Chat Forum
It is currently Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:26 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2834 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 ... 71  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9742
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:

Thanks for proving my point.


Saying that doesn't mean it happened. But it's not unexpected you remain utterly resistant to logic and rationality.

Even in the case it's simple, one side has lied, the other hasn't. It's utterly moronic to claim the person with the consist record is the one to believe in all probability. Especially as their entire professional career backs it up.


Imagine if Tulsi was accused of saying something she didn't on radio and the two DJs that interviewed her said she is being smeared and I said I ignore the actual explanation of the people interviewing her and stick to my own interpretation. That is what you just did to Harris. Because she is Harris.


Tulsi has been accused of being an Assad todie. Where on earth are you getting this narrative that people are beings elective here. Harris is being challenged on the truthfulness of her statements that patently is not true. How the f#ck is this being selective n who is believeing who?


If you didn't have a hard on for me like a 13yr old boy seeing tits for the first time, you would have seen that a couple of pages back I posted the interview with the DJs that did the Harris interview and they say that the way it is being portrayed is not what happened. So apparently the people in the room who did the interview arent worth a damn.

I actually pointed this out to Bowens who claimed the DJs are telling us to not believe what we saw and heard. He also claims in the interview Harris looked at CthaG and laughed "and you know why."

I mean at this point if she is considered a liar it would be, oh what did you accuse me of being, oh that is right, "resistant to logic and rationality."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:11 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21322
Deadtigers wrote:

If you didn't have a hard on for me like a 13yr old boy seeing tits for the first time, you would have seen that a couple of pages back I posted the interview with the DJs that did the Harris interview and they say that the way it is being portrayed is not what happened. So apparently the people in the room who did the interview arent worth a damn.

I actually pointed this out to Bowens who claimed the DJs are telling us to not believe what we saw and heard. He also claims in the interview Harris looked at CthaG and laughed "and you know why."

I mean at this point if she is considered a liar it would be, oh what did you accuse me of being, oh that is right, "resistant to logic and rationality."


1) One again you move goal posts and make separate points as if they justify your prior sentiments. None of that has anything to do with myself, other board members,the general public and wider media say. Fake News or not, no one opinions of the Harris incident is based upon identity politics and no one is magically giving others a pass. These are your claims.

2) I have no idea what the DJs are trying to say but the audio clearly shows she replies Snoop and 2Pac for sure to what did she listen to when she got high. It's clear as day light. Whether that was what she meant to reply to is another situation but it's perfectly valid to take the headlines at face value.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKMwua-_jlQ

So bowens has a point, unless you are claiming conspiracy and the audio was altered she clearly says that's what she listened to. Claiming everybody is crying like a over zealous 13 year old for stating the undeniable factual evidence only shows once again how delusion and irrational you are on politics once again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9742
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:

If you didn't have a hard on for me like a 13yr old boy seeing tits for the first time, you would have seen that a couple of pages back I posted the interview with the DJs that did the Harris interview and they say that the way it is being portrayed is not what happened. So apparently the people in the room who did the interview arent worth a damn.

I actually pointed this out to Bowens who claimed the DJs are telling us to not believe what we saw and heard. He also claims in the interview Harris looked at CthaG and laughed "and you know why."

I mean at this point if she is considered a liar it would be, oh what did you accuse me of being, oh that is right, "resistant to logic and rationality."


1) One again you move goal posts and make separate points as if they justify your prior sentiments. None of that has anything to do with myself, other board members,the general public and wider media say. Fake News or not, no one opinions of the Harris incident is based upon identity politics and no one is magically giving others a pass. These are your claims.

2) I have no idea what the DJs are trying to say but the audio clearly shows she replies Snoop and 2Pac for sure to what did she listen to when she got high. It's clear as day light. Whether that was what she meant to reply to is another situation but it's perfectly valid to take the headlines at face value.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKMwua-_jlQ

So bowens has a point, unless you are claiming conspiracy and the audio was altered she clearly says that's what she listened to. Claiming everybody is crying like a over zealous 13 year old for stating the undeniable factual evidence only shows once again how delusion and irrational you are on politics once again.



1) You are lying! I have never talked about identity politics in relation to Harris. Can you not keep two separate discussions going on in your head? It would seem like moving goalposts to someone who can't realize the topic has changed.

2) So you will take Tulsi's word on her not being anti-gay. But the people that interviewed Harris explained that the audio comes of that way but to us doing the interview that was not what happened.

Once again thank you for proving my point. Once you like a candidate anything can be easily explained and once you don't nothing can. Even when video evidence is presented by the parties involved that what is happening is misinformation, you have willing chosen to ignore. You wine about the media as much as anyone here but now it is valid to take the headline as honest? Interesting how that changes. So headline read David Duke Supports Gabbard. Is that a valid headline to believe? Or should we read deeper and see that though he supports her for her limited military intervention views Gabbard has rebuked his endorsement.

You know you mocked me when I apologized to Goey for not knowing about Tlaib's anti-semitism but here you are rather than admit you are simply wrong, you will double down and make up a point I never made and then say "I have no idea what the DJs are trying to say." Maybe it might behoove you to go back a couple of pages and find the link where the DJs went on TV to tell you what the duck they were saying, rather than go off your pre-determined position.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:12 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21322
Deadtigers wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:

If you didn't have a hard on for me like a 13yr old boy seeing tits for the first time, you would have seen that a couple of pages back I posted the interview with the DJs that did the Harris interview and they say that the way it is being portrayed is not what happened. So apparently the people in the room who did the interview arent worth a damn.

I actually pointed this out to Bowens who claimed the DJs are telling us to not believe what we saw and heard. He also claims in the interview Harris looked at CthaG and laughed "and you know why."

I mean at this point if she is considered a liar it would be, oh what did you accuse me of being, oh that is right, "resistant to logic and rationality."


1) One again you move goal posts and make separate points as if they justify your prior sentiments. None of that has anything to do with myself, other board members,the general public and wider media say. Fake News or not, no one opinions of the Harris incident is based upon identity politics and no one is magically giving others a pass. These are your claims.

2) I have no idea what the DJs are trying to say but the audio clearly shows she replies Snoop and 2Pac for sure to what did she listen to when she got high. It's clear as day light. Whether that was what she meant to reply to is another situation but it's perfectly valid to take the headlines at face value.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKMwua-_jlQ

So bowens has a point, unless you are claiming conspiracy and the audio was altered she clearly says that's what she listened to. Claiming everybody is crying like a over zealous 13 year old for stating the undeniable factual evidence only shows once again how delusion and irrational you are on politics once again.



1) You are lying! I have never talked about identity politics in relation to Harris. Can you not keep two separate discussions going on in your head.


Except you brought up white supremists following who here?

Quote:

2) So you will take Tulsi's word on her not being anti-gay. But the people that interviewed Harris explained that the audio comes of that way but to us doing the interview that was not what happened.


I don't take her word. If she was suddenly declaring now and saying she's actually pro-gays rights I'd call likely BS. But she has and impeccable voting record dating long before being pro-gay equality was vogue in the Democratic party. Your point about her possibly doing it to be popular doesn't make sense when she did it when it politically unpopular which on top of a long unblemished record suggests there is overwhelming evidence for it and to believe it.

But of course this was all mentioned and of course you ignored all these facts and obvious set of the most rational point.

Quote:

Once again thank you for proving my point. Once you like a candidate anything can be easily explained and once you don't nothing can. Even when video evidence is presented by the parties involved that what is happening is misinformation, you have willing chosen to ignore. You wine about the media as much as anyone here but now it is valid to take the headline as honest? Interesting how that changes. So headline read David Duke Supports Gabbard. Is that a valid headline to believe? Or should we read deeper and see that though he supports her for her limited military intervention views Gabbard has rebuked his endorsement.


LOL since when haven't I been critical of my own political support? FFS I said Corbyn has been the best man for the job on Brexit in the UK as PM and yet I've also pointed out his pander, associations with anti-semitic groups and even terrorists he has clearly lied about. I've always supported Obama but will criticise him on his basic continuation of Bush era foreign policy. And here who am I supposed to like or hate? IT's a fact Gabbard's gay rights voting stance is perfect, It's also a fact her pro-gay righst record dates before it was mainstream to be so gay rights making your declaraton she might be nati-gay and hiding it utterly agaisnt any rational thought. Likewise saying Harris clearly answered she listens to 2Pac in while stoned in the 80's is fact. Whether she meant to answer a prior question is debatable regardless of what other people in the room say.

Quote:
You know you mocked me when I apologized to Goey for not knowing about Tlaib's anti-semitism but here you are rather than admit you are simply wrong, you will double down and make up a point I never made and then say "I have no idea what the DJs are trying to say." Maybe it might behoove you to go back a couple of pages and find the link where the DJs went on TV to tell you what the duck they were saying, rather than go off your pre-determined position.


Err I brought up the clip showing exactly how Harris' answers appeared like it could be not what it sounded exactly like. How am I sticking to a pre-determined position? In fact I've given little to no indication on who I would prefer. I simply stated that others can perfect state her answers with out doing something wrong.

Meanwhile only point about Harris I believe is that she was clearly trying to reverse her reputation based off her own actions on drugs to try and fit a popular stance to enhance her presidential credibility in the Dems view. Sadly you took that to mean I'm against her because you lack rational judgement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9742
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:

If you didn't have a hard on for me like a 13yr old boy seeing tits for the first time, you would have seen that a couple of pages back I posted the interview with the DJs that did the Harris interview and they say that the way it is being portrayed is not what happened. So apparently the people in the room who did the interview arent worth a damn.

I actually pointed this out to Bowens who claimed the DJs are telling us to not believe what we saw and heard. He also claims in the interview Harris looked at CthaG and laughed "and you know why."

I mean at this point if she is considered a liar it would be, oh what did you accuse me of being, oh that is right, "resistant to logic and rationality."


1) One again you move goal posts and make separate points as if they justify your prior sentiments. None of that has anything to do with myself, other board members,the general public and wider media say. Fake News or not, no one opinions of the Harris incident is based upon identity politics and no one is magically giving others a pass. These are your claims.

2) I have no idea what the DJs are trying to say but the audio clearly shows she replies Snoop and 2Pac for sure to what did she listen to when she got high. It's clear as day light. Whether that was what she meant to reply to is another situation but it's perfectly valid to take the headlines at face value.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKMwua-_jlQ

So bowens has a point, unless you are claiming conspiracy and the audio was altered she clearly says that's what she listened to. Claiming everybody is crying like a over zealous 13 year old for stating the undeniable factual evidence only shows once again how delusion and irrational you are on politics once again.



1) You are lying! I have never talked about identity politics in relation to Harris. Can you not keep two separate discussions going on in your head.


Except you brought up white supremists following who here?

Quote:

2) So you will take Tulsi's word on her not being anti-gay. But the people that interviewed Harris explained that the audio comes of that way but to us doing the interview that was not what happened.


I don't take her word. If she was suddenly declaring now and saying she's actually pro-gays rights I'd call likely BS. But she has and impeccable voting record dating long before being pro-gay equality was vogue in the Democratic party. Your point about her possibly doing it to be popular doesn't make sense when she did it when it politically unpopular which on top of a long unblemished record suggests there is overwhelming evidence for it and to believe it.

But of course this was all mentioned and of course you ignored all these facts and obvious set of the most rational point.

Quote:

Once again thank you for proving my point. Once you like a candidate anything can be easily explained and once you don't nothing can. Even when video evidence is presented by the parties involved that what is happening is misinformation, you have willing chosen to ignore. You wine about the media as much as anyone here but now it is valid to take the headline as honest? Interesting how that changes. So headline read David Duke Supports Gabbard. Is that a valid headline to believe? Or should we read deeper and see that though he supports her for her limited military intervention views Gabbard has rebuked his endorsement.


LOL since when haven't I been critical of my own political support? FFS I said Corbyn has been the best man for the job on Brexit in the UK as PM and yet I've also pointed out his pander, associations with anti-semitic groups and even terrorists he has clearly lied about. I've always supported Obama but will criticise him on his basic continuation of Bush era foreign policy. And here who am I supposed to like or hate? IT's a fact Gabbard's gay rights voting stance is perfect, It's also a fact her pro-gay righst record dates before it was mainstream to be so gay rights making your declaraton she might be nati-gay and hiding it utterly agaisnt any rational thought. Likewise saying Harris clearly answered she listens to 2Pac in while stoned in the 80's is fact. Whether she meant to answer a prior question is debatable regardless of what other people in the room say.

Quote:
You know you mocked me when I apologized to Goey for not knowing about Tlaib's anti-semitism but here you are rather than admit you are simply wrong, you will double down and make up a point I never made and then say "I have no idea what the DJs are trying to say." Maybe it might behoove you to go back a couple of pages and find the link where the DJs went on TV to tell you what the duck they were saying, rather than go off your pre-determined position.


Err I brought up the clip showing exactly how Harris' answers appeared like it could be not what it sounded exactly like. How am I sticking to a pre-determined position? In fact I've given little to no indication on who I would prefer. I simply stated that others can perfect state her answers with out doing something wrong.

Meanwhile only point about Harris I believe is that she was clearly trying to reverse her reputation based off her own actions on drugs to try and fit a popular stance to enhance her presidential credibility in the Dems view. Sadly you took that to mean I'm against her because you lack rational judgement.



1) David Duke, Richard Spencer and Bannon have voiced support of Gabbard at different times, what does this have to do with identity politics. I only bring it up as something she will have a tough time explaining away to people that aren't part of her cult.

2)
Quote:
Tulsi Gabbard once touted working for anti-gay group that backed conversion therapy
By Andrew Kaczynski, CNN

Updated at 3:14 PM ET, Thu January 17, 2019


Is this a perfectly acceptable headline to believe and run with. If If someone didn't like Gabbard and wanted to believe she had this view and is now apologizing for it, she is just another politicain backtracking. Unless someone took time to actually read up on Gabbard. If they didn't and held on to a view that she is anti-gay and is only apologizing now cause she is running, what would you say if that someone choose to take a head line at face value. Because the Harris-Snoop-Tupac thing is a valid headline right?

3) I have always claimed if you watch the video, you will know the audio is cross talk. You have done a million dances arguing the audio is valid. I have argued that if people choose to believe the audio over the video and the DJs own words, they are choosing so because she is not their guy but as with Gabbard and her anti-gay past, if you choose to believe the headline, then it is likely because of bias. I don't know how you could not comprehend this point. I didn't ever said the audio is wrong or that is not what I heard. I have said it may sound like that but that is not what happened. I don't know what is going on with your comprehension skills. You have said on here that Harris lied and now are trying to claim that it is an honest interpretation if you listen to the audio. Funny you didn't add this disclaimer before.

As I told Bones her record as a DA is more than up for fair debate just like how Booker will have to dance around his support of Big Pharma and the negatives for other candidates.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9243
Great performance by Harris when a journalist asked her a searching question instead of asking her to try a jacket on :roll:

Literally speechless when asked about Jussie Smollett, the guy who faked a hate crime which she described as a “modern day lynching” at the time (as did Cory Booker, obviously had the same talking points).

Booker at least had an answer when asked the same question, albeit it a classic stalling politician non-answer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 2:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4727
zt1903 wrote:
Great performance by Harris when a journalist asked her a searching question instead of asking her to try a jacket on :roll:

Literally speechless when asked about Jussie Smollett, the guy who faked a hate crime which she described as a “modern day lynching” at the time (as did Cory Booker, obviously had the same talking points).

Booker at least had an answer when asked the same question, albeit it a classic stalling politician non-answer.


Very weird performance. She almost balked as if to show how incredulous she was that she was even being questioned on it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 2:26 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21322
Deadtigers wrote:

Is this a perfectly acceptable headline to believe and run with. If If someone didn't like Gabbard and wanted to believe she had this view and is now apologizing for it, she is just another politicain backtracking. Unless someone took time to actually read up on Gabbard. If they didn't and held on to a view that she is anti-gay and is only apologizing now cause she is running, what would you say if that someone choose to take a head line at face value. Because the Harris-Snoop-Tupac thing is a valid headline right?


You're still reaching. The Harris-Snoop headline was valid even from non-Harris haters. You listen on the radio, and it was aradio show, it is exactly what you will hear.

I didn't say Gabbard's anti-gay past wasn't ever valid. You moving goalposts for the 2345785th time. I simply said in terms of her authencity her conversion to pro-gay rights is A) pretty normal considering mo st people have also progressed in society, B) pre-date any reason to do it for political advantage and C) She has a long and immaculate career supporting her genuine. I simply put to believe she isn't is to lean against the rational and logical side of the debate into paranoia. Had Gabbard suddenly declared not long before her presidency run, then it would be valid to claim her pro-gay stance is false as f#ck!


Quote:

3) I have always claimed if you watch the video, you will know the audio is cross talk. You have done a million dances arguing the audio is valid. I have argued that if people choose to believe the audio over the video and the DJs own words, they are choosing so because she is not their guy but as with Gabbard and her anti-gay past, if you choose to believe the headline, then it is likely because of bias. I don't know how you could not comprehend this point. I didn't ever said the audio is wrong or that is not what I heard. I have said it may sound like that but that is not what happened. I don't know what is going on with your comprehension skills. You have said on here that Harris lied and now are trying to claim that it is an honest interpretation if you listen to the audio. Funny you didn't add this disclaimer before.


Why does a radio show need that disclamer that people will likely believe what they hear off it? FFS do you ever stop moving those goalposts? Must have given you lots of back trouble by now.

Literally all the media came out with the same story. You drone don and on how they must be purposely running with a certain headline. Now you agree it's also the story they probably heard like everyone else, yet somehow you are still claiming they only reported it due to their bias?. For goodness sake, Occam's razor is forever a distant concept to you. Mental gymnastics to defy the rational and logic and jumping to inane conclusion with little to no evidence besides other opinions which back up your own seem to be your modus operandi.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 2:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24120
zt1903 wrote:
Great performance by Harris when a journalist asked her a searching question instead of asking her to try a jacket on :roll:

Literally speechless when asked about Jussie Smollett, the guy who faked a hate crime which she described as a “modern day lynching” at the time (as did Cory Booker, obviously had the same talking points).

Booker at least had an answer when asked the same question, albeit it a classic stalling politician non-answer.

Yeah, the same talking points any time something like this happens....same at the school kids incident.

So many of these hoax crimes. The people involved should be prosecuted.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14367
So Bernie is running :thumbup: poorly kept secret anyway, but good on him. Gonna find it a harder test this year though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4727
Bullettyme wrote:
So Bernie is running :thumbup: poorly kept secret anyway, but good on him. Gonna find it a harder test this year though.


Wouldn’t he be something like 82 at the end of his first term? Too old.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:59 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8933
Location: Texas
Man In Black wrote:
Bullettyme wrote:
So Bernie is running :thumbup: poorly kept secret anyway, but good on him. Gonna find it a harder test this year though.


Wouldn’t he be something like 82 at the end of his first term? Too old.

And he is far too mainstream now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10338
He’s polling higher than anyone on the Dem side by a good bit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10338
So I donated to Yang. Still undecided but he deserves to have his message heard in the debates.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10338
Bowens wrote:
He’s polling higher than anyone on the Dem side by a good bit.


Anyone declared - I should clarify.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 4:01 pm
Posts: 4347
Bowens wrote:
So I donated to Yang. Still undecided but he deserves to have his message heard in the debates.

Yang looks like a very promising candidate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24120
Bowens wrote:
Bowens wrote:
He’s polling higher than anyone on the Dem side by a good bit.


Anyone declared - I should clarify.

And here is the star-studded list so far.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/21/politics/2020-democrats-running-for-president/index.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8469
Location: Indiana
Man In Black wrote:
zt1903 wrote:
Great performance by Harris when a journalist asked her a searching question instead of asking her to try a jacket on :roll:

Literally speechless when asked about Jussie Smollett, the guy who faked a hate crime which she described as a “modern day lynching” at the time (as did Cory Booker, obviously had the same talking points).

Booker at least had an answer when asked the same question, albeit it a classic stalling politician non-answer.


Very weird performance. She almost balked as if to show how incredulous she was that she was even being questioned on it.


The Smollett thing is so bizarre to me. The guy became center of attention when everyone in the country that does not watch Empire has no clue who he is. Now it's looking like the Rolling Stone article on the University of Virginia fraternity. Maybe he thought it would be good for his career.

I caught 5 minutes of a TMZ show where they were talking about this a couple weeks ago, and what passes for journalism nowadays is dreadful.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8469
Location: Indiana
Mr Mike wrote:
Man In Black wrote:
Bullettyme wrote:
So Bernie is running :thumbup: poorly kept secret anyway, but good on him. Gonna find it a harder test this year though.


Wouldn’t he be something like 82 at the end of his first term? Too old.

And he is far too mainstream now.


Going to be a tricky dance for the other candidates that want to tap into his base from the previous primary. How much do they attack him, praise him, go to the left of him...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10338
Flyin Ryan wrote:
Man In Black wrote:
zt1903 wrote:
Great performance by Harris when a journalist asked her a searching question instead of asking her to try a jacket on :roll:

Literally speechless when asked about Jussie Smollett, the guy who faked a hate crime which she described as a “modern day lynching” at the time (as did Cory Booker, obviously had the same talking points).

Booker at least had an answer when asked the same question, albeit it a classic stalling politician non-answer.


Very weird performance. She almost balked as if to show how incredulous she was that she was even being questioned on it.


The Smollett thing is so bizarre to me. The guy became center of attention when everyone in the country that does not watch Empire has no clue who he is. Now it's looking like the Rolling Stone article on the University of Virginia fraternity. Maybe he thought it would be good for his career.

I caught 5 minutes of a TMZ show where they were talking about this a couple weeks ago, and what passes for journalism nowadays is dreadful.


I had never heard of him. Apparently he made a public appearance with Kamala Harris a month ago which might explain why she had difficulty answering the question.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8469
Location: Indiana
Bowens wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
Man In Black wrote:
zt1903 wrote:
Great performance by Harris when a journalist asked her a searching question instead of asking her to try a jacket on :roll:

Literally speechless when asked about Jussie Smollett, the guy who faked a hate crime which she described as a “modern day lynching” at the time (as did Cory Booker, obviously had the same talking points).

Booker at least had an answer when asked the same question, albeit it a classic stalling politician non-answer.


Very weird performance. She almost balked as if to show how incredulous she was that she was even being questioned on it.


The Smollett thing is so bizarre to me. The guy became center of attention when everyone in the country that does not watch Empire has no clue who he is. Now it's looking like the Rolling Stone article on the University of Virginia fraternity. Maybe he thought it would be good for his career.

I caught 5 minutes of a TMZ show where they were talking about this a couple weeks ago, and what passes for journalism nowadays is dreadful.


I had never heard of him. Apparently he made a public appearance with Kamala Harris a month ago which might explain why she had difficulty answering the question.


Neither had I. Looking up his Wikipedia he was one of the kids in Mighty Ducks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10338
Oh man he played the little bro of the kid who called everyone “cake eater.” Ahahahaha


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8469
Location: Indiana
Super early, but I feel Harris is going to fall in to the Scott Walker/Jeb Bush "early frontrunner that flamed out" role.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10338
Bernie has raised $1 million since he declared four hours ago. :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9742
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
I saw he declared. Can't wait for more of his cult to continue their nonsense. Hillary took money from Goldman-Sachs but I never have to show my taxes. Black people vote against their own interests by voting against me and it has nothing to do with my attack on Pres. Obama. The Super delegates are denying me my chance and not that they are voting for someone who has actually done more than name a post office or street in my 26 years in office or has been a lifelong Dem and not a johnny come lately.

I f**king hate him and his cult. My fear is this time if he doesn't win it will create chaos because his cult is that strong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:10 pm
Posts: 2569
Location: Boston
Flyin Ryan wrote:
Super early, but I feel Harris is going to fall in to the Scott Walker/Jeb Bush "early frontrunner that flamed out" role.


Yeah I do get that feeling as well. Just like those guys, paper thin when it comes down to it.

Unlike some other in this race I don’t dislike her, I just have no fvcking clue what she really stands for and even less of an idea of how she’d bring those things about.


Last edited by fonzeee on Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9742
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:

Is this a perfectly acceptable headline to believe and run with. If If someone didn't like Gabbard and wanted to believe she had this view and is now apologizing for it, she is just another politicain backtracking. Unless someone took time to actually read up on Gabbard. If they didn't and held on to a view that she is anti-gay and is only apologizing now cause she is running, what would you say if that someone choose to take a head line at face value. Because the Harris-Snoop-Tupac thing is a valid headline right?


You're still reaching. The Harris-Snoop headline was valid even from non-Harris haters. You listen on the radio, and it was aradio show, it is exactly what you will hear.

I didn't say Gabbard's anti-gay past wasn't ever valid. You moving goalposts for the 2345785th time. I simply said in terms of her authencity her conversion to pro-gay rights is A) pretty normal considering mo st people have also progressed in society, B) pre-date any reason to do it for political advantage and C) She has a long and immaculate career supporting her genuine. I simply put to believe she isn't is to lean against the rational and logical side of the debate into paranoia. Had Gabbard suddenly declared not long before her presidency run, then it would be valid to claim her pro-gay stance is false as f#ck!


Quote:

3) I have always claimed if you watch the video, you will know the audio is cross talk. You have done a million dances arguing the audio is valid. I have argued that if people choose to believe the audio over the video and the DJs own words, they are choosing so because she is not their guy but as with Gabbard and her anti-gay past, if you choose to believe the headline, then it is likely because of bias. I don't know how you could not comprehend this point. I didn't ever said the audio is wrong or that is not what I heard. I have said it may sound like that but that is not what happened. I don't know what is going on with your comprehension skills. You have said on here that Harris lied and now are trying to claim that it is an honest interpretation if you listen to the audio. Funny you didn't add this disclaimer before.


Why does a radio show need that disclamer that people will likely believe what they hear off it? FFS do you ever stop moving those goalposts? Must have given you lots of back trouble by now.

Literally all the media came out with the same story. You drone don and on how they must be purposely running with a certain headline. Now you agree it's also the story they probably heard like everyone else, yet somehow you are still claiming they only reported it due to their bias?. For goodness sake, Occam's razor is forever a distant concept to you. Mental gymnastics to defy the rational and logic and jumping to inane conclusion with little to no evidence besides other opinions which back up your own seem to be your modus operandi.

1) Funny I am reaching with Gabbard. I have never moved posts. You can't even realize when we are talking about a new topic, so how can I take you seriously!! If I didn't know about Gabbard's anti-gay past and. I just saw a headline that says Gabbard apologizes for Anti-gay past or that other headline, I posted, they would be free to run with that. Not scratching the surface about her voting record and taking that headline for what it is, which you said is fair when it comes to Harris, so it would be fair. But I guess it is not fair to Tulsi because there is so much more to here but with Harris fudge her, it is a fair headline.

2) Again your full of shit. Right wing media like red state, fox, breitbart reported it as such, Others like the faiing NY Times did this https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/us/p ... tupac.html
They used the disclaimer accused and then got into the story. But whatever, all the media right. :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:04 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21322
Deadtigers wrote:
1) Funny I am reaching with Gabbard. I have never moved posts. You can't even realize when we are talking about a new topic, so how can I take you seriously!! If I didn't know about Gabbard's anti-gay past and. I just saw a headline that says Gabbard apologizes for Anti-gay past or that other headline, I posted, they would be free to run with that. Not scratching the surface about her voting record and taking that headline for what it is, which you said is fair when it comes to Harris, so it would be fair. But I guess it is not fair to Tulsi because there is so much more to here but with Harris fudge her, it is a fair headline.

2) Again your full of shit. Right wing media like red state, fox, breitbart reported it as such, Others like the faiing NY Times did this https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/us/p ... tupac.html
They used the disclaimer accused and then got into the story. But whatever, all the media right. :roll:



:lol: More goalpost moving and trying to conflate other issues. You were saying this was something for those whose person wasn't Kamala Harris and Tulsi Goddbard didn't get it for not being her. All you have is conservative media will slant angles against Democrats. And Vice Versa. You saying they wouldn't slant angles against the other nominees now? WHat is it? Kamala's people vs those opposed to her or Conservative and Liberal media taking their usual angles which no one is arguing against.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9742
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
eldanielfire wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
1) Funny I am reaching with Gabbard. I have never moved posts. You can't even realize when we are talking about a new topic, so how can I take you seriously!! If I didn't know about Gabbard's anti-gay past and. I just saw a headline that says Gabbard apologizes for Anti-gay past or that other headline, I posted, they would be free to run with that. Not scratching the surface about her voting record and taking that headline for what it is, which you said is fair when it comes to Harris, so it would be fair. But I guess it is not fair to Tulsi because there is so much more to here but with Harris fudge her, it is a fair headline.

2) Again your full of shit. Right wing media like red state, fox, breitbart reported it as such, Others like the faiing NY Times did this https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/us/p ... tupac.html
They used the disclaimer accused and then got into the story. But whatever, all the media right. :roll:



:lol: More goalpost moving and trying to conflate other issues. You were saying this was something for those whose person wasn't Kamala Harris and Tulsi Goddbard didn't get it for not being her. All you have is conservative media will slant angles against Democrats. And Vice Versa. You saying they wouldn't slant angles against the other nominees now? WHat is it? Kamala's people vs those opposed to her or Conservative and Liberal media taking their usual angles which no one is arguing against.


You just can't comprehend so you claim goalpost shifting. It now makes sense and makes it clear. You claimed I thought Harris was about identity politics. Now this, you can't even understand a basic point when it is made. Maybe it is your urgency to disagree with me that makes you miss such simple things. And then you make ridiculous claims. Read my points again and see if you can grasp it, humor me if you will. I am sure the response will be something about me moving goal posts too much. You must had shot a brick in school when asked to explain what the class just read.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2692
Bowens wrote:
So I donated to Yang. Still undecided but he deserves to have his message heard in the debates.


I've been interested in Yang for a few months now. I was circumspect at first. I found some of the arguments and statistics he deploys in favour of a 'freedom dividend' very compelling, but I'm not entirely convinced it'll be as straightforward to fund as he suggests. Nonetheless, it seems to me he's thinking about the big issues more deeply and innovatively than any of the other putative candidates. I think he's a foretaste of the sort of politics that are going to be necessary for western economies and societies to navigate the 21st century in one piece. I also think Trump would struggle to top him in a head to head debate. Whereas the other Democrats jostling for a presidential run - all of whom look depressingly myopic and out of date to me - I'm firmly convinced will be eaten alive.

It's an enormous bonus that he doesn't seem to favour the destructive and divisive nonsense that characterises the output of so many other political figures in the US at the moment. Strikes me that he's spotted that game for the dangerous dead end it actually is. For me - someone who deplores the weaponised partisanship both sides have thoughtlessly ratcheted up for the last 4 years - this puts him well ahead of the competition. I'd very much like to see him get a decent head of steam up. Sadly, politics being the reactive game it usually is, I fear he's a little bit too far ahead of the curve to consolidate a block behind him. I'd be thrilled to see him prove me wrong though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9742
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
No one should be surprised. It happened in 2016 but HRC deserved it or ran a poor campaign or something. So here we are heading into 2020 and the Russians are at it again while the Republicans look the other way.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/ ... ck-1176018


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8469
Location: Indiana
Damn I wish what was going on in British politics could go on here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4727
Yang seems good. I read a bit about him yesterday. I’ve downloaded the JRE too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14367
Man In Black wrote:
Yang seems good. I read a bit about him yesterday. I’ve downloaded the JRE too.


+1. Had a read of his website of the weekend and he sounds good. I'll be interested to see and hear more as the campaign progresses.

Also, Bernie raised $4 million yesterday. That's some going.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9742
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Bullettyme wrote:
Man In Black wrote:
Yang seems good. I read a bit about him yesterday. I’ve downloaded the JRE too.


+1. Had a read of his website of the weekend and he sounds good. I'll be interested to see and hear more as the campaign progresses.

Also, Bernie raised $4 million yesterday. That's some going.


Bernie supporters have the nerve to call Trumpkins a cult.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10338
hermes-trismegistus wrote:
Bowens wrote:
So I donated to Yang. Still undecided but he deserves to have his message heard in the debates.


I've been interested in Yang for a few months now. I was circumspect at first. I found some of the arguments and statistics he deploys in favour of a 'freedom dividend' very compelling, but I'm not entirely convinced it'll be as straightforward to fund as he suggests. Nonetheless, it seems to me he's thinking about the big issues more deeply and innovatively than any of the other putative candidates. I think he's a foretaste of the sort of politics that are going to be necessary for western economies and societies to navigate the 21st century in one piece. I also think Trump would struggle to top him in a head to head debate. Whereas the other Democrats jostling for a presidential run - all of whom look depressingly myopic and out of date to me - I'm firmly convinced will be eaten alive.

It's an enormous bonus that he doesn't seem to favour the destructive and divisive nonsense that characterises the output of so many other political figures in the US at the moment. Strikes me that he's spotted that game for the dangerous dead end it actually is. For me - someone who deplores the weaponised partisanship both sides have thoughtlessly ratcheted up for the last 4 years - this puts him well ahead of the competition. I'd very much like to see him get a decent head of steam up. Sadly, politics being the reactive game it usually is, I fear he's a little bit too far ahead of the curve to consolidate a block behind him. I'd be thrilled to see him prove me wrong though.


:thumbup:

He’s ahead of the game for sure. I bet a lot of his proposals will become mainstream by 2024. He seems to appeal to everyone from the far left to centrists on the Democratic side, and even Libertarians on the right. He’s just battling name recognition at this point, because many who hear his pitch seem to come away convinced.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21777
Location: Middle East
The Russians are at it again. 'Sustained and ongoing' attacks on several Democrat Presidential candidates are being reported already.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/ ... ck-1176018

Reminder to anyone finding some juicy gossip - check your sources before gleefully posting it here please.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3211
Bullettyme wrote:
Man In Black wrote:
Yang seems good. I read a bit about him yesterday. I’ve downloaded the JRE too.


+1. Had a read of his website of the weekend and he sounds good. I'll be interested to see and hear more as the campaign progresses.

Also, Bernie raised $4 million yesterday. That's some going.


I am planning on donating a couple of $ to him so he can get into the debates later this year :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5651
Bowens wrote:
Bernie has raised $1 million since he declared four hours ago. :shock:


$6 million now apparently. I understand why many in the Democratic party dislike him but the fact is, he is very popular. The DNC maybe needs to learn how to handle him and his followers better?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10338
flaggETERNAL wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Bernie has raised $1 million since he declared four hours ago. :shock:


$6 million now apparently. I understand why many in the Democratic party dislike him but the fact is, he is very popular. The DNC maybe needs to learn how to handle him and his followers better?


More than all others combined.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2834 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 ... 71  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bessantj, Big D, bimboman, Bing [Bot], BokJock, Cabbage, Captain Average, CarrotGawks, comets, danny_fitz, Derwyn, de_Selby, Despot, dinsdale, dolly, duke, eldanielfire, EverReady, eweeg, Frodder, Google Adsense [Bot], HKCJ, icon, Jake, JB1981, Jim Lahey, Lazy Couch potato, Lobby, Macrosan, malky, matta25, maxbox, Mog The Almighty, Mr Mike, MunsterMan!!!!!, Plastic Sarrie, Plato'sCave, Raggs, shanec40, Smutley, sockwithaticket, sonic_attack, tc27, Tez, The Sun God, Toro, UncleFB, VBall, Woddy, Zico and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group