Sign In

ferris209

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
27-Nov-2006
Last activity
28-Oct-2018
Posts
4680
Web Site
http://marklevinshow.com

Post History

Post
#1037914
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
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. 😃

Post
#1037910
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
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. 😃

Post
#1037553
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

DominicCobb said:

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

D.C. is a heavily democrat city, as evidenced by the high levels of educated people.

But what about the crime rate and the poverty levels? As well as those in New York, New Jersey, Oakland, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Dallas, New Orleans, Atlanta, etc. etc.

Densely populated places will naturally attract crime and poverty.

Ok. What’s their education levels though?

Are all those college educated folks prone to violence to poverty?

Nearly half the D.C. population has a college degree. The violence and poverty levels are not on par with that number.

So, education aside, there are high levels of violence and poverty in Washington D.C.?

What do you consider high? I feel comfortable saying D.C. has high levels of education because they do (highest in the country). Is that the same for violence and poverty? Don’t know, but my point was obviously the rates will be higher there than in any old small town, USA.

Compare it to other similar cities.

Post
#1037550
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

DominicCobb said:

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

D.C. is a heavily democrat city, as evidenced by the high levels of educated people.

But what about the crime rate and the poverty levels? As well as those in New York, New Jersey, Oakland, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Dallas, New Orleans, Atlanta, etc. etc.

Densely populated places will naturally attract crime and poverty.

Ok. What’s their education levels though?

Are all those college educated folks prone to violence to poverty?

Nearly half the D.C. population has a college degree. The violence and poverty levels are not on par with that number.

So, education aside, are there high levels of violence and poverty in Washington D.C.?

Post
#1037543
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

DominicCobb said:

ferris209 said:

DominicCobb said:

D.C. is a heavily democrat city, as evidenced by the high levels of educated people.

But what about the crime rate and the poverty levels? As well as those in New York, New Jersey, Oakland, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Dallas, New Orleans, Atlanta, etc. etc.

Densely populated places will naturally attract crime and poverty.

Ok. What’s their education levels though?

Are all those college educated folks prone to violence to poverty?

Post
#1037537
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

ferris209 said:

TV’s Frink said:

ferris209 said:

Second, Washington D.C. is located in a heavily Democrat city (you can tell by the high crime rate and high level of poverty)

Yeah that’s great. Time to stop reading your posts.

Quit making promises you can’t keep. 😉

quit being an annoying wise ass. There, I said it.

If my rational, point driven, debate discussion is annoying, I can stop.

Post
#1037536
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

ferris209 said:

I really don’t understand the point from either side, the whining of the Trumpets, or the gloating about the smaller crowd by the anti-Trumpers.

Logic and common sense can naturally deduce the myriad of reasons for a smaller crowd in 2017 vs 2009.

Maybe it has something do with Obama being more popular in 2009 than Trump is in 2017?

Maybe it has something do with the fact that Obama won the popular vote in 2008 and Trump didn’t in 2016?

Also factors. Though none are conclusive.

Second, Washington D.C. is located in a heavily Democrat city (you can tell by the high crime rate and high level of poverty).

Was this really necessary?

Yes.

so far I’ve personally been impressed with some of what Trump as done.

That is insane and biased as hell.

My personal opinion is bias? Who’ve thunk it.

Post
#1037525
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

I really don’t understand the point from either side, the whining of the Trumpets, or the gloating about the smaller crowd by the anti-Trumpers.

Logic and common sense can naturally deduce the myriad of reasons for a smaller crowd in 2017 vs 2009.

First, Obama was the first black President, or half-black President to be precise, so his inauguration was a far more historical event than the average inauguration. This tends to bring in more looky-loos.

Second, Washington D.C. is located in a heavily Democrat city (you can tell by the high crime rate and high level of poverty). Additionally, the area also has a high number of black residents, so naturally the crowd will be bigger seeing that it’s far easier for these folks to get to the inauguration than it is for Mid-Western Republicans.

Third, there was rioting, violence, and all kinds of civil disorder occurring throughout the city in 2017, so a lot of people who might have attended decided against it in order to avoid personal harm or risk. This wasn’t a factor in 2009 because I don’t recall any Conservative groups trashing Washington on the election of Obama.

Fourth, and let’s just face the facts, Dems have a much better ground game in that they tend to spend way more money on making crowds look bigger at major events. They put a larger focus on collecting funds to bus people in and put people up in hotels that otherwise wouldn’t go. Republicans , for whatever reason, just don’t tend to do this and tend to have a “if they want to come, they’ll find a way” attitude. I know I do.

So, in conclusion, who should really care what the crowd looked like. I know I don’t, so far I’ve personally been impressed with some of what Trump as done. I have no clue if he’ll screw up, if he’ll be magnificent, or if he’ll just be meh. Who really knows, and anyone who claims to know is speaking through pure bias.

Post
#1036895
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

generalfrevious said:

ferris209 said:

generalfrevious said:

ferris209 said:

“White people are collectively responsible for slavery.”

“White people are collectively responsible for racism.”

“Men are collectively responsible for rape”

“White privilege!”

“These cop shootings are indicative of a systemic problem within the entire police department and in all police departments across America!”

“HEY! Don’t lump me in with those violent protesters! They don’t represent the movement as a whole!”

You won’t have to listen to crap a year from now feris; they will all be in prison by then.

Doom saying. And no they wont, they’ll be at every event Trump is for the foreseeable future.

That’s not doomsaying. That’s how protesters are dealt with in many countries.

But its not how protesters are dealt with here.

Protestors and rioters are two different things.

Post
#1036882
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

generalfrevious said:

ferris209 said:

“White people are collectively responsible for slavery.”

“White people are collectively responsible for racism.”

“Men are collectively responsible for rape”

“White privilege!”

“These cop shootings are indicative of a systemic problem within the entire police department and in all police departments across America!”

“HEY! Don’t lump me in with those violent protesters! They don’t represent the movement as a whole!”

You won’t have to listen to crap a year from now feris; they will all be in prison by then.

Doom saying. And no they wont, they’ll be at every event Trump is for the foreseeable future.

Post
#1036875
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

“White people are collectively responsible for slavery.”

“White people are collectively responsible for racism.”

“Men are collectively responsible for rape”

“White privilege!”

“These cop shootings are indicative of a systemic problem within the entire police department and in all police departments across America!”

“HEY! Don’t lump me in with those violent protesters! They don’t represent the movement as a whole!”

Post
#1036358
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

oojason said:

ferris209 said:

Nope, it doesn’t bother me one bit. Furthermore, I absolutely doubt that we can either change or affect it whatsoever. Besides, a warmer earth even by a degree is better for us, it allows more crops to flourish among many other things.

Plus, shall I again remind you “recorded history” is only the last 140 years? Unless you believe a young earth, then that’s pretty bad science to base an entire theory about the planet based only on .0000000001% of the earths history.

Meteorological charts go back to 1850 (thermometers etc) - so you’re getting on for 170 years. Still a small portion of the Earth’s history - but a reasonable point to measure when factoring in comparisons for the age of the Second Industrial Revolution (factories, urbanisation, smoke, grit, dust, grime, gas and chemicals, coal and mining taking place on a more ‘industrial’ scale leading to engines - powering and use of).

.

To the later question of ‘So, do you think it was hotter or colder during the Middle Ages?’ - that’s a wider-ranging question, when and where? At which point in the Middle Ages? Circa 1000 when some believe there to have been the Little Ice Age? Or the Warming Period in SouthEast Asia & parts of Northern Europe around the same time?

Am off too bed now (late in the UK) - but am curious as to your answer and why (as well as where and when).

You decide.