| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 20 2014 07:19 Mohdoo wrote: Yeah, I was pretty amazed that people were actually taking the time to say those things and that they didn't stop to wonder if it was extremely childish. It's not just about the nickname. It's about some serious character flaws. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23933 Posts
On December 20 2014 07:24 xDaunt wrote: It's not just about the nickname. It's about some serious character flaws. Care to actually say what the 'serious character flaws' are? Or was your plan to just continuing to allude to them? | ||
|
Introvert
United States4951 Posts
As for the marijuana thing: I haven't been keeping up with this particular story but as a supporter of the principle of state's rights, it seems to me that this lawsuit is kind of silly. I'll have to read more though. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On December 20 2014 07:33 Introvert wrote: Meanwhile posters here mock people all the time by purposely rewriting their names. Classic. As for the marijuana thing: I haven't been keeping up with this particular story but as a supporter of the principle of state's rights, it seems to me that this lawsuit is kind of silly. I'll have to read more though. We never do that, Invertebrate. + Show Spoiler + (just kidding) | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On December 20 2014 07:32 GreenHorizons wrote: Care to actually say what the 'serious character flaws' are? Or was your plan to just continuing to allude to them? It starts with her lying about her heritage and continues through switching her values and party when it suits her political goals (from Reagan Republican to Obama Democrat). Even Tim Geithner in his book says she's full of shit, and it takes one to know one, I guess. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 20 2014 07:33 Introvert wrote: Meanwhile posters here mock people all the time by purposely rewriting their names. Classic. As for the marijuana thing: I haven't been keeping up with this particular story but as a supporter of the principle of state's rights, it seems to me that this lawsuit is kind of silly. I'll have to read more though. As I love to point out, liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On December 20 2014 07:51 coverpunch wrote: It starts with her lying about her heritage and continues through switching her values and party when it suits her political goals (from Reagan Republican to Obama Democrat). Even Tim Geithner in his book says she's full of shit, and it takes one to know one, I guess. Tim Geithner is just mad she brought to attention his golden parachute in private equity after 10 years of loyal service to Wall Street. But the fact that people like him are Democrats is just strong evidence that Reagan Republicans who arent homophobic are Rubin Democrats. Which is what Clinton and Obama are. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23933 Posts
On December 20 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote: As I love to point out, liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds. Small point, but I agree the name stuff is childish too. But it usually comes with a substantive post, rather than just empty mocking and character assassination. I wouldn't of called it out as childish if there was any substance to the posts. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 20 2014 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote: I might've heard everything now. When we do some lighthearted mocking (of an infamous gaffe), it's childish character assassination. When you all do it, it usually comes with a substantive post. The rhetorical superiority complex is pretty ingrained when you declare victory amongst the cheap shots.Small point, but I agree the name stuff is childish too. But it usually comes with a substantive post, rather than just empty mocking and character assassination. I wouldn't of called it out as childish if there was any substance to the posts. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On December 20 2014 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote: I like how people avoided the states rights issue in order to step on Warren. What's wrong with the legislation being proposed...? "No one knows, but look at her cheekbones!" "Yeah she has funny nicknames! tehehe" Politics really has devolved into an elementary school playground hasn't it? Says the guy who posted the youtube clip titled 'Reagan is a retard'. Warren's bitching over derivatives is pretty laughable. Almost no one with credibility came to her side. Volker and Bernanke both panned it as ineffective and many have pointed out that it would reduce regulator's ability to regulate the activities. btw, she's the one who pointed out her cheekbones as 'proof' of her native american heritage: | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On December 20 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote: As I love to point out, liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds. Liberal hypocrisy only knows no bounds if you utterly fail to differentiate between different liberal speakers and are willing to rely on hilariously insignificant exchanges as evidence. Some people, irregardless of political inclination, like to call people names. Others think that this speaks poorly of an individuals ability to take part in a conversation. In either case, this shit happens on both sides of the aisle all of the damn time, and yet you repeat this "liberal hypocrisy" line like its some foundational tongue and cheek conservative mantra. If you lump millions of people together and let clearly insufficient placeholder representatives dictate the character of your opponent, you're pretty much part of the problem, and not even in a creative way. It's not like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Michael Savage haven't said the exact same thing thousands of times. "As I love to point out, conservative hypocrisy knows no bounds" How's my Chris Matthews coming along?  | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23933 Posts
On December 20 2014 08:14 Danglars wrote: I might've heard everything now. When we do some lighthearted mocking (of an infamous gaffe), it's childish character assassination. When you all do it, it usually comes with a substantive post. The rhetorical superiority complex is pretty ingrained when you declare victory amongst the cheap shots. I don't have a problem with lighthearted mocking/cheapshots (we might disagree about what this constitutes) I just prefer it at least come with some substance or at minimum actually be funny. While I highlighted specific rhetoric, I didn't put some political category on who was doing it. The 'political elementary playground' isn't limited to one party or group here or in congress (as I and Farv have pointed out). EDIT: I'm also pretty sure she didn't say anything about her own "cheekbones" in her infamous "cheekbone" comment? She just told a story about how it was an accepted family idea about their native heritage. Maybe people are seeing something I'm not? I mean Cliven Bundy's completely false story (proven)about how long his family had been on that land never came up from any conservatives or was corrected by the many ones who repeated it? Of course no ones trying to rally an armed militia over Warren's heritage... | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 20 2014 08:24 farvacola wrote: Liberal hypocrisy only knows no bounds if you utterly fail to differentiate between different liberal speakers and are willing to rely on hilariously insignificant exchanges as evidence. Some people, irregardless of political inclination, like to call people names. Others think that this speaks poorly of an individuals ability to take part in a conversation. In either case, this shit happens on both sides of the aisle all of the damn time, and yet you repeat this "liberal hypocrisy" line like its some foundational tongue and cheek conservative mantra. If you lump millions of people together and let clearly insufficient placeholder representatives dictate the character of your opponent, you're pretty much part of the problem, and not even in a creative way. It's not like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Michael Savage haven't said the exact same thing thousands of times. "As I love to point out, conservative hypocrisy knows no bounds" How's my Chris Matthews coming along? Hey, I like to throw that line out around here because it applies to so many of the liberal posters. Granted, it doesn't apply to all of them (and I know and they know who they are). But I just find it hilarious that certain posters would say that it's childish to poke fun at Warren when picking on prominent conservatives is pretty much the national pastime around here. That said, I honestly do think that the democratic party and its upper echelon adherents are full of hypocrites. And while I certainly am not going to defend republicans as being perfect on the matter (they aren't), I do think they are more consistent on the whole. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On December 20 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote: As I love to point out, liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds. People on both sides of issues call names...not really sure how this is an example of purely liberal hypocrisy. The state's rights issue being discussed prior to all of this however, is a pretty good example of conservative hypocrisy. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On December 20 2014 08:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Says the guy who posted the youtube clip titled 'Reagan is a retard'. Warren's bitching over derivatives is pretty laughable. Almost no one with credibility came to her side. Volker and Bernanke both panned it as ineffective and many have pointed out that it would reduce regulator's ability to regulate the activities. What a weird choice to cite as experts on derivatives. Bernanke's grasp of derivatives was so poor he didnt understand how subprime would impact the rest of the economy as late as 2008. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On December 20 2014 08:46 Sub40APM wrote: What a weird choice to cite as experts on derivatives. Bernanke's grasp of derivatives was so poor he didnt understand how subprime would impact the rest of the economy as late as 2008. Weird choice of criticism, subprime isn't a derivative. Who would you like to cite? I've yet to see anyone knowledgeable come out in support of that rule. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On December 20 2014 09:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Weird choice of criticism, subprime isn't a derivative. Are you purposefully being dense here? Subprime's impact on the wider economy flowed through derivatives. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On December 20 2014 05:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote: No, in other words her first couple sentences repeated her past lies / BS / whatever you want to call it and I stopped there. But please, don't let anything I write stop you form continually posting articles from the least reputable news sources. Could you be more specific? Are you talking about where she says the bill was "literally written by citigroup" or the part where she said "just so the banks could rake in more profit" or some other phrase? Which part is the lie? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On December 20 2014 07:24 xDaunt wrote: It's not just about the nickname. It's about some serious character flaws. I honestly don't really know that much about Warren or what she's done. Besides the silly heritage thing what else do you find to be a serious character defect? I'm honestly curious. It can't just be that she has views that aren't the same as yours. Is there something seriously suspect with her? Or you just think she expresses those views in stupid ways? | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On December 20 2014 09:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Weird choice of criticism, subprime isn't a derivative. Who would you like to cite? I've yet to see anyone knowledgeable come out in support of that rule. Err... subprime mortgages were bundled into mortgage backed securities (aka, derivatives) with a few prime mortgages, so basically adding kool aid powder to everclear (hint: it still tastes awful and will mess you up and yes I'm in college). Theory was that houses were good collateral, but turns out collateral is only worth something if 1. someone actually wants to buy it and 2. its not insanely overpriced. Basically if you drank the kool aid, you're fucked either way eventually. I personally don't understand why "high finance" and investment banking exist since return is effectively a risk premium so it's not actually possible to beat the market. This recent article kinda outlines my view. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/2014/12/16/a-black-hole-for-our-best-and-brightest/?hpid=z4 On another note, Obama is having one of the best weeks (or couple weeks) of his presidency. The timing suggests that God has a sense of humor. | ||
| ||
The PiG Daily
Best Games of SC
Maru vs TBD
Maru vs Classic
herO vs Solar
ByuN vs Solar
PiGStarcraft469
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games gofns14663 tarik_tv10378 summit1g1943 JimRising  400C9.Mang0269 WinterStarcraft103 ViBE80 Nathanias10 |
|
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
SHIN vs Bunny
ByuN vs Shameless
WardiTV Invitational
Krystianer vs TriGGeR
Cure vs Rogue
SC Evo League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL
Artosis vs TerrOr
spx vs StRyKeR
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
RSL Revival
Cure vs Zoun
Clem vs Lambo
WardiTV Invitational
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
