Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Expectation of privacy was nice while it lastedFollow

#302 Jul 26 2016 at 2:28 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Uhh..you may want to re-read and rewrite what you said here, because either she was wrong and should be fired, or her actions were of no consequence and she should not be fired. Make a manly man decision.
Whether or not your actions change an outcome isn't a perquisite for being punished.

Gbaji wrote:
You get that the whole "prominent Republicans aren't endorsing Trump yet" bit was ginned up by the media, right?
Is that why previous GOP presidents and nominees didn't show up? They were watching too much MSNBC?

Gbaji wrote:
And yeah, you're probably thinking "Priebius who". Which is kinda the point.
Unlike you, I actually follow the news. I don't pretend about it by passing through Yahoo or Facebook. Priebus getting involved is nothing compared to Ryan. Ryan got involved.

Gbaji wrote:
Wait!
As long as you agree that the impact of her actions are irrelevant, then we are good. Side note: Since I don't think you will be responding to our previous conversation, a /32 is one IP (IRRC), not a range of IP addresses.



#303 Jul 26 2016 at 4:49 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Almalieque wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Uhh..you may want to re-read and rewrite what you said here, because either she was wrong and should be fired, or her actions were of no consequence and she should not be fired. Make a manly man decision.
Whether or not your actions change an outcome isn't a perquisite for being punished.


I am going to go out on a limb here and ask you whether you understand why she is being punished.. Do you?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#304 Jul 26 2016 at 4:59 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Agnrymnk wrote:

I am going to go out on a limb here and ask you whether you understand why she is being punished.. Do you?
The rules say that she should not be involved. She got involved, so therefore she is being punished.

If you steal a penny, you are still stealing. That doesn't mean that act of theft had any effect on the individual, business and/or organization that you stole from.
#305 Jul 26 2016 at 5:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almost every previous GOP president or nominee failing to speak at the convention (hey, they got Dole!) was totally ginned up by the media.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#306 Jul 26 2016 at 5:11 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Agnrymnk wrote:

I am going to go out on a limb here and ask you whether you understand why she is being punished.. Do you?
The rules say that she should not be involved. She got involved, so therefore she is being punished.

If you steal a penny, you are still stealing. That doesn't mean that act of theft had any effect on the individual, business and/or organization that you stole from.


Fascinating. I am glad we are getting somewhere here and I am so glad you decided to add that explanation there. Stealing is stealing, regardless of the amount. Now bear with me as I use hyperbole to drive this ************* point: She stole and election. The theft MAY have not had any effect, but the DAMAGE of a seemingly impartial arbiter actively supporting one team is beyond mere pennies. Do you understand it?

In all seriousness though, is that how you rationalize all this? You divide a problem into a series of minor issues and pretend they are not in related to one another in any given way?

Edited, Jul 26th 2016 7:12pm by angrymnk

Edited, Jul 26th 2016 7:13pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#307 Jul 26 2016 at 5:13 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
The simple fact that Paul Ryan had to have several discussions before feeling comfortable endorsing him is telling. #TotallyGinnedUpByTheMedia
#308 Jul 26 2016 at 5:16 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Angrymnk wrote:

Fascinating. I am glad we are getting somewhere here and I am so glad you decided to add that explanation there. Stealing is stealing, regardless of the amount. Now bear with me as I use hyperbole to drive this ************* point: She stole and election. The theft MAY have not had any effect, but the DAMAGE of a seemingly impartial arbiter actively supporting one team is beyond mere pennies. Do you understand it?

In all seriousness though, is that how you rationalize all this? You divide a problem into a series of minor issues and pretend they are not in related to one another in any given way?
You say that she stole the election, then you say that the theft may have not had any effect. That makes absolutely no sense.
#309 Jul 26 2016 at 5:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You get that the whole "prominent Republicans aren't endorsing Trump yet" bit was ginned up by the media, right?
You were going pretty heavy with the "no true conservative will ever endorse Trump" rhetoric too, sweety.


I also said that if he did manage to win sufficient delegates to get the nomination that the party leadership would have to support his run because the alternatives for the party are worse (what are they going to do, all leave the party and form a new one?). I've been pretty firm in my position against the idea of a third party run, both in terms of Trump doing it if he lost the nomination, or someone else doing it if he won. Whether "true conservatives" view him as a conservative is a totally different issue than whether he did or did not win the GOP nomination, and therefore what other elected/appointed members of the party should do as a result.

The voters? That's a whole different subject. If voters think that the negatives of Trump leading the GOP aren't that bad compared to the negatives of a Clinton presidency, or even, as appears to be the case for quite a number, they actually really like Trump and think he's be a "fabulous" leader, then he'll get their votes. Those that don't, more or less have a choice between Clinton, or throwing their vote away in some manner.

Fortunately for me, my vote (for president anyway) isn't going to matter either way. If Trump is ever remotely near to winning California, then he's already won the election. So I'm safe from that decision. I imagine this is a much harder choice for some conservatives in say Ohio.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#310 Jul 26 2016 at 5:25 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Angrymnk wrote:

Fascinating. I am glad we are getting somewhere here and I am so glad you decided to add that explanation there. Stealing is stealing, regardless of the amount. Now bear with me as I use hyperbole to drive this ************* point: She stole and election. The theft MAY have not had any effect, but the DAMAGE of a seemingly impartial arbiter actively supporting one team is beyond mere pennies. Do you understand it?

In all seriousness though, is that how you rationalize all this? You divide a problem into a series of minor issues and pretend they are not in related to one another in any given way?
You say that she stole the election, then you say that the theft may have not had any effect. That makes absolutely no sense.


And on another round we go. A steal is a steal is a steal. Or, as you said:

Quote:
If you steal a penny, you are still stealing.


She may have stolen a penny's worth of an election ( I am more than willing to argue that it was more than a penny's worth, but I am being generous ), but she still stole.

For your convenience, I have linked the definition of the word may.

In other words,it does absolutely make sense.

Edited, Jul 26th 2016 7:26pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#311 Jul 26 2016 at 5:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
You get that the whole "prominent Republicans aren't endorsing Trump yet" bit was ginned up by the media, right?
Is that why previous GOP presidents and nominees didn't show up? They were watching too much MSNBC?


Do you know how many GOP presidents and nominees didn't show up to the 2012 convention? The 2008 convention? Any? Ever? I'll give you a hint: Every 4 years, the people who show up to the convention changes as the politics and positions change. It's normal. Obviously, Trump is a much bigger shuffle than we've seen in decades, but it's only a matter of degrees. And it's mostly a matter of the media making a point of reporting on it, over, and over, and over. So you're aware of it.

Did you know that then president Bush failed to show up to the 2008 convention, instead just sending a video? OMG! He totally dissed McCain! Right? Do you recall the media making more than a token mention of this? No, you don't. Heck. I didn't even remember it until I was just looking some data up about previous convention attendees.

BTW, in case you are curious, this is what "ginning up" looks like.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
And yeah, you're probably thinking "Priebius who". Which is kinda the point.
Unlike you, I actually follow the news. I don't pretend about it by passing through Yahoo or Facebook. Priebus getting involved is nothing compared to Ryan. Ryan got involved.


He did? That's funny. Because all I remember was him repeatedly being ambushed by reporters asking him to take a position on some nutty "plan" to stop Trump, and him repeatedly saying he wouldn't do it. Again, this is a perception lead by the mere act of the media choosing to keep bringing it up. Ryan himself didn't do anything.

Quote:
As long as you agree that the impact of her actions are irrelevant, then we are good.


I don't agree. I think I've already stated multiple times that we can't know how much impact her actions may have had because we don't actually know the full extent of those actions. We do know from the email leaks that she had repeated conversations with journalists essentially telling them to not print anything negative about Clinton (well, or complaining when they did). How much that actually influenced reporting on Clinton relative to reporting on Sanders is impossible to tell. But to just assume it had no effect? That's kinda dumb.

More to the point it isn't about the effect, but the intent. She very clearly wanted Clinton to win. Saying that this is ok because we can't measure accurately how much her actions may have helped that to occur is silly.

Quote:
Side note: Since I don't think you will be responding to our previous conversation, a /32 is one IP (IRRC), not a range of IP addresses.


Hah! Good catch. I was thinking address range and not mask. It's not a common format for me and I don't normally use masks at the ends of the range. Or at least that's my excuse!


Edited, Jul 26th 2016 4:52pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#312 Jul 26 2016 at 5:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Did you know that then president Bush failed to show up to the 2008 convention, instead just sending a video? OMG! He totally dissed McCain! Right? Do you recall the media making more than a token mention of this? No, you don't.

Really? I knew that. Because it wasn't about Bush snubbing McCain so much as Bush's failed presidency being toxic to McCain's chances.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#313 Jul 26 2016 at 6:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The simple fact that Paul Ryan had to have several discussions before feeling comfortable endorsing him is telling. #TotallyGinnedUpByTheMedia


Uh... Yeah. Because, as I've stated repeatedly, Ryan chose very early on in the process to stay as neutral as possible. He knew there was a potential for a floor fight at the convention, and very specifically did not want it to look like the GOP leadership was rigging the process for or against anyone.

You know, kinda like the exact opposite of what DWS did.

What I find really amusing is going back and reading all those news articles speculating about all the horrible things that could happen at the RNC and comparing it to what actually happened. Very funny. Going from the doom and gloom predictions of mass rioting, fist fights, people storming out, deadlocks, etc, etc, to talking about who did or didn't show up, or speak, or endorse early, etc kinda reeks of desperation. At the very least it was a pretty rapid and massive lowering of the bar.

What's that old saying about specks and planks?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#314 Jul 26 2016 at 7:12 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Angrymnk wrote:
She may have stolen a penny's worth of an election ( I am more than willing to argue that it was more than a penny's worth, but I am being generous ), but she still stole.
There's a difference between a "penny's worth of an election" vs an "election". You said the latter, which makes no sense. The former makes sense.

You give yourself too much credit.
#315 Jul 26 2016 at 7:20 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Did you know that then president Bush failed to show up to the 2008 convention, instead just sending a video? OMG! He totally dissed McCain! Right?
Jophiel is right. This was about W, not McCain. If you were following the primary, you would know that.

Gbaji wrote:
He did? That's funny. Because all I remember was him repeatedly being ambushed by reporters asking him to take a position on some nutty "plan" to stop Trump, and him repeatedly saying he wouldn't do it. Again, this is a perception lead by the mere act of the media choosing to keep bringing it up. Ryan himself didn't do anything.
If you actually followed politics, then you would know that. He prefaced his "endorsement" with (paraphrased) "I will continue to speak out against him".

Gbaji wrote:
I don't agree.
That's what you said. Are you now changing your mind?
#316 Jul 26 2016 at 7:29 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Angrymnk wrote:
She may have stolen a penny's worth of an election ( I am more than willing to argue that it was more than a penny's worth, but I am being generous ), but she still stole.
There's a difference between a "penny's worth of an election" vs an "election". You said the latter, which makes no sense. The former makes sense.

You give yourself too much credit.


Please see post #x-6, where x is the current post, and where I paraphrase the words of Stein and, amusingly enough, yours by saying the following:

Quote:
A steal is a steal is a steal.


Keep up. It is your argument. Not mine.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#317 Jul 26 2016 at 8:35 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
angrymnk wrote:

Keep up. It is your argument. Not mine.
Honestly, you give yourself too much credit. Don't confuse my conversation with Gbaji as a weakness of mine. Gbaji understands, he just trolls. You, on the other hand, are lost.

You asked me why she was being punished. She is being punished because wrong is wrong. Stealing is stealing. That doesn't mean the outcome has been affected. Stealing a penny (or a penny's worth of an election) does not have the same effect as stealing millions of dollars (or an entire election). The effect is not the same, but the act of stealing is the same.
#318 Jul 27 2016 at 1:00 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
The problem is this: Many sanders voters thought there was a conspiracy to suppress them by people who were "neutral arbiters". Then said conspiracy was shown to be true. Now they are being told that they should just accept that this is the way things are, and if they don't get on board they are the problem people, not the people who 'rigged the system'. Keep in mind that the whole point of Sander's campaign was basically to cleanse the corruption that kept our society unequal, and to fight against the system in order to change it for the better.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#319 Jul 27 2016 at 6:00 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Sanders' supporters should be voting Trump. They wanted the corrupt system brought down and if Trump were to win, it would completely and utterly **** America and force a complete reboot. Of course, there's always the possibility that the country never reboots afterward, but risks must be taken if you honestly want change.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#320 Jul 27 2016 at 7:21 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
I also said that if he did manage to win sufficient delegates to get the nomination that the party leadership would have to support his run
You also said that once the nomination process got to states that let only Republicans vote that he'd never get the necessary votes because real Republicans and conservatives weren't going to vote for him and it was a liberal conspiracy.

But sure, it's the media's fault.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
They wanted the corrupt system brought down and if Trump were to win, it would completely and utterly **** America and force a complete reboot.
Reboots are always worse than the original.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#321 Jul 27 2016 at 7:24 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Almalieque wrote:
angrymnk wrote:

Keep up. It is your argument. Not mine.
Honestly, you give yourself too much credit. Don't confuse my conversation with Gbaji as a weakness of mine. Gbaji understands, he just trolls. You, on the other hand, are lost.

You asked me why she was being punished. She is being punished because wrong is wrong. Stealing is stealing. That doesn't mean the outcome has been affected. Stealing a penny (or a penny's worth of an election) does not have the same effect as stealing millions of dollars (or an entire election). The effect is not the same, but the act of stealing is the same.


And likewise, I think you understand, but decided instead to cling to a retarded way of argumentation of 'it does not follow' where it clearly does. But hey, keep trying missing the fact that she stole for the potential effect of the fact she stole. I would use car analogy, but I am worried that you would start arguing that the mere fact that you were speeding in no way contributed to the crash.

I think I am done with this line of argumentation. Think of something better.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#322 Jul 27 2016 at 7:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Sanders' supporters should be voting Trump. They wanted the corrupt system brought down and if Trump were to win, it would completely and utterly **** America and force a complete reboot.

I suspect that, media narratives to the contrary, most Sanders supporters are fairly standard Democrat/liberal types who just wanted an alternative to Clinton but not necessarily to turn the nation into a burning tire yard. The fact that most Sanders voters say they'll vote for Clinton sort of bears that out.

I was reading an article yesterday talking briefly about the delegate chick I keep seeing photos of with "Silenced" written on tape over her mouth. Other Sanders delegates were rolling their eyes and pointing out that she's a delegate at the convention -- she literally has more voice in the process than just about anyone in the nation and also that she's in management at Upworthy and is basically media whoring.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#323 Jul 27 2016 at 7:45 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Jophiel wrote:
not necessarily to turn the nation into a burning tire yard.
Chicken *****. When will some true patriots step up and burn the country to the ground? You guys need to dissolve your nation and be more like Europe, pre-EU.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#324 Jul 27 2016 at 7:48 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
You guys need to dissolve your nation and be more like Europe, pre-EU.
What, going into other countries and telling them what to do? We got that covered.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#325 Jul 27 2016 at 7:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
True patriots don't vote for Sanders, they squat in a cabin on government land with their AR-15s.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#326 Jul 27 2016 at 7:51 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Jophiel wrote:
True patriots don't vote for Sanders, they squat in a cabin on government land with their AR-15s.
Lazy ******** They need to get off their asses and go dump some tea in a habour somewhere.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 249 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (249)