logo Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 40

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time

Jesus Christ.

Keep Circulating the Tapes.

END OF LINE

(It hasn’t happened yet)

Author
Time

Fo, you do a really fantastic job at missing every single point.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Fo, you do a really fantastic job at missing every single point.

Well then, I am thankful to be getting such positive criticism, from someone who is perfect.

Thank you.

Author
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

My motivation is now irrelevant … LOL. The only facts that concern me is that each broke Federal Law. Those are not my facts, they are “the” facts.

Yes, they each broke federal law, but that’s not what you’ve been suggesting. What you’ve been positing is that Snowden’s crimes and Clinton’s crimes are the same. They are not. THAT is the fact.

General Patreus intentionally leaked classified information to his biographer, whom he was also fucking. He was charged with a misdemeanor. Would that be adequate for Clinton and Snowden? I mean they all broke federal laws, right? And these crimes are all the same, right? If not, then do you agree that Patreus’ punishment should have been more severe?

Now, if you’re privy to proof that exonerates Clinton completely, bring it and I’ll gladly reconsider my position.

I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the same way your brain does.

I saw your original response before you disappeared it.

You’re a real jerk for saying what you did and acting like you’re better than others around here. “Low-information voters” my foot. I want to swear but I don’t need to get banned just because I let you get to me too.

You have your opinion I have mine, this conversation ends now.

I didn’t “disappear” it. I removed it because it was a personal insult that wasn’t necessary, even though I believe it to be true. But since you brought it up, yes, I believe Trump is a low-information candidate president for low-information voters.

We don’t have our own opinions on Clinton/Snowden. I have facts and you have the newly-minted “alternative facts” (straight up Orwellian, can’t believe it came from a public figure). If it’s your position that Clinton should have been charged for what she did, that’s fine, but arguing that Clinton’s transgressions and Snowden’s transgressions are the same and should be treated the same is asinine and betrays your irrational anti-Clinton bias. That’s the real reason you’re disengaging, just like ferris. You prefer the comfort of conspiracy theories to logic and truth.

The conversation only ends if you leave the thread and you never bring up Clinton’s alleged crimes again. If you post, anyone gets to respond.

Just to be clear, a member in this forum has never been — and never will be — banned for their opinion, political or otherwise, or for moderate swearing. Swear if you like; it’s perfectly acceptable within reason according to the rules as long as it’s not a personal insult.

Just so I understand, gaslighting is good for everyone but those not liked. Encouraging the exact behavior the rules are meant to discourage is okay too. No mercy, no respect, no concern for those here you don’t like because they aren’t like you in any way. Take em down folks, take em down. And some of you complain about Trump being an asshole?

As for ferris, he’s a good person, why bash him? He serves and protects in the real world, puts his life on the line for it too, how many here can say that? Just because he doesn’t share others view of the world here or their opinion it’s okay to crap talk him? Sounds like it to me.

So yeah, anyone reading, it would seem you are now allowed to treat me and probably ferris anyway you want when we post. Swing away litlle cherubs, we are apparently not worthy of your greatness and innocence, we are the mats on which you can now wipe your feet on freely. The word has been given.

This is why I disengaged. Your entire response is a personal insult but, since rules are rules, anything goes when it’s Fo who posts? Your posting style and your pm style clearly align with the likes of Mr. Frink. No wonder he’s untouchable, he’s like you, and that is the preferred appreciated attitude apparently. I am not sad that I am not like you guys.

Do your worst, it is what you’re best at, isn’t it?

Can’t deal with facts or rational debate so you’re back to playing the victim. Got it.

Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

DominicCobb said:

Fo, you do a really fantastic job at missing every single point.

Well then, I am thankful to be getting such positive criticism, from someone who is perfect.

Thank you.

I would love to know what you think is “positive criticism.” I’m not making fun of you here, I’m just telling you that, like usual, you’re coming to all the wrong conclusions.

Except for the part about me being perfect - that’s a right conclusion, thanks.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

My motivation is now irrelevant … LOL. The only facts that concern me is that each broke Federal Law. Those are not my facts, they are “the” facts.

Yes, they each broke federal law, but that’s not what you’ve been suggesting. What you’ve been positing is that Snowden’s crimes and Clinton’s crimes are the same. They are not. THAT is the fact.

General Patreus intentionally leaked classified information to his biographer, whom he was also fucking. He was charged with a misdemeanor. Would that be adequate for Clinton and Snowden? I mean they all broke federal laws, right? And these crimes are all the same, right? If not, then do you agree that Patreus’ punishment should have been more severe?

Now, if you’re privy to proof that exonerates Clinton completely, bring it and I’ll gladly reconsider my position.

I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the same way your brain does.

I saw your original response before you disappeared it.

You’re a real jerk for saying what you did and acting like you’re better than others around here. “Low-information voters” my foot. I want to swear but I don’t need to get banned just because I let you get to me too.

You have your opinion I have mine, this conversation ends now.

I didn’t “disappear” it. I removed it because it was a personal insult that wasn’t necessary, even though I believe it to be true. But since you brought it up, yes, I believe Trump is a low-information candidate president for low-information voters.

We don’t have our own opinions on Clinton/Snowden. I have facts and you have the newly-minted “alternative facts” (straight up Orwellian, can’t believe it came from a public figure). If it’s your position that Clinton should have been charged for what she did, that’s fine, but arguing that Clinton’s transgressions and Snowden’s transgressions are the same and should be treated the same is asinine and betrays your irrational anti-Clinton bias. That’s the real reason you’re disengaging, just like ferris. You prefer the comfort of conspiracy theories to logic and truth.

The conversation only ends if you leave the thread and you never bring up Clinton’s alleged crimes again. If you post, anyone gets to respond.

Just to be clear, a member in this forum has never been — and never will be — banned for their opinion, political or otherwise, or for moderate swearing. Swear if you like; it’s perfectly acceptable within reason according to the rules as long as it’s not a personal insult.

Just so I understand, gaslighting is good for everyone but those not liked. Encouraging the exact behavior the rules are meant to discourage is okay too. No mercy, no respect, no concern for those here you don’t like because they aren’t like you in any way. Take em down folks, take em down. And some of you complain about Trump being an asshole?

As for ferris, he’s a good person, why bash him? He serves and protects in the real world, puts his life on the line for it too, how many here can say that? Just because he doesn’t share others view of the world here or their opinion it’s okay to crap talk him? Sounds like it to me.

So yeah, anyone reading, it would seem you are now allowed to treat me and probably ferris anyway you want when we post. Swing away litlle cherubs, we are apparently not worthy of your greatness and innocence, we are the mats on which you can now wipe your feet on freely. The word has been given.

This is why I disengaged. Your entire response is a personal insult but, since rules are rules, anything goes when it’s Fo who posts? Your posting style and your pm style clearly align with the likes of Mr. Frink. No wonder he’s untouchable, he’s like you, and that is the preferred appreciated attitude apparently. I am not sad that I am not like you guys.

Do your worst, it is what you’re best at, isn’t it?

Can’t deal with facts or rational debate so you’re back to playing the victim. Got it.

Attacking my person over the meme was not rational debate. Disappearing your personal insult against me, after you complained about me deleting something you said got me what I deserved (which I reinstated of my own volition because you quietly blocked another members ability to edit their post), are those rational too Jay?

Enough already, it’s done. As ferris has said himself, the Republican platform was the closest to my ideals, and I don’t endorse everything they want to do. I believe Hillary Clinton to be just as guilty as Edward Snowden, of what they’re accused of, breaking Federal Law.

Can’t we just let this thread get back on topic already?

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Jetrell Fo said:

DominicCobb said:

Fo, you do a really fantastic job at missing every single point.

Well then, I am thankful to be getting such positive criticism, from someone who is perfect.

Thank you.

I would love to know what you think is “positive criticism.” I’m not making fun of you here, I’m just telling you that, like usual, you’re coming to all the wrong conclusions.

Except for the part about me being perfect - that’s a right conclusion, thanks.

Well, would you share what conclusions you believe I’m getting wrong, without heckling me over it? I would be happy to have a respectful conversation over it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

My motivation is now irrelevant … LOL. The only facts that concern me is that each broke Federal Law. Those are not my facts, they are “the” facts.

Yes, they each broke federal law, but that’s not what you’ve been suggesting. What you’ve been positing is that Snowden’s crimes and Clinton’s crimes are the same. They are not. THAT is the fact.

General Patreus intentionally leaked classified information to his biographer, whom he was also fucking. He was charged with a misdemeanor. Would that be adequate for Clinton and Snowden? I mean they all broke federal laws, right? And these crimes are all the same, right? If not, then do you agree that Patreus’ punishment should have been more severe?

Now, if you’re privy to proof that exonerates Clinton completely, bring it and I’ll gladly reconsider my position.

I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the same way your brain does.

I saw your original response before you disappeared it.

You’re a real jerk for saying what you did and acting like you’re better than others around here. “Low-information voters” my foot. I want to swear but I don’t need to get banned just because I let you get to me too.

You have your opinion I have mine, this conversation ends now.

I didn’t “disappear” it. I removed it because it was a personal insult that wasn’t necessary, even though I believe it to be true. But since you brought it up, yes, I believe Trump is a low-information candidate president for low-information voters.

We don’t have our own opinions on Clinton/Snowden. I have facts and you have the newly-minted “alternative facts” (straight up Orwellian, can’t believe it came from a public figure). If it’s your position that Clinton should have been charged for what she did, that’s fine, but arguing that Clinton’s transgressions and Snowden’s transgressions are the same and should be treated the same is asinine and betrays your irrational anti-Clinton bias. That’s the real reason you’re disengaging, just like ferris. You prefer the comfort of conspiracy theories to logic and truth.

The conversation only ends if you leave the thread and you never bring up Clinton’s alleged crimes again. If you post, anyone gets to respond.

Just to be clear, a member in this forum has never been — and never will be — banned for their opinion, political or otherwise, or for moderate swearing. Swear if you like; it’s perfectly acceptable within reason according to the rules as long as it’s not a personal insult.

Just so I understand, gaslighting is good for everyone but those not liked. Encouraging the exact behavior the rules are meant to discourage is okay too. No mercy, no respect, no concern for those here you don’t like because they aren’t like you in any way. Take em down folks, take em down. And some of you complain about Trump being an asshole?

As for ferris, he’s a good person, why bash him? He serves and protects in the real world, puts his life on the line for it too, how many here can say that? Just because he doesn’t share others view of the world here or their opinion it’s okay to crap talk him? Sounds like it to me.

So yeah, anyone reading, it would seem you are now allowed to treat me and probably ferris anyway you want when we post. Swing away litlle cherubs, we are apparently not worthy of your greatness and innocence, we are the mats on which you can now wipe your feet on freely. The word has been given.

This is why I disengaged. Your entire response is a personal insult but, since rules are rules, anything goes when it’s Fo who posts? Your posting style and your pm style clearly align with the likes of Mr. Frink. No wonder he’s untouchable, he’s like you, and that is the preferred appreciated attitude apparently. I am not sad that I am not like you guys.

Do your worst, it is what you’re best at, isn’t it?

Can’t deal with facts or rational debate so you’re back to playing the victim. Got it.

Attacking my person over the meme was not rational debate. Disappearing your personal insult against me, after you complained about me deleting something you said got me what I deserved (which I reinstated of my own volition because you quietly blocked another members ability to edit their post), are those rational too Jay?

For the record, here’s my original post (the last paragraph is the part I removed):


Jetrell Fo said:

My motivation is now irrelevant … LOL. The only facts that concern me is that each broke Federal Law. Those are not my facts, they are “the” facts.

Yes, they each broke federal law, but that’s not what you’ve been suggesting. What you’ve been positing is that Snowden’s crimes and Clinton’s crimes are the same. They are not. THAT is the fact.

General Patreus intentionally leaked classified information to his biographer, whom he was also fucking. He was charged with a misdemeanor. Would that be adequate for Clinton and Snowden? I mean they all broke federal laws, right? And these crimes are all the same, right? If not, then do you agree that Patreus’ punishment should have been more severe?

Now, if you’re privy to proof that exonerates Clinton completely, bring it and I’ll gladly reconsider my position.

I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the same way your brain does. It becomes clearer every day why you support Trump; he’s a low-information candidate for low-information voters.


Everyone is free to make of that what they will. I take ownership of everything I wrote. Also for the record, yes, I believe you got what you deserved for starting a thread wherein you told an unspecified group of members that you hated them and that ot.com Off Topic was the worst forum section you’ve ever been in. It was clearly baiting.

I believe Hillary Clinton to be just as guilty as Edward Snowden, of what they’re accused of, breaking Federal Law.

You’re reframing the debate to mask your original comparison of the two.

Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

My motivation is now irrelevant … LOL. The only facts that concern me is that each broke Federal Law. Those are not my facts, they are “the” facts.

Yes, they each broke federal law, but that’s not what you’ve been suggesting. What you’ve been positing is that Snowden’s crimes and Clinton’s crimes are the same. They are not. THAT is the fact.

General Patreus intentionally leaked classified information to his biographer, whom he was also fucking. He was charged with a misdemeanor. Would that be adequate for Clinton and Snowden? I mean they all broke federal laws, right? And these crimes are all the same, right? If not, then do you agree that Patreus’ punishment should have been more severe?

Now, if you’re privy to proof that exonerates Clinton completely, bring it and I’ll gladly reconsider my position.

I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the same way your brain does.

I saw your original response before you disappeared it.

You’re a real jerk for saying what you did and acting like you’re better than others around here. “Low-information voters” my foot. I want to swear but I don’t need to get banned just because I let you get to me too.

You have your opinion I have mine, this conversation ends now.

I didn’t “disappear” it. I removed it because it was a personal insult that wasn’t necessary, even though I believe it to be true. But since you brought it up, yes, I believe Trump is a low-information candidate president for low-information voters.

We don’t have our own opinions on Clinton/Snowden. I have facts and you have the newly-minted “alternative facts” (straight up Orwellian, can’t believe it came from a public figure). If it’s your position that Clinton should have been charged for what she did, that’s fine, but arguing that Clinton’s transgressions and Snowden’s transgressions are the same and should be treated the same is asinine and betrays your irrational anti-Clinton bias. That’s the real reason you’re disengaging, just like ferris. You prefer the comfort of conspiracy theories to logic and truth.

The conversation only ends if you leave the thread and you never bring up Clinton’s alleged crimes again. If you post, anyone gets to respond.

Just to be clear, a member in this forum has never been — and never will be — banned for their opinion, political or otherwise, or for moderate swearing. Swear if you like; it’s perfectly acceptable within reason according to the rules as long as it’s not a personal insult.

Just so I understand, gaslighting is good for everyone but those not liked. Encouraging the exact behavior the rules are meant to discourage is okay too. No mercy, no respect, no concern for those here you don’t like because they aren’t like you in any way. Take em down folks, take em down. And some of you complain about Trump being an asshole?

As for ferris, he’s a good person, why bash him? He serves and protects in the real world, puts his life on the line for it too, how many here can say that? Just because he doesn’t share others view of the world here or their opinion it’s okay to crap talk him? Sounds like it to me.

So yeah, anyone reading, it would seem you are now allowed to treat me and probably ferris anyway you want when we post. Swing away litlle cherubs, we are apparently not worthy of your greatness and innocence, we are the mats on which you can now wipe your feet on freely. The word has been given.

This is why I disengaged. Your entire response is a personal insult but, since rules are rules, anything goes when it’s Fo who posts? Your posting style and your pm style clearly align with the likes of Mr. Frink. No wonder he’s untouchable, he’s like you, and that is the preferred appreciated attitude apparently. I am not sad that I am not like you guys.

Do your worst, it is what you’re best at, isn’t it?

Can’t deal with facts or rational debate so you’re back to playing the victim. Got it.

Attacking my person over the meme was not rational debate. Disappearing your personal insult against me, after you complained about me deleting something you said got me what I deserved (which I reinstated of my own volition because you quietly blocked another members ability to edit their post), are those rational too Jay?

For the record, here’s my original post (the last paragraph is the part I removed):


Jetrell Fo said:

My motivation is now irrelevant … LOL. The only facts that concern me is that each broke Federal Law. Those are not my facts, they are “the” facts.

Yes, they each broke federal law, but that’s not what you’ve been suggesting. What you’ve been positing is that Snowden’s crimes and Clinton’s crimes are the same. They are not. THAT is the fact.

General Patreus intentionally leaked classified information to his biographer, whom he was also fucking. He was charged with a misdemeanor. Would that be adequate for Clinton and Snowden? I mean they all broke federal laws, right? And these crimes are all the same, right? If not, then do you agree that Patreus’ punishment should have been more severe?

Now, if you’re privy to proof that exonerates Clinton completely, bring it and I’ll gladly reconsider my position.

I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the same way your brain does. It becomes clearer every day why you support Trump; he’s a low-information candidate for low-information voters.


Everyone is free to make of that what they will. I take ownership of everything I wrote. Also for the record, yes, I believe you got what you deserved for starting a thread wherein you told an unspecified group of members that you hated them and that ot.com Off Topic was the worst forum section you’ve ever been in. It was clearly baiting. (This is only your perspective. You NEVER asked me why I felt this way, you just assumed mutiny on my part)

I believe Hillary Clinton to be just as guilty as Edward Snowden, of what they’re accused of, breaking Federal Law.

You’re reframing the debate to mask your original comparison of the two.

This is an easy fix then. I don’t care that each law was different (I never cared), Federal Law is Federal Law, and Petraeus should get his too. Clinton mocked Federal Law by lying straight to the American people, instead of coming clean. Now if Petraeus gets his, Clinton deserves hers too, and Chelsea Manning should finish out her sentence as she’s the only one to actually get one and be doing the time.

And stop taking what I said in my thread out of context … here is what I said, unedited and straight from the post.

"I’ll start.

I just want to say, I hate some of you, with every breath I take. Now, I don’t actually hate you, but that is how I end up feeling about some of you. This has to be the worst section of any forum I’ve ever belonged to. Not because it’s off topic but because of how it’s been allowed to disintegrate in to such a shit hole of double standards based on the presence of only a handful of members that seem to have been allowed to run it."

What is stated above does not match what you say I said at all. You allowed the self moderation. It had clearly disintegrated, otherwise, the new rules you made at the request of some members never would have happened. Unless you want to tell those members that you just did it because you were tired of them being cry babies? I can’t imagnine you would but I am not the only one that was open to some moderation. Not that it’s been held to well but I’m not in charge.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Jetrell Fo said:
I believe Hillary Clinton to be just as guilty as Edward Snowden, of what they’re accused of, breaking Federal Law.

So, there’s this particular law, called “Federal Law”, and both of them broke that same law?

Of course not silly, we both know that’s not true.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ethics-lawyers-sue-trump-over-continuing-business-interests-n710621

Heavy-hitting lawyers plan to sue President Donald Trump in federal court Monday over business interests that they say put him in violation of the Constitution by receiving payments from foreign governments.

The nonprofit good-government group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, will file the suit Monday morning in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, the organization said.

The suit alleges that Trump violated the Constitution the moment he was sworn in as president on Friday because he had not divested his interests in the Trump Organization — among them:

  • Leases held by foreign-government-owned entities in Trump Tower in New York,
  • Bookings at Trump International Hotel at the Old Post Office in Washington, D.C.
  • Payments from foreign-government-owned broadcasters related to “The Apprentice” and other transactions and leases at a broad array of other establishments owned or licensed by Trump. (NBC, which broadcasts “The Apprentice,” severed its business ties with Trump in June 2015. Trump is continuing as an executive producer of the show.)
Author
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

DominicCobb said:

Jetrell Fo said:

DominicCobb said:

Fo, you do a really fantastic job at missing every single point.

Well then, I am thankful to be getting such positive criticism, from someone who is perfect.

Thank you.

I would love to know what you think is “positive criticism.” I’m not making fun of you here, I’m just telling you that, like usual, you’re coming to all the wrong conclusions.

Except for the part about me being perfect - that’s a right conclusion, thanks.

Well, would you share what conclusions you believe I’m getting wrong, without heckling me over it? I would be happy to have a respectful conversation over it.

At the risk of going off topic, this post:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

My motivation is now irrelevant … LOL. The only facts that concern me is that each broke Federal Law. Those are not my facts, they are “the” facts.

Yes, they each broke federal law, but that’s not what you’ve been suggesting. What you’ve been positing is that Snowden’s crimes and Clinton’s crimes are the same. They are not. THAT is the fact.

General Patreus intentionally leaked classified information to his biographer, whom he was also fucking. He was charged with a misdemeanor. Would that be adequate for Clinton and Snowden? I mean they all broke federal laws, right? And these crimes are all the same, right? If not, then do you agree that Patreus’ punishment should have been more severe?

Now, if you’re privy to proof that exonerates Clinton completely, bring it and I’ll gladly reconsider my position.

I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the same way your brain does.

I saw your original response before you disappeared it.

You’re a real jerk for saying what you did and acting like you’re better than others around here. “Low-information voters” my foot. I want to swear but I don’t need to get banned just because I let you get to me too.

You have your opinion I have mine, this conversation ends now.

I didn’t “disappear” it. I removed it because it was a personal insult that wasn’t necessary, even though I believe it to be true. But since you brought it up, yes, I believe Trump is a low-information candidate president for low-information voters.

We don’t have our own opinions on Clinton/Snowden. I have facts and you have the newly-minted “alternative facts” (straight up Orwellian, can’t believe it came from a public figure). If it’s your position that Clinton should have been charged for what she did, that’s fine, but arguing that Clinton’s transgressions and Snowden’s transgressions are the same and should be treated the same is asinine and betrays your irrational anti-Clinton bias. That’s the real reason you’re disengaging, just like ferris. You prefer the comfort of conspiracy theories to logic and truth.

The conversation only ends if you leave the thread and you never bring up Clinton’s alleged crimes again. If you post, anyone gets to respond.

Just to be clear, a member in this forum has never been — and never will be — banned for their opinion, political or otherwise, or for moderate swearing. Swear if you like; it’s perfectly acceptable within reason according to the rules as long as it’s not a personal insult.

Just so I understand, gaslighting is good for everyone but those not liked. Encouraging the exact behavior the rules are meant to discourage is okay too. No mercy, no respect, no concern for those here you don’t like because they aren’t like you in any way. Take em down folks, take em down. And some of you complain about Trump being an asshole?

As for ferris, he’s a good person, why bash him? He serves and protects in the real world, puts his life on the line for it too, how many here can say that? Just because he doesn’t share others view of the world here or their opinion it’s okay to crap talk him? Sounds like it to me.

So yeah, anyone reading, it would seem you are now allowed to treat me and probably ferris anyway you want when we post. Swing away litlle cherubs, we are apparently not worthy of your greatness and innocence, we are the mats on which you can now wipe your feet on freely. The word has been given.

This is why I disengaged. Your entire response is a personal insult but, since rules are rules, anything goes when it’s Fo who posts? Your posting style and your pm style clearly align with the likes of Mr. Frink. No wonder he’s untouchable, he’s like you, and that is the preferred appreciated attitude apparently. I am not sad that I am not like you guys.

Do your worst, it is what you’re best at, isn’t it?

😦

is incredibly far off base. Just because Jay is having a political disagreement with you doesn’t mean he’s using his admin powers to persecute you and insult you without repercussions. He did say that one insult (which I personally wouldn’t even consider an insult), but he caught himself and removed it (everyone makes mistakes). Nothing about the rest of his post(s) are personal insults (unless you consider any kind of criticism a personal insult).

You always seem to make things personal when it never is. This is a political thread, we’re having a political discussion. If someone disagrees with your opinion or how you’re arguing it, that doesn’t mean they literally hate you or think you’re a total idiot. It’s the same thing with what you said about ferris. Jay was critiquing his debating style and then you had to go and make it an insult on his personal character. No one here doubts he is a good guy. We all know he is a cop and we all respect that. But it doesn’t mean we can’t disagree with him.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Jetrell Fo said:

DominicCobb said:

Jetrell Fo said:

DominicCobb said:

Fo, you do a really fantastic job at missing every single point.

Well then, I am thankful to be getting such positive criticism, from someone who is perfect.

Thank you.

I would love to know what you think is “positive criticism.” I’m not making fun of you here, I’m just telling you that, like usual, you’re coming to all the wrong conclusions.

Except for the part about me being perfect - that’s a right conclusion, thanks.

Well, would you share what conclusions you believe I’m getting wrong, without heckling me over it? I would be happy to have a respectful conversation over it.

At the risk of going off topic, this post:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

My motivation is now irrelevant … LOL. The only facts that concern me is that each broke Federal Law. Those are not my facts, they are “the” facts.

Yes, they each broke federal law, but that’s not what you’ve been suggesting. What you’ve been positing is that Snowden’s crimes and Clinton’s crimes are the same. They are not. THAT is the fact.

General Patreus intentionally leaked classified information to his biographer, whom he was also fucking. He was charged with a misdemeanor. Would that be adequate for Clinton and Snowden? I mean they all broke federal laws, right? And these crimes are all the same, right? If not, then do you agree that Patreus’ punishment should have been more severe?

Now, if you’re privy to proof that exonerates Clinton completely, bring it and I’ll gladly reconsider my position.

I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the same way your brain does.

I saw your original response before you disappeared it.

You’re a real jerk for saying what you did and acting like you’re better than others around here. “Low-information voters” my foot. I want to swear but I don’t need to get banned just because I let you get to me too.

You have your opinion I have mine, this conversation ends now.

I didn’t “disappear” it. I removed it because it was a personal insult that wasn’t necessary, even though I believe it to be true. But since you brought it up, yes, I believe Trump is a low-information candidate president for low-information voters.

We don’t have our own opinions on Clinton/Snowden. I have facts and you have the newly-minted “alternative facts” (straight up Orwellian, can’t believe it came from a public figure). If it’s your position that Clinton should have been charged for what she did, that’s fine, but arguing that Clinton’s transgressions and Snowden’s transgressions are the same and should be treated the same is asinine and betrays your irrational anti-Clinton bias. That’s the real reason you’re disengaging, just like ferris. You prefer the comfort of conspiracy theories to logic and truth.

The conversation only ends if you leave the thread and you never bring up Clinton’s alleged crimes again. If you post, anyone gets to respond.

Just to be clear, a member in this forum has never been — and never will be — banned for their opinion, political or otherwise, or for moderate swearing. Swear if you like; it’s perfectly acceptable within reason according to the rules as long as it’s not a personal insult.

Just so I understand, gaslighting is good for everyone but those not liked. Encouraging the exact behavior the rules are meant to discourage is okay too. No mercy, no respect, no concern for those here you don’t like because they aren’t like you in any way. Take em down folks, take em down. And some of you complain about Trump being an asshole?

As for ferris, he’s a good person, why bash him? He serves and protects in the real world, puts his life on the line for it too, how many here can say that? Just because he doesn’t share others view of the world here or their opinion it’s okay to crap talk him? Sounds like it to me.

So yeah, anyone reading, it would seem you are now allowed to treat me and probably ferris anyway you want when we post. Swing away litlle cherubs, we are apparently not worthy of your greatness and innocence, we are the mats on which you can now wipe your feet on freely. The word has been given.

This is why I disengaged. Your entire response is a personal insult but, since rules are rules, anything goes when it’s Fo who posts? Your posting style and your pm style clearly align with the likes of Mr. Frink. No wonder he’s untouchable, he’s like you, and that is the preferred appreciated attitude apparently. I am not sad that I am not like you guys.

Do your worst, it is what you’re best at, isn’t it?

😦

No one here doubts he is a good guy. We all know he is a cop and we all respect that. But it doesn’t mean we can’t disagree with him.

Thank you. 😃

Author
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

My motivation is now irrelevant … LOL. The only facts that concern me is that each broke Federal Law. Those are not my facts, they are “the” facts.

Yes, they each broke federal law, but that’s not what you’ve been suggesting. What you’ve been positing is that Snowden’s crimes and Clinton’s crimes are the same. They are not. THAT is the fact.

General Patreus intentionally leaked classified information to his biographer, whom he was also fucking. He was charged with a misdemeanor. Would that be adequate for Clinton and Snowden? I mean they all broke federal laws, right? And these crimes are all the same, right? If not, then do you agree that Patreus’ punishment should have been more severe?

Now, if you’re privy to proof that exonerates Clinton completely, bring it and I’ll gladly reconsider my position.

I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the same way your brain does.

I saw your original response before you disappeared it.

You’re a real jerk for saying what you did and acting like you’re better than others around here. “Low-information voters” my foot. I want to swear but I don’t need to get banned just because I let you get to me too.

You have your opinion I have mine, this conversation ends now.

I didn’t “disappear” it. I removed it because it was a personal insult that wasn’t necessary, even though I believe it to be true. But since you brought it up, yes, I believe Trump is a low-information candidate president for low-information voters.

We don’t have our own opinions on Clinton/Snowden. I have facts and you have the newly-minted “alternative facts” (straight up Orwellian, can’t believe it came from a public figure). If it’s your position that Clinton should have been charged for what she did, that’s fine, but arguing that Clinton’s transgressions and Snowden’s transgressions are the same and should be treated the same is asinine and betrays your irrational anti-Clinton bias. That’s the real reason you’re disengaging, just like ferris. You prefer the comfort of conspiracy theories to logic and truth.

The conversation only ends if you leave the thread and you never bring up Clinton’s alleged crimes again. If you post, anyone gets to respond.

Just to be clear, a member in this forum has never been — and never will be — banned for their opinion, political or otherwise, or for moderate swearing. Swear if you like; it’s perfectly acceptable within reason according to the rules as long as it’s not a personal insult.

As for ferris, he’s a good person, why bash him? He serves and protects in the real world, puts his life on the line for it too, how many here can say that? Just because he doesn’t share others view of the world here or their opinion it’s okay to crap talk him?

Thank you. 😃

Author
Time

Not that it is of particular importance in the grand scheme of things, but I was digging around online to find better images of Trump’s Inauguration crowd vs Obama’s, since most outlets crop the images before the new buildings at the National Mall. Here is a comparison from Reuters shown on Japan Times, with the Trump picture allegedly taken at 12:01:

National Mall Comparison
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/01/21/world/politics-diplomacy-world/trump-draws-far-smaller-inaugural-crowd-obama/#.WIWx6X1WJ8G

And a CBS report with the same image:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/photos-president-trumps-inauguration-crowd-vs-president-obamas/

An even more expansive shot, from slightly earlier:
National Mall

Finally, here’s a full view of the Obama 2009 inauguration:
Obama Full

I looked everywhere for a similar image for Trump’s inauguration, but I think it’s pretty safe to say there was nobody hanging out back there in the boonies.

You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)

Author
Time

ferris209 said:

I generally skew moderate on the liberal scale. I have some conservative values and some liberal values but am by no means a conservative. But this sign is an abomination to the collective intellect. I feel my meant capacity has shrunk for having read it.

Author
Time

ferris209 said:

Also there’s a large portion of the population dedicated to continually restricting you with the hope of eventually banning you entirely.

Keep Circulating the Tapes.

END OF LINE

(It hasn’t happened yet)

Author
Time

Devil’s advocate: it’s a silly sign, but it’s also supposed to be a joke. And, like most jokes, there’s some truth behind the intent. Which is to say, obviously women have far more rights than guns (don’t think anyone doesn’t literally think that), what they’re trying to say is that they wish protecting women’s rights were as important to politicians as protecting “gun’s rights” (preventing gun control).