whatever any individual thinks, there obviously are plenty of people who don't see it the way you do ( "Baltimore Mayor: 'I Would Never Condone Rioting'" - http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/baltimore-mayor-i-would-never-condone-rioting-n352846 ).

You may be right, maybe they are. The take-away is that just because someone feels really strongly that their interpretation is correct, I'm not always going to blindly believe that. For me, this is more of an discussion involving semantics and rhetoric than it is about that particular event. I know of plenty of things that have happened in my lifetime that I feel others are ignoring or characterizing incorrectly. But I can't expect everyone to draw my conclusions.


Blake was directly quoted saying she allowed space to destroy.  So, I don't really care if she said afterward that she doesn't condone rioting.  The fact that she's not seeking re-election clearly shows that she knows she screwed up. 

I think you and Emily are trying to bury my point in a pointless semantics argument. 

The basic facts are that the Democrats have a reputation for being anti law enforcement, and Mayor Blake put Baltimore Police in harms way.  And, for some reason, the DNC thought it would be a good idea to have her there.

Even if I were Democrat, I would think that's a bad idea. 
I don't think it's a pointless semantics argument. Your original post on the topic claimed authority based on it being your hometown. I don't think that gives your opinion more weight, in terms of public decision making.

I mentioned that it was my hometown.  But it doesn't take away from the fact that she condoned riots.  

In terms of public decision making, it doesn't make a difference what town I'm talking about where businesses were destroyed thanks to an incompetent mayor.  
I agree with your last statement. What you actually said is essentially (I'm on a phone so it's too difficult to get the exact quote) maybe I'd have a different opinion if it had been my hometown. That is what I'm talking about - the idea that my opinion relies on my personal experience or my feelings about something due to proximity.
If that's not what you meant, that's fine. And I see that if it was what you meant, you aren't defending it, which is also fine. But it is what you said.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9278



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1403 on: July 29, 2016, 10:51:51 AM »

Emily - the craigslist hires to fill the seats, are common knowledge by now.  They could have cleaned out a couple of senior citizens facilities, fed them, and bussed them in to fill the seats.  That's the old school way.  Wink 

And it has already been cited numerous times that A) Common Sense and B) Actual investigation into the matter, have established that the "Craigslist Ad" story is questionable *at best.*

You do realize that you continually completely undercut any credibility by ignoring when people point out lies and falsehoods you're perpetuating, and either keep saying the same incorrect things and/or change the subject, right?

I also see countless ads on Craigslist telling me that the owner of a home is "away on business in Europe" and "trust me for to 100%" take care of their mansion that I can live in for at least two years for only a simple one-time Western Union money transfer payment of $500. Because, everything on Craigslist is legit, right?

Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2943



View Profile
« Reply #1404 on: July 29, 2016, 10:56:06 AM »

filledeplage is the worst thing that has ever happened to this board.

That's a tad insulting, don't you think?  Just because the poster has different political views?  This is a forum after all.  It's not all going to be one way, and to call a person "the worst thing that has ever happened to the board" just because of a difference in opinion is just plain wrong. 

Emily and I have argued a lot in The Sandbox, but I wouldn't stoop so low to insult her in this way. 

Dudejim, you're a lot more sour than sweet, and I do believe you owe filledeplage an apology. 




I sure don't. And I don't give a flying sh*t about her political views.

My problem with her is her refusal to ever give an inch regardless of any evidence. There is nobody else on the board like her, besides maybe Cam Mott. I don't know her as a person, but as a poster, she has greatly contributed to the downfall of this board as she has constantly dragged threads into the shitter with her drivel.
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #1405 on: July 29, 2016, 10:56:54 AM »

That's funny.  I happen to have two college degrees and I'm voting for Trump.  Smiley

And that's a PERFECT example of a personal story from which you wouldn't want to draw any overarching conclusions when it comes to the country or the electorate, because in fact:

Trump overwhelmingly leads his rivals for support among the less educated, and draws more modest backing from college graduates and those with postgraduate study, according to exit polls conducted for the Associated Press and television networks by Edison Research.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-overwhelmingly-leads-rivals-in-support-from-less-educated-americans/

Indeed, this story pertains *specifically* to college education (as opposed to the somewhat less easily defined "dumb" versus "smart" versus "ignorant" measurements).

Trump supporters will call degree-holders elitist, etc. Trump detractors will draw the correlation, to some degree, that it means the less educated you are, the less ignorant you tend to be, and therefore ignorance breeds Trump voters.

Back to personal anecdotes from which no actual statistics can be drawn, my experience is pretty much the latter. Every Trump supporter I've seen either seems to be vastly ignorant or intellectually dishonest (with others if not themselves as well), or both.

Yes, this is an example.

The Mayor of Baltimore condoning riots that destroyed many businesses and negatively affected EVERY business in Baltimore City is NOT. 

I think one of the problems is not being able to see how one specific event/incident, even if *everything* about it (what occurred and the result, and the culpability and implications of it) seems crystal clear to *you*, may not be in fact so crystal clear.

And sometimes even if the event itself is crystal clear, the wider implications pertaining to an entire political party and political convention may not be so simple.

Whatever any individual thinks, there obviously are plenty of people who don't see it the way you do ( "Baltimore Mayor: 'I Would Never Condone Rioting'" - http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/baltimore-mayor-i-would-never-condone-rioting-n352846 ).

You may be right, maybe they are. The take-away is that just because someone feels really strongly that their interpretation is correct, I'm not always going to blindly believe that. For me, this is more of an discussion involving semantics and rhetoric than it is about that particular event. I know of plenty of things that have happened in my lifetime that I feel others are ignoring or characterizing incorrectly. But I can't expect everyone to draw my conclusions.


Blake was directly quoted saying she allowed space to destroy.  So, I don't really care if she said afterward that she doesn't condone rioting.  The fact that she's not seeking re-election clearly shows that she knows she screwed up. 

I think you and Emily are trying to bury my point in a pointless semantics argument. 

The basic facts are that the Democrats have a reputation for being anti law enforcement, and Mayor Blake put Baltimore Police in harms way.  And, for some reason, the DNC thought it would be a good idea to have her there.

Even if I were Democrat, I would think that's a bad idea. 
I don't think it's a pointless semantics argument. Your original post on the topic claimed authority based on it being your hometown. I don't think that gives your opinion more weight, in terms of public decision making.

I mentioned that it was my hometown.  But it doesn't take away from the fact that she condoned riots.  

In terms of public decision making, it doesn't make a difference what town I'm talking about where businesses were destroyed thanks to an incompetent mayor.  
I agree with your last statement. What you actually said is essentially (I'm on a phone so it's too difficult to get the exact quote) maybe I'd have a different opinion if it had been my hometown. That is what I'm talking about - the idea that my opinion relies on my personal experience or my feelings about something due to proximity.
If that's not what you meant, that's fine. And I see that if it was what you meant, you aren't defending it, which is also fine. But it is what you said.

That is what I said.  I thought you were trying to dismiss my point because portions of my town were being destroyed.

But, when you dismiss it, and think the DNC did right by having Mayor Blake at the convention, it's almost like you're saying "Well f**k Baltimore and f**k the Baltimore City Police Department."  

Emily, I hope you don't have to worry about your significant other coming home safe because there are riots going on just a mile from where they work.  Or have to worry about a friend of yours that's on the force, who got assigned to the trouble area without riot gear.  I did.  

Maybe that's personal, then so be it.  

But the fact that it's personal doesn't take away from the fact that having this sorry excuse for a politician speak at the DNC is just plain wrong.  
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1406 on: July 29, 2016, 10:59:36 AM »

That's funny.  I happen to have two college degrees and I'm voting for Trump.  Smiley

And that's a PERFECT example of a personal story from which you wouldn't want to draw any overarching conclusions when it comes to the country or the electorate, because in fact:

Trump overwhelmingly leads his rivals for support among the less educated, and draws more modest backing from college graduates and those with postgraduate study, according to exit polls conducted for the Associated Press and television networks by Edison Research.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-overwhelmingly-leads-rivals-in-support-from-less-educated-americans/

Indeed, this story pertains *specifically* to college education (as opposed to the somewhat less easily defined "dumb" versus "smart" versus "ignorant" measurements).

Trump supporters will call degree-holders elitist, etc. Trump detractors will draw the correlation, to some degree, that it means the less educated you are, the less ignorant you tend to be, and therefore ignorance breeds Trump voters.

Back to personal anecdotes from which no actual statistics can be drawn, my experience is pretty much the latter. Every Trump supporter I've seen either seems to be vastly ignorant or intellectually dishonest (with others if not themselves as well), or both.

Yes, this is an example.

The Mayor of Baltimore condoning riots that destroyed many businesses and negatively affected EVERY business in Baltimore City is NOT. 

I think one of the problems is not being able to see how one specific event/incident, even if *everything* about it (what occurred and the result, and the culpability and implications of it) seems crystal clear to *you*, may not be in fact so crystal clear.

And sometimes even if the event itself is crystal clear, the wider implications pertaining to an entire political party and political convention may not be so simple.

Whatever any individual thinks, there obviously are plenty of people who don't see it the way you do ( "Baltimore Mayor: 'I Would Never Condone Rioting'" - http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/baltimore-mayor-i-would-never-condone-rioting-n352846 ).

You may be right, maybe they are. The take-away is that just because someone feels really strongly that their interpretation is correct, I'm not always going to blindly believe that. For me, this is more of an discussion involving semantics and rhetoric than it is about that particular event. I know of plenty of things that have happened in my lifetime that I feel others are ignoring or characterizing incorrectly. But I can't expect everyone to draw my conclusions.


Blake was directly quoted saying she allowed space to destroy.  So, I don't really care if she said afterward that she doesn't condone rioting.  The fact that she's not seeking re-election clearly shows that she knows she screwed up. 

I think you and Emily are trying to bury my point in a pointless semantics argument. 

The basic facts are that the Democrats have a reputation for being anti law enforcement, and Mayor Blake put Baltimore Police in harms way.  And, for some reason, the DNC thought it would be a good idea to have her there.

Even if I were Democrat, I would think that's a bad idea. 
I don't think it's a pointless semantics argument. Your original post on the topic claimed authority based on it being your hometown. I don't think that gives your opinion more weight, in terms of public decision making.

I mentioned that it was my hometown.  But it doesn't take away from the fact that she condoned riots.  

In terms of public decision making, it doesn't make a difference what town I'm talking about where businesses were destroyed thanks to an incompetent mayor.  
I agree with your last statement. What you actually said is essentially (I'm on a phone so it's too difficult to get the exact quote) maybe I'd have a different opinion if it had been my hometown. That is what I'm talking about - the idea that my opinion relies on my personal experience or my feelings about something due to proximity.
If that's not what you meant, that's fine. And I see that if it was what you meant, you aren't defending it, which is also fine. But it is what you said.

That is what I said.  I thought you were trying to dismiss my point because portions of my town were being destroyed.

But, when you dismiss it, and think the DNC did right by having Mayor Blake at the convention, it's almost like you're saying "Well f**k Baltimore and f**k the Baltimore City Police Department."  

Emily, I hope you don't have to worry about your significant other coming home safe because there are riots going on just a mile from where they work.  Or have to worry about a friend of yours that's on the force, who got assigned to the trouble area without riot gear.  I did.  

Maybe that's personal, then so be it.  

But the fact that it's personal doesn't take away from the fact that having this sorry excuse for a politician speak at the DNC is just plain wrong.  
I don't dismiss it. But I do disagree and don't really want to argue about it.
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #1407 on: July 29, 2016, 10:59:49 AM »

filledeplage is the worst thing that has ever happened to this board.

That's a tad insulting, don't you think?  Just because the poster has different political views?  This is a forum after all.  It's not all going to be one way, and to call a person "the worst thing that has ever happened to the board" just because of a difference in opinion is just plain wrong. 

Emily and I have argued a lot in The Sandbox, but I wouldn't stoop so low to insult her in this way. 

Dudejim, you're a lot more sour than sweet, and I do believe you owe filledeplage an apology. 




I sure don't. And I don't give a flying sh*t about her political views.

My problem with her is her refusal to ever give an inch regardless of any evidence. There is nobody else on the board like her, besides maybe Cam Mott. I don't know her as a person, but as a poster, she has greatly contributed to the downfall of this board as she has constantly dragged threads into the shitter with her drivel.

Have you been reading this thread at all, sourdudejim?  

filledeplage is not the only poster on here who won't give an inch.  And so far, I've not seen her post anything as disrespectful as you and some of the other posters on this board I've seen over the past few months.  

Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #1408 on: July 29, 2016, 11:01:58 AM »

That's funny.  I happen to have two college degrees and I'm voting for Trump.  Smiley

And that's a PERFECT example of a personal story from which you wouldn't want to draw any overarching conclusions when it comes to the country or the electorate, because in fact:

Trump overwhelmingly leads his rivals for support among the less educated, and draws more modest backing from college graduates and those with postgraduate study, according to exit polls conducted for the Associated Press and television networks by Edison Research.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-overwhelmingly-leads-rivals-in-support-from-less-educated-americans/

Indeed, this story pertains *specifically* to college education (as opposed to the somewhat less easily defined "dumb" versus "smart" versus "ignorant" measurements).

Trump supporters will call degree-holders elitist, etc. Trump detractors will draw the correlation, to some degree, that it means the less educated you are, the less ignorant you tend to be, and therefore ignorance breeds Trump voters.

Back to personal anecdotes from which no actual statistics can be drawn, my experience is pretty much the latter. Every Trump supporter I've seen either seems to be vastly ignorant or intellectually dishonest (with others if not themselves as well), or both.

Yes, this is an example.

The Mayor of Baltimore condoning riots that destroyed many businesses and negatively affected EVERY business in Baltimore City is NOT. 

I think one of the problems is not being able to see how one specific event/incident, even if *everything* about it (what occurred and the result, and the culpability and implications of it) seems crystal clear to *you*, may not be in fact so crystal clear.

And sometimes even if the event itself is crystal clear, the wider implications pertaining to an entire political party and political convention may not be so simple.

Whatever any individual thinks, there obviously are plenty of people who don't see it the way you do ( "Baltimore Mayor: 'I Would Never Condone Rioting'" - http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/baltimore-mayor-i-would-never-condone-rioting-n352846 ).

You may be right, maybe they are. The take-away is that just because someone feels really strongly that their interpretation is correct, I'm not always going to blindly believe that. For me, this is more of an discussion involving semantics and rhetoric than it is about that particular event. I know of plenty of things that have happened in my lifetime that I feel others are ignoring or characterizing incorrectly. But I can't expect everyone to draw my conclusions.


Blake was directly quoted saying she allowed space to destroy.  So, I don't really care if she said afterward that she doesn't condone rioting.  The fact that she's not seeking re-election clearly shows that she knows she screwed up. 

I think you and Emily are trying to bury my point in a pointless semantics argument. 

The basic facts are that the Democrats have a reputation for being anti law enforcement, and Mayor Blake put Baltimore Police in harms way.  And, for some reason, the DNC thought it would be a good idea to have her there.

Even if I were Democrat, I would think that's a bad idea. 
I don't think it's a pointless semantics argument. Your original post on the topic claimed authority based on it being your hometown. I don't think that gives your opinion more weight, in terms of public decision making.

I mentioned that it was my hometown.  But it doesn't take away from the fact that she condoned riots.  

In terms of public decision making, it doesn't make a difference what town I'm talking about where businesses were destroyed thanks to an incompetent mayor.  
I agree with your last statement. What you actually said is essentially (I'm on a phone so it's too difficult to get the exact quote) maybe I'd have a different opinion if it had been my hometown. That is what I'm talking about - the idea that my opinion relies on my personal experience or my feelings about something due to proximity.
If that's not what you meant, that's fine. And I see that if it was what you meant, you aren't defending it, which is also fine. But it is what you said.

That is what I said.  I thought you were trying to dismiss my point because portions of my town were being destroyed.

But, when you dismiss it, and think the DNC did right by having Mayor Blake at the convention, it's almost like you're saying "Well f**k Baltimore and f**k the Baltimore City Police Department."  

Emily, I hope you don't have to worry about your significant other coming home safe because there are riots going on just a mile from where they work.  Or have to worry about a friend of yours that's on the force, who got assigned to the trouble area without riot gear.  I did.  

Maybe that's personal, then so be it.  

But the fact that it's personal doesn't take away from the fact that having this sorry excuse for a politician speak at the DNC is just plain wrong.  
I don't dismiss it. But I do disagree and don't really want to argue about it.

You can disagree.  But you're disagreeing with me just leads me to believe that you do not support law enforcement.  And you think it's OK for thugs to riot, destroy businesses and property, and lead to a city wide curfew which cost the city of Baltimore revenue. 

Even though we may have different opinions, I hope you're a better person than that. 
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1409 on: July 29, 2016, 11:02:17 AM »

filledeplage is the worst thing that has ever happened to this board.

That's a tad insulting, don't you think?  Just because the poster has different political views?  This is a forum after all.  It's not all going to be one way, and to call a person "the worst thing that has ever happened to the board" just because of a difference in opinion is just plain wrong. 

Emily and I have argued a lot in The Sandbox, but I wouldn't stoop so low to insult her in this way. 

Dudejim, you're a lot more sour than sweet, and I do believe you owe filledeplage an apology. 




I sure don't. And I don't give a flying sh*t about her political views.

My problem with her is her refusal to ever give an inch regardless of any evidence. There is nobody else on the board like her, besides maybe Cam Mott. I don't know her as a person, but as a poster, she has greatly contributed to the downfall of this board as she has constantly dragged threads into the shitter with her drivel.

Have you been reading this thread at all, sourdudejim?  

filledeplage is not the only poster on here who won't give an inch.  And so far, I've not seen her post anything as disrespectful as you and some of the other posters on this board I've seen over the past few months.  


I think the key words are "regardless of any evidence."
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1410 on: July 29, 2016, 11:05:39 AM »

That's funny.  I happen to have two college degrees and I'm voting for Trump.  Smiley

And that's a PERFECT example of a personal story from which you wouldn't want to draw any overarching conclusions when it comes to the country or the electorate, because in fact:

Trump overwhelmingly leads his rivals for support among the less educated, and draws more modest backing from college graduates and those with postgraduate study, according to exit polls conducted for the Associated Press and television networks by Edison Research.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-overwhelmingly-leads-rivals-in-support-from-less-educated-americans/

Indeed, this story pertains *specifically* to college education (as opposed to the somewhat less easily defined "dumb" versus "smart" versus "ignorant" measurements).

Trump supporters will call degree-holders elitist, etc. Trump detractors will draw the correlation, to some degree, that it means the less educated you are, the less ignorant you tend to be, and therefore ignorance breeds Trump voters.

Back to personal anecdotes from which no actual statistics can be drawn, my experience is pretty much the latter. Every Trump supporter I've seen either seems to be vastly ignorant or intellectually dishonest (with others if not themselves as well), or both.

Yes, this is an example.

The Mayor of Baltimore condoning riots that destroyed many businesses and negatively affected EVERY business in Baltimore City is NOT. 

I think one of the problems is not being able to see how one specific event/incident, even if *everything* about it (what occurred and the result, and the culpability and implications of it) seems crystal clear to *you*, may not be in fact so crystal clear.

And sometimes even if the event itself is crystal clear, the wider implications pertaining to an entire political party and political convention may not be so simple.

Whatever any individual thinks, there obviously are plenty of people who don't see it the way you do ( "Baltimore Mayor: 'I Would Never Condone Rioting'" - http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/baltimore-mayor-i-would-never-condone-rioting-n352846 ).

You may be right, maybe they are. The take-away is that just because someone feels really strongly that their interpretation is correct, I'm not always going to blindly believe that. For me, this is more of an discussion involving semantics and rhetoric than it is about that particular event. I know of plenty of things that have happened in my lifetime that I feel others are ignoring or characterizing incorrectly. But I can't expect everyone to draw my conclusions.


Blake was directly quoted saying she allowed space to destroy.  So, I don't really care if she said afterward that she doesn't condone rioting.  The fact that she's not seeking re-election clearly shows that she knows she screwed up. 

I think you and Emily are trying to bury my point in a pointless semantics argument. 

The basic facts are that the Democrats have a reputation for being anti law enforcement, and Mayor Blake put Baltimore Police in harms way.  And, for some reason, the DNC thought it would be a good idea to have her there.

Even if I were Democrat, I would think that's a bad idea. 
I don't think it's a pointless semantics argument. Your original post on the topic claimed authority based on it being your hometown. I don't think that gives your opinion more weight, in terms of public decision making.

I mentioned that it was my hometown.  But it doesn't take away from the fact that she condoned riots.  

In terms of public decision making, it doesn't make a difference what town I'm talking about where businesses were destroyed thanks to an incompetent mayor.  
I agree with your last statement. What you actually said is essentially (I'm on a phone so it's too difficult to get the exact quote) maybe I'd have a different opinion if it had been my hometown. That is what I'm talking about - the idea that my opinion relies on my personal experience or my feelings about something due to proximity.
If that's not what you meant, that's fine. And I see that if it was what you meant, you aren't defending it, which is also fine. But it is what you said.

That is what I said.  I thought you were trying to dismiss my point because portions of my town were being destroyed.

But, when you dismiss it, and think the DNC did right by having Mayor Blake at the convention, it's almost like you're saying "Well f**k Baltimore and f**k the Baltimore City Police Department."  

Emily, I hope you don't have to worry about your significant other coming home safe because there are riots going on just a mile from where they work.  Or have to worry about a friend of yours that's on the force, who got assigned to the trouble area without riot gear.  I did.  

Maybe that's personal, then so be it.  

But the fact that it's personal doesn't take away from the fact that having this sorry excuse for a politician speak at the DNC is just plain wrong.  
I don't dismiss it. But I do disagree and don't really want to argue about it.

You can disagree.  But you're disagreeing with me just leads me to believe that you do not support law enforcement.  And you think it's OK for thugs to riot, destroy businesses and property, and lead to a city wide curfew which cost the city of Baltimore revenue. 

Even though we may have different opinions, I hope you're a better person than that. 
The reason I don't want to argue is that your second statement was predictable, from my experience. And I think no matter how much I try to explain my reasoning, you won't hear it. And, I'm not sure why, but arguing with you and not being heard is less entertaining than with FdP.
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #1411 on: July 29, 2016, 11:07:37 AM »

filledeplage is the worst thing that has ever happened to this board.

That's a tad insulting, don't you think?  Just because the poster has different political views?  This is a forum after all.  It's not all going to be one way, and to call a person "the worst thing that has ever happened to the board" just because of a difference in opinion is just plain wrong. 

Emily and I have argued a lot in The Sandbox, but I wouldn't stoop so low to insult her in this way. 

Dudejim, you're a lot more sour than sweet, and I do believe you owe filledeplage an apology. 




I sure don't. And I don't give a flying sh*t about her political views.

My problem with her is her refusal to ever give an inch regardless of any evidence. There is nobody else on the board like her, besides maybe Cam Mott. I don't know her as a person, but as a poster, she has greatly contributed to the downfall of this board as she has constantly dragged threads into the shitter with her drivel.

Have you been reading this thread at all, sourdudejim?  

filledeplage is not the only poster on here who won't give an inch.  And so far, I've not seen her post anything as disrespectful as you and some of the other posters on this board I've seen over the past few months.  


I think the key words are "regardless of any evidence."

She is posting opinions.  And anything she includes evidence, you or somebody else dismissed it as propaganda.  

So, since her opinions and views don't line up with yours, then she deserves the title of "worst thing about SSMB"?
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #1412 on: July 29, 2016, 11:09:37 AM »

That's funny.  I happen to have two college degrees and I'm voting for Trump.  Smiley

And that's a PERFECT example of a personal story from which you wouldn't want to draw any overarching conclusions when it comes to the country or the electorate, because in fact:

Trump overwhelmingly leads his rivals for support among the less educated, and draws more modest backing from college graduates and those with postgraduate study, according to exit polls conducted for the Associated Press and television networks by Edison Research.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-overwhelmingly-leads-rivals-in-support-from-less-educated-americans/

Indeed, this story pertains *specifically* to college education (as opposed to the somewhat less easily defined "dumb" versus "smart" versus "ignorant" measurements).

Trump supporters will call degree-holders elitist, etc. Trump detractors will draw the correlation, to some degree, that it means the less educated you are, the less ignorant you tend to be, and therefore ignorance breeds Trump voters.

Back to personal anecdotes from which no actual statistics can be drawn, my experience is pretty much the latter. Every Trump supporter I've seen either seems to be vastly ignorant or intellectually dishonest (with others if not themselves as well), or both.

Yes, this is an example.

The Mayor of Baltimore condoning riots that destroyed many businesses and negatively affected EVERY business in Baltimore City is NOT. 

I think one of the problems is not being able to see how one specific event/incident, even if *everything* about it (what occurred and the result, and the culpability and implications of it) seems crystal clear to *you*, may not be in fact so crystal clear.

And sometimes even if the event itself is crystal clear, the wider implications pertaining to an entire political party and political convention may not be so simple.

Whatever any individual thinks, there obviously are plenty of people who don't see it the way you do ( "Baltimore Mayor: 'I Would Never Condone Rioting'" - http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/baltimore-mayor-i-would-never-condone-rioting-n352846 ).

You may be right, maybe they are. The take-away is that just because someone feels really strongly that their interpretation is correct, I'm not always going to blindly believe that. For me, this is more of an discussion involving semantics and rhetoric than it is about that particular event. I know of plenty of things that have happened in my lifetime that I feel others are ignoring or characterizing incorrectly. But I can't expect everyone to draw my conclusions.


Blake was directly quoted saying she allowed space to destroy.  So, I don't really care if she said afterward that she doesn't condone rioting.  The fact that she's not seeking re-election clearly shows that she knows she screwed up. 

I think you and Emily are trying to bury my point in a pointless semantics argument. 

The basic facts are that the Democrats have a reputation for being anti law enforcement, and Mayor Blake put Baltimore Police in harms way.  And, for some reason, the DNC thought it would be a good idea to have her there.

Even if I were Democrat, I would think that's a bad idea. 
I don't think it's a pointless semantics argument. Your original post on the topic claimed authority based on it being your hometown. I don't think that gives your opinion more weight, in terms of public decision making.

I mentioned that it was my hometown.  But it doesn't take away from the fact that she condoned riots.  

In terms of public decision making, it doesn't make a difference what town I'm talking about where businesses were destroyed thanks to an incompetent mayor.  
I agree with your last statement. What you actually said is essentially (I'm on a phone so it's too difficult to get the exact quote) maybe I'd have a different opinion if it had been my hometown. That is what I'm talking about - the idea that my opinion relies on my personal experience or my feelings about something due to proximity.
If that's not what you meant, that's fine. And I see that if it was what you meant, you aren't defending it, which is also fine. But it is what you said.

That is what I said.  I thought you were trying to dismiss my point because portions of my town were being destroyed.

But, when you dismiss it, and think the DNC did right by having Mayor Blake at the convention, it's almost like you're saying "Well f**k Baltimore and f**k the Baltimore City Police Department."  

Emily, I hope you don't have to worry about your significant other coming home safe because there are riots going on just a mile from where they work.  Or have to worry about a friend of yours that's on the force, who got assigned to the trouble area without riot gear.  I did.  

Maybe that's personal, then so be it.  

But the fact that it's personal doesn't take away from the fact that having this sorry excuse for a politician speak at the DNC is just plain wrong.  
I don't dismiss it. But I do disagree and don't really want to argue about it.

You can disagree.  But you're disagreeing with me just leads me to believe that you do not support law enforcement.  And you think it's OK for thugs to riot, destroy businesses and property, and lead to a city wide curfew which cost the city of Baltimore revenue. 

Even though we may have different opinions, I hope you're a better person than that. 
The reason I don't want to argue is that your second statement was predictable, from my experience. And I think no matter how much I try to explain my reasoning, you won't hear it. And, I'm not sure why, but arguing with you and not being heard is less entertaining than with FdP.

OK, without questioning the source of my opinion, why do you think having Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake at the DNC is a good idea?

You want to be heard?  I'm listening. 
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1413 on: July 29, 2016, 11:11:37 AM »

filledeplage is the worst thing that has ever happened to this board.

That's a tad insulting, don't you think?  Just because the poster has different political views?  This is a forum after all.  It's not all going to be one way, and to call a person "the worst thing that has ever happened to the board" just because of a difference in opinion is just plain wrong. 

Emily and I have argued a lot in The Sandbox, but I wouldn't stoop so low to insult her in this way. 

Dudejim, you're a lot more sour than sweet, and I do believe you owe filledeplage an apology. 




I sure don't. And I don't give a flying sh*t about her political views.

My problem with her is her refusal to ever give an inch regardless of any evidence. There is nobody else on the board like her, besides maybe Cam Mott. I don't know her as a person, but as a poster, she has greatly contributed to the downfall of this board as she has constantly dragged threads into the shitter with her drivel.

Have you been reading this thread at all, sourdudejim?  

filledeplage is not the only poster on here who won't give an inch.  And so far, I've not seen her post anything as disrespectful as you and some of the other posters on this board I've seen over the past few months.  


I think the key words are "regardless of any evidence."

She is posting opinions.  And anything she includes evidence, you or somebody else dismissed it as propaganda.  

So, since her opinions and views don't line up with yours, then she deserves the title of "worst thing about SSMB"?
As has been explained, her 'evidence' doesn't in any way conform to the rules of evidence. Her evidence amounts to "someone on the internet said so," which is only evidence of the fact that someone on the internet said so.
But I don't want to argue with you about this either.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #1414 on: July 29, 2016, 11:12:38 AM »

I'm sorry, but I haven't reviewed this entire thread, FdP, so I'm sure you'll call me to task over some obscure detail here.  So explain to me how the Dems allowing a number of their people to express themselves, in all their frustration at not winning the primaries, are somehow diminishing Dems' values and validity.  Many horrified Repubs refused to attend this year's convention - including all the past President, so dissent wasn't visible, was it? Talk about empty seats, though - seriously empty seats!  And I couldn't think of a more dramatic statement against a Presidential candidate.  We saw lots of smoke and mirrors last week, just like everything the Donald says, or really doesn't say, because he knows frikkin' nothing but pandering to fools - certainly nothing about domestic or foreign policy.

The Democratic convention is called Democracy in action, not an embarrassment, nor a problem in the end.  That's why it's actually interesting, as opposed to another stupid reality show.

Debbie - the empty seats were the result of a Bernie delegate walkout which was hardly covered. Some videos were taken and show images of white noise machines above their seating which were installed to drown out their protests which were quite loud in opposition.   When the delegates returned they found their seats covered with "reserved" signs and were not allowed to sit where they were supposed to. The California delegation was particularly problematic to the DNC this year because of the very vocal Sanders support.  There were craigslist ads placed paying $50 a day for "actors"to fill the seats of the Sanders delegates.  

Danny Glover's interview is pretty descriptive as to the experience they had. I think the DNC was out of line to question Sanders' religious beliefs to potentially exploit them with a particular demographic.  

Yes, the Republicans are horrified because their party is over. There are an equal number of Dems who are horrified at what happened at the DNC so both major parties are almost up for grabs.  Some have jumped over parties, but are aligned more closely, or who would rather support a Dem than the Republican candidate.  And they did all sign a pledge.  

There were plenty of smoke and mirrors this week as well.  It was better than a reality show, and at least people are starting to pay attention.  

What I don't like that I heard coming from some analysts that the typical Trump voter was a male (caucasian) who did not graduate from college. Rather than looking at issues that are important, they pull out the ugly race card.  There are plenty of smart people out there who did not graduate, start or finish college and I think it is wrong to drop a label that is disparaging to a voter and find it completely elitist.  "Smart" has many faces.  Plenty of people who cannot read (dyslexic and other reasons) are pretty informed.  The college thing is not a voter requisite.  Wink


"When the delegates returned..." Lol. They came back after their walkout and were sad their seats were taken??!! Hahahahahah.
Emily - forgive me, I explained that poorly, and clearly you have not viewed the Bernie "elected delegates" video clips.

Upon return, the designated sections had been re-assigned to "others" "acting" in a work-for-hire capacity.     LOL


yeah I'm laughing at them coming back after their walk out.

Also, as we both know, no one was there in a "work-for-hire capacity."  Stop lying. It's not winning anyone over and it teaches people not to believe what you say even when you do tell the truth.
Emily - the craigslist hires to fill the seats, are common knowledge by now.  They could have cleaned out a couple of senior citizens facilities, fed them, and bussed them in to fill the seats.  That's the old school way.  Wink 
Wow. You didn't really go to law school, did you?
Emily - when people have nothing, they resort to insults.  And it appears you are on a roll, here.  

You have been provided links, which you choose to disparage or discredit. Your choice. Democratic operatives are afraid of losing their jobs. Others are concerned about losing government contracts if there is a shift in the power structure in DC.  

Fact is, "Demexit" is in full swing as a direct result of the DNC corruption. The lowly grassroots wiki leaks has unraveled the DNC head. More will follow as suits proceed.

As the video evidence from the Bernie eyewitnesses, is uploaded, and the DNC lawsuits proceed, the train may not be stoppable. Many young people, have become jaded as a result of the corruption they witnessed.  It was filed in Miami and alleged fraud and misrepresentation. And even if it fails, there is a paper trail to follow.

Some "alternative media sources" are cited in the complaint. So, as you dismiss them and disparage them, they are cited in the complaint.  

The DNC was anything but impartial. Exhibit 1 in the complaint, is very interesting. Interesting that the email was from May 26, 2015 in Exhibit 1 so Trump was not even an issue (he declared in June of 2015) in their planned attack on the Republicans. DNC was calculating it's strategy to advance only Hillary.  There was no room for any other potential Democratic candidates.  

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/07/25/dnc-seeks-dismissal-of-lawsuit-alleging-donor-deception

The complaint.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2016_0722_dnc_wilding2.pdf

This is contained within the article as a link. Hope it opens.

And Demexit.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/Demexit?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%Etfw

Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1415 on: July 29, 2016, 11:13:53 AM »

That's funny.  I happen to have two college degrees and I'm voting for Trump.  Smiley

And that's a PERFECT example of a personal story from which you wouldn't want to draw any overarching conclusions when it comes to the country or the electorate, because in fact:

Trump overwhelmingly leads his rivals for support among the less educated, and draws more modest backing from college graduates and those with postgraduate study, according to exit polls conducted for the Associated Press and television networks by Edison Research.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-overwhelmingly-leads-rivals-in-support-from-less-educated-americans/

Indeed, this story pertains *specifically* to college education (as opposed to the somewhat less easily defined "dumb" versus "smart" versus "ignorant" measurements).

Trump supporters will call degree-holders elitist, etc. Trump detractors will draw the correlation, to some degree, that it means the less educated you are, the less ignorant you tend to be, and therefore ignorance breeds Trump voters.

Back to personal anecdotes from which no actual statistics can be drawn, my experience is pretty much the latter. Every Trump supporter I've seen either seems to be vastly ignorant or intellectually dishonest (with others if not themselves as well), or both.

Yes, this is an example.

The Mayor of Baltimore condoning riots that destroyed many businesses and negatively affected EVERY business in Baltimore City is NOT. 

I think one of the problems is not being able to see how one specific event/incident, even if *everything* about it (what occurred and the result, and the culpability and implications of it) seems crystal clear to *you*, may not be in fact so crystal clear.

And sometimes even if the event itself is crystal clear, the wider implications pertaining to an entire political party and political convention may not be so simple.

Whatever any individual thinks, there obviously are plenty of people who don't see it the way you do ( "Baltimore Mayor: 'I Would Never Condone Rioting'" - http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/baltimore-mayor-i-would-never-condone-rioting-n352846 ).

You may be right, maybe they are. The take-away is that just because someone feels really strongly that their interpretation is correct, I'm not always going to blindly believe that. For me, this is more of an discussion involving semantics and rhetoric than it is about that particular event. I know of plenty of things that have happened in my lifetime that I feel others are ignoring or characterizing incorrectly. But I can't expect everyone to draw my conclusions.


Blake was directly quoted saying she allowed space to destroy.  So, I don't really care if she said afterward that she doesn't condone rioting.  The fact that she's not seeking re-election clearly shows that she knows she screwed up. 

I think you and Emily are trying to bury my point in a pointless semantics argument. 

The basic facts are that the Democrats have a reputation for being anti law enforcement, and Mayor Blake put Baltimore Police in harms way.  And, for some reason, the DNC thought it would be a good idea to have her there.

Even if I were Democrat, I would think that's a bad idea. 
I don't think it's a pointless semantics argument. Your original post on the topic claimed authority based on it being your hometown. I don't think that gives your opinion more weight, in terms of public decision making.

I mentioned that it was my hometown.  But it doesn't take away from the fact that she condoned riots.  

In terms of public decision making, it doesn't make a difference what town I'm talking about where businesses were destroyed thanks to an incompetent mayor.  
I agree with your last statement. What you actually said is essentially (I'm on a phone so it's too difficult to get the exact quote) maybe I'd have a different opinion if it had been my hometown. That is what I'm talking about - the idea that my opinion relies on my personal experience or my feelings about something due to proximity.
If that's not what you meant, that's fine. And I see that if it was what you meant, you aren't defending it, which is also fine. But it is what you said.

That is what I said.  I thought you were trying to dismiss my point because portions of my town were being destroyed.

But, when you dismiss it, and think the DNC did right by having Mayor Blake at the convention, it's almost like you're saying "Well f**k Baltimore and f**k the Baltimore City Police Department."  

Emily, I hope you don't have to worry about your significant other coming home safe because there are riots going on just a mile from where they work.  Or have to worry about a friend of yours that's on the force, who got assigned to the trouble area without riot gear.  I did.  

Maybe that's personal, then so be it.  

But the fact that it's personal doesn't take away from the fact that having this sorry excuse for a politician speak at the DNC is just plain wrong.  
I don't dismiss it. But I do disagree and don't really want to argue about it.

You can disagree.  But you're disagreeing with me just leads me to believe that you do not support law enforcement.  And you think it's OK for thugs to riot, destroy businesses and property, and lead to a city wide curfew which cost the city of Baltimore revenue. 

Even though we may have different opinions, I hope you're a better person than that. 
The reason I don't want to argue is that your second statement was predictable, from my experience. And I think no matter how much I try to explain my reasoning, you won't hear it. And, I'm not sure why, but arguing with you and not being heard is less entertaining than with FdP.

OK, without questioning the source of my opinion, why do you think having Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake at the DNC is a good idea?

You want to be heard?  I'm listening. 
I just got into my car and am heading out, and my reply will take some organization and time, because I'm going to take it seriously. If you check back tonight or tomorrow am, you'll see it. I appreciate the offer.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #1416 on: July 29, 2016, 11:14:49 AM »

filledeplage is the worst thing that has ever happened to this board.

That's a tad insulting, don't you think?  Just because the poster has different political views?  This is a forum after all.  It's not all going to be one way, and to call a person "the worst thing that has ever happened to the board" just because of a difference in opinion is just plain wrong. 

Emily and I have argued a lot in The Sandbox, but I wouldn't stoop so low to insult her in this way. 

Dudejim, you're a lot more sour than sweet, and I do believe you owe filledeplage an apology. 




I sure don't. And I don't give a flying sh*t about her political views.

My problem with her is her refusal to ever give an inch regardless of any evidence. There is nobody else on the board like her, besides maybe Cam Mott. I don't know her as a person, but as a poster, she has greatly contributed to the downfall of this board as she has constantly dragged threads into the shitter with her drivel.

Have you been reading this thread at all, sourdudejim?  

filledeplage is not the only poster on here who won't give an inch.  And so far, I've not seen her post anything as disrespectful as you and some of the other posters on this board I've seen over the past few months.  


I think the key words are "regardless of any evidence."

She is posting opinions.  And anything she includes evidence, you or somebody else dismissed it as propaganda.  

So, since her opinions and views don't line up with yours, then she deserves the title of "worst thing about SSMB"?
As has been explained, her 'evidence' doesn't in any way conform to the rules of evidence. Her evidence amounts to "someone on the internet said so," which is only evidence of the fact that someone on the internet said so.
But I don't want to argue with you about this either.

Emily - we are in neither State nor Federal Court where State Rules of Evidence, are followed, or the Federal Rules of Evidence are in play.

We are on a message board.
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #1417 on: July 29, 2016, 11:22:16 AM »

filledeplage is the worst thing that has ever happened to this board.

That's a tad insulting, don't you think?  Just because the poster has different political views?  This is a forum after all.  It's not all going to be one way, and to call a person "the worst thing that has ever happened to the board" just because of a difference in opinion is just plain wrong. 

Emily and I have argued a lot in The Sandbox, but I wouldn't stoop so low to insult her in this way. 

Dudejim, you're a lot more sour than sweet, and I do believe you owe filledeplage an apology. 




I sure don't. And I don't give a flying sh*t about her political views.

My problem with her is her refusal to ever give an inch regardless of any evidence. There is nobody else on the board like her, besides maybe Cam Mott. I don't know her as a person, but as a poster, she has greatly contributed to the downfall of this board as she has constantly dragged threads into the shitter with her drivel.

Have you been reading this thread at all, sourdudejim?  

filledeplage is not the only poster on here who won't give an inch.  And so far, I've not seen her post anything as disrespectful as you and some of the other posters on this board I've seen over the past few months.  


I think the key words are "regardless of any evidence."

She is posting opinions.  And anything she includes evidence, you or somebody else dismissed it as propaganda.  

So, since her opinions and views don't line up with yours, then she deserves the title of "worst thing about SSMB"?
As has been explained, her 'evidence' doesn't in any way conform to the rules of evidence. Her evidence amounts to "someone on the internet said so," which is only evidence of the fact that someone on the internet said so.
But I don't want to argue with you about this either.


I won't argue the point any further.  But, whether or not her evidence follows your rules of validation, doesn't give sourdude or yourself the right to insult her. 
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1418 on: July 29, 2016, 11:22:25 AM »

I'm sorry, but I haven't reviewed this entire thread, FdP, so I'm sure you'll call me to task over some obscure detail here.  So explain to me how the Dems allowing a number of their people to express themselves, in all their frustration at not winning the primaries, are somehow diminishing Dems' values and validity.  Many horrified Repubs refused to attend this year's convention - including all the past President, so dissent wasn't visible, was it? Talk about empty seats, though - seriously empty seats!  And I couldn't think of a more dramatic statement against a Presidential candidate.  We saw lots of smoke and mirrors last week, just like everything the Donald says, or really doesn't say, because he knows frikkin' nothing but pandering to fools - certainly nothing about domestic or foreign policy.

The Democratic convention is called Democracy in action, not an embarrassment, nor a problem in the end.  That's why it's actually interesting, as opposed to another stupid reality show.

Debbie - the empty seats were the result of a Bernie delegate walkout which was hardly covered. Some videos were taken and show images of white noise machines above their seating which were installed to drown out their protests which were quite loud in opposition.   When the delegates returned they found their seats covered with "reserved" signs and were not allowed to sit where they were supposed to. The California delegation was particularly problematic to the DNC this year because of the very vocal Sanders support.  There were craigslist ads placed paying $50 a day for "actors"to fill the seats of the Sanders delegates.  

Danny Glover's interview is pretty descriptive as to the experience they had. I think the DNC was out of line to question Sanders' religious beliefs to potentially exploit them with a particular demographic.  

Yes, the Republicans are horrified because their party is over. There are an equal number of Dems who are horrified at what happened at the DNC so both major parties are almost up for grabs.  Some have jumped over parties, but are aligned more closely, or who would rather support a Dem than the Republican candidate.  And they did all sign a pledge.  

There were plenty of smoke and mirrors this week as well.  It was better than a reality show, and at least people are starting to pay attention.  

What I don't like that I heard coming from some analysts that the typical Trump voter was a male (caucasian) who did not graduate from college. Rather than looking at issues that are important, they pull out the ugly race card.  There are plenty of smart people out there who did not graduate, start or finish college and I think it is wrong to drop a label that is disparaging to a voter and find it completely elitist.  "Smart" has many faces.  Plenty of people who cannot read (dyslexic and other reasons) are pretty informed.  The college thing is not a voter requisite.  Wink


"When the delegates returned..." Lol. They came back after their walkout and were sad their seats were taken??!! Hahahahahah.
Emily - forgive me, I explained that poorly, and clearly you have not viewed the Bernie "elected delegates" video clips.

Upon return, the designated sections had been re-assigned to "others" "acting" in a work-for-hire capacity.     LOL


yeah I'm laughing at them coming back after their walk out.

Also, as we both know, no one was there in a "work-for-hire capacity."  Stop lying. It's not winning anyone over and it teaches people not to believe what you say even when you do tell the truth.
Emily - the craigslist hires to fill the seats, are common knowledge by now.  They could have cleaned out a couple of senior citizens facilities, fed them, and bussed them in to fill the seats.  That's the old school way.  Wink 
Wow. You didn't really go to law school, did you?
Emily - when people have nothing, they resort to insults.  And it appears you are on a roll, here.  

You have been provided links, which you choose to disparage or discredit. Your choice. Democratic operatives are afraid of losing their jobs. Others are concerned about losing government contracts if there is a shift in the power structure in DC.  

Fact is, "Demexit" is in full swing as a direct result of the DNC corruption. The lowly grassroots wiki leaks has unraveled the DNC head. More will follow as suits proceed.

As the video evidence from the Bernie eyewitnesses, is uploaded, and the DNC lawsuits proceed, the train may not be stoppable. Many young people, have become jaded as a result of the corruption they witnessed.  It was filed in Miami and alleged fraud and misrepresentation. And even if it fails, there is a paper trail to follow.

Some "alternative media sources" are cited in the complaint. So, as you dismiss them and disparage them, they are cited in the complaint.  

The DNC was anything but impartial. Exhibit 1 in the complaint, is very interesting. Interesting that the email was from May 26, 2015 in Exhibit 1 so Trump was not even an issue (he declared in June of 2015) in their planned attack on the Republicans. DNC was calculating it's strategy to advance only Hillary.  There was no room for any other potential Democratic candidates.  

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/07/25/dnc-seeks-dismissal-of-lawsuit-alleging-donor-deception

The complaint.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2016_0722_dnc_wilding2.pdf

This is contained within the article as a link. Hope it opens.

And Demexit.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/Demexit?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%Etfw


As I said to KDS, I'm out of here.
But I'll look at the suit and respond later. Though it would still be interesting for you to actually make a logical case yourself. Can you do that?
Also, again, a Twitter hashtag existing is only evidence of a Twitter hashtag existing. Count the number of individual people who have said they are exiting and find evidence that each of those people were democrats before, then you'll have evidence.

If you believe that insults are evidence that people "have nothing" you must agree that Trump has nothing.  #logic. <-- look! A hashtag! Now you must take it seriously!!
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #1419 on: July 29, 2016, 11:23:27 AM »

Emily,

That Blake post was getting too big. 

I will check back and look forward to hearing your opinion on why you think the DNC was right about having Mayor Blake there. 
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #1420 on: July 29, 2016, 11:23:45 AM »

filledeplage is the worst thing that has ever happened to this board.

That's a tad insulting, don't you think?  Just because the poster has different political views?  This is a forum after all.  It's not all going to be one way, and to call a person "the worst thing that has ever happened to the board" just because of a difference in opinion is just plain wrong. 

Emily and I have argued a lot in The Sandbox, but I wouldn't stoop so low to insult her in this way. 

Dudejim, you're a lot more sour than sweet, and I do believe you owe filledeplage an apology. 




I sure don't. And I don't give a flying sh*t about her political views.

My problem with her is her refusal to ever give an inch regardless of any evidence. There is nobody else on the board like her, besides maybe Cam Mott. I don't know her as a person, but as a poster, she has greatly contributed to the downfall of this board as she has constantly dragged threads into the shitter with her drivel.

Have you been reading this thread at all, sourdudejim?  

filledeplage is not the only poster on here who won't give an inch.  And so far, I've not seen her post anything as disrespectful as you and some of the other posters on this board I've seen over the past few months.  



Along the lines of these posts, why not all give an inch right now? Everyone prove their willingness to hear each other, try to understand each other, by saying something they're not so sure of, that their apparent adversaries (not sure of a good word here, but I hope you know what I mean--a liberal if you're a conservative and vice versa--and cut me slack), or actually try to lay out some common ground. And do it without backhanded insults that call into question your motivations or sincerity. (And if nobody else wants to, that's fine. But I'm doing it anyway.)

I, as the son of a longtime cop who had guns pulled on him, despite my criticisms of some cops' actions, am a strong supporter of police, and I believe they deserve the benefit of the doubt, all things being equal. They have an amazingly difficult job. Most of them do just fine, and some are truly exemplary. Real heroes.

I believe that the people posting in this thread in recent months want peace. The past few days have focused a lot on police violence (against and by), and I don't think anyone here thinks either violence against or by police is good (in a vacuum). And even on politics beyond that topic, I think most people here think that most people everywhere are more alike than different and that if we could break impasses of partisanship and media exacerbation, we'd be better off.

I believe conservatism is a valid part of a political sphere, as is liberalism, libertarianism, progressivism, and numerous other ideas. They are all parts of human political thought, and I think they contain ideas that should be balanced to keep a democratic republic functioning as peacefully and well as possible. Conservatism tends to defend tradition, to value institutions, to hesitate to rush into new things--all of which have merit. Similarly, I appreciate the concept of personal liberty that libertarians or classical liberals have.

I do not believe that the Republican party is somehow more evil than the Democratic party. I am a member of neither, though I identify more closely (if with nose plugged) with the Democratic party. But they're both ossified institutions, in my opinion, and as secure institutions tend to be, I believe they're both more about self-preservation and "winning" than about doing good for the country. I think both parties have many, many people who mean well for the country. They are members of their parties for the good of their parties, even as they seem to unfortunately seek out the worst of the other parties. My best trait against your worst trait isn't a fair comparison, but I think we're all very guilty of that.

So there's my fucking kumbaya moment.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1421 on: July 29, 2016, 11:24:18 AM »

filledeplage is the worst thing that has ever happened to this board.

That's a tad insulting, don't you think?  Just because the poster has different political views?  This is a forum after all.  It's not all going to be one way, and to call a person "the worst thing that has ever happened to the board" just because of a difference in opinion is just plain wrong. 

Emily and I have argued a lot in The Sandbox, but I wouldn't stoop so low to insult her in this way. 

Dudejim, you're a lot more sour than sweet, and I do believe you owe filledeplage an apology. 




I sure don't. And I don't give a flying sh*t about her political views.

My problem with her is her refusal to ever give an inch regardless of any evidence. There is nobody else on the board like her, besides maybe Cam Mott. I don't know her as a person, but as a poster, she has greatly contributed to the downfall of this board as she has constantly dragged threads into the shitter with her drivel.

Have you been reading this thread at all, sourdudejim?  

filledeplage is not the only poster on here who won't give an inch.  And so far, I've not seen her post anything as disrespectful as you and some of the other posters on this board I've seen over the past few months.  


I think the key words are "regardless of any evidence."

She is posting opinions.  And anything she includes evidence, you or somebody else dismissed it as propaganda.  

So, since her opinions and views don't line up with yours, then she deserves the title of "worst thing about SSMB"?
As has been explained, her 'evidence' doesn't in any way conform to the rules of evidence. Her evidence amounts to "someone on the internet said so," which is only evidence of the fact that someone on the internet said so.
But I don't want to argue with you about this either.

Emily - we are in neither State nor Federal Court where State Rules of Evidence, are followed, or the Federal Rules of Evidence are in play.

We are on a message board.
OK. So you are using neither logic nor evidence to back up your assertions because you are on a message board. Got it.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #1422 on: July 29, 2016, 11:31:46 AM »

filledeplage is the worst thing that has ever happened to this board.

That's a tad insulting, don't you think?  Just because the poster has different political views?  This is a forum after all.  It's not all going to be one way, and to call a person "the worst thing that has ever happened to the board" just because of a difference in opinion is just plain wrong. 

Emily and I have argued a lot in The Sandbox, but I wouldn't stoop so low to insult her in this way. 

Dudejim, you're a lot more sour than sweet, and I do believe you owe filledeplage an apology. 




I sure don't. And I don't give a flying sh*t about her political views.

My problem with her is her refusal to ever give an inch regardless of any evidence. There is nobody else on the board like her, besides maybe Cam Mott. I don't know her as a person, but as a poster, she has greatly contributed to the downfall of this board as she has constantly dragged threads into the shitter with her drivel.

Have you been reading this thread at all, sourdudejim?  

filledeplage is not the only poster on here who won't give an inch.  And so far, I've not seen her post anything as disrespectful as you and some of the other posters on this board I've seen over the past few months.  


I think the key words are "regardless of any evidence."

She is posting opinions.  And anything she includes evidence, you or somebody else dismissed it as propaganda.  

So, since her opinions and views don't line up with yours, then she deserves the title of "worst thing about SSMB"?
As has been explained, her 'evidence' doesn't in any way conform to the rules of evidence. Her evidence amounts to "someone on the internet said so," which is only evidence of the fact that someone on the internet said so.
But I don't want to argue with you about this either.

Emily - we are in neither State nor Federal Court where State Rules of Evidence, are followed, or the Federal Rules of Evidence are in play.

We are on a message board.
OK. So you are using neither logic nor evidence to back up your assertions because you are on a message board. Got it.
Emily - there is a 42 page DNC complaint to read.  There are documentary evidence sources are contained within. 

Happy Friday!  Beer   


Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11536


🍦🍦 fear2stop.bandcamp.com ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1423 on: July 29, 2016, 12:11:32 PM »

Quote
filledeplage is the worst thing that has ever happened to this board.

Not even close....Job, KittyKat, Ghost, Ian Wagner...those immediately jump out at me. And as much as I disagree with her politically (immensely), I would't step that far.
Logged

“Look, you’ve got it all wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody. You’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals.”
Crowd: “Yes, we’re all individuals!”
Individual: “I’m not!”

——————————————————————————
https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/C6fnbHnbhVmg8Tgj6
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2943



View Profile
« Reply #1424 on: July 29, 2016, 12:17:12 PM »

filledeplage is the worst thing that has ever happened to this board.

That's a tad insulting, don't you think?  Just because the poster has different political views?  This is a forum after all.  It's not all going to be one way, and to call a person "the worst thing that has ever happened to the board" just because of a difference in opinion is just plain wrong. 

Emily and I have argued a lot in The Sandbox, but I wouldn't stoop so low to insult her in this way. 

Dudejim, you're a lot more sour than sweet, and I do believe you owe filledeplage an apology. 




I sure don't. And I don't give a flying sh*t about her political views.

My problem with her is her refusal to ever give an inch regardless of any evidence. There is nobody else on the board like her, besides maybe Cam Mott. I don't know her as a person, but as a poster, she has greatly contributed to the downfall of this board as she has constantly dragged threads into the shitter with her drivel.

Have you been reading this thread at all, sourdudejim?  

filledeplage is not the only poster on here who won't give an inch.  And so far, I've not seen her post anything as disrespectful as you and some of the other posters on this board I've seen over the past few months.  


I think the key words are "regardless of any evidence."

She is posting opinions.  And anything she includes evidence, you or somebody else dismissed it as propaganda.  

So, since her opinions and views don't line up with yours, then she deserves the title of "worst thing about SSMB"?
As has been explained, her 'evidence' doesn't in any way conform to the rules of evidence. Her evidence amounts to "someone on the internet said so," which is only evidence of the fact that someone on the internet said so.
But I don't want to argue with you about this either.

Emily - we are in neither State nor Federal Court where State Rules of Evidence, are followed, or the Federal Rules of Evidence are in play.

We are on a message board.
OK. So you are using neither logic nor evidence to back up your assertions because you are on a message board. Got it.
Emily - there is a 42 page DNC complaint to read.  There are documentary evidence sources are contained within. 

Happy Friday!  Beer   




No wonder her posts are so bad! She's always posting drunk!

Quote
filledeplage is the worst thing that has ever happened to this board.

Not even close....Job, KittyKat, Ghost, Ian Wagner...those immediately jump out at me. And as much as I disagree with her politically (immensely), I would't step that far.

As I said before Billy, her politics don't matter to me. She ruins every conversation on this board. Especially ones about The Beach Boys and the inner workings of the band. She contributes nothing. Which is her right, I guess. But she provides no insight of any kind and has dragged down the discourse in the Beach Boys fan world.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 52 53 54 55 56 [57] 58 59 60 61 62 ... 81   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.557 seconds with 21 queries.