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.
On April 30 2016 10:58 kwizach wrote: [quote] I know you don't think it's true. You also "had no idea" whether the woman doing as obvious a Nazi salute as can be outside a Trump rally was indeed doing a Nazi salute (spoiler alert: she was). I'm not painting with a broad brush, I am describing Trump's rhetoric. The fact that you don't like that description doesn't make it any less accurate.
You're talking about the woman who isn't a Nazi again?
We definitely agree that my liking or disliking your characterization of Trump's rhetoric isn't what makes it inaccurate.
Yes, I am talking about that woman -- I'm not saying she was a Nazi, I'm saying she was doing a Nazi salute, which anyone with an ounce of honesty agreed was the case. She said so as well. You, on the other hand, could not even bring yourself to admit she was doing a Nazi salute.
The implications of what people were trying to do with that picture (woman with Trump shirt and arm in the air) were obvious. I didn't dismiss that she could be making the gesture. She did it because people were harassing her, which was something I found likely (along with the possibility of it being a staged photo).
Again, it wasn't simply about discussing the implications of the gesture, but what the gesture itself was. You couldn't even bring yourself to admit she was doing a Nazi salute.
And it bothers you personally that I exercised skepticism about what some private citizen was doing with her arm for a few seconds months ago?
Why would it bother me personally? It's simply a perfect illustration of you turning a blind eye to the reality of anything negative appearing in the same sentence as "Trump", even if it's a clear as day Nazi salute (again, I'm not talking about the intent behind the salute, only the gesture itself).
What do you mean, I hope you're not implying if you make a sentence from "Nazi salute" and "Trump" that he's somehow guilty by association?
I am saying that you are so much of a Trump apologist that you're going to turn a blind eye to, or deny, the reality of anything with a negative connotation that has even a remote connection to Trump, even if he has no actual responsibility over it, and even if the facts of the matter are hitting you in the face. Now, if you're done asking me about unrelated claims that I'm not making, we can drop this vacuous exchange.
If you can't do anything but repeat yourself 50 times, you ought to stop starting conversations with me.
I've already told you I never, at any moment, dismissed that she was doing the salute. If you recall, this was at a time when clickbaiters were desperately trying to milk the appearance of any kind of white supremacy or Nazi connection to Trump. They had just tried to frame the right-hand voting pledge as the Nazi salute. Skepticism was totally appropriate. Even calling me an apologist over a non-issue like this now assumes that there's something to apologize for.
You're the one making me repeat myself by continuously going on unrelated tangents. Perhaps if you didn't ask me if I was being personally bothered by your skepticism or if I was calling Trump guilty by association, and instead addressed the actual point I was making, I wouldn't have to repeat myself. Drone was spot-on. I recall the discussion perfectly, and you wrote that you had "no idea" of what was going on, and didn't know "what she was doing". You went out of your way to avoid recognizing it was obviously a Nazi salute. Also, an apologist is someone" who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something". Anyway, if you have nothing else to add, I suggest again we move on from this pointless back-and-forth. You can send me a PM if you'd like.
look at this bill clinton speech and compare it to the sanders tone. which one is a more sustainable message for the democratic party? i assume you understand sandernomics won't work.
On April 30 2016 11:23 oBlade wrote: [quote] You're talking about the woman who isn't a Nazi again?
We definitely agree that my liking or disliking your characterization of Trump's rhetoric isn't what makes it inaccurate.
Yes, I am talking about that woman -- I'm not saying she was a Nazi, I'm saying she was doing a Nazi salute, which anyone with an ounce of honesty agreed was the case. She said so as well. You, on the other hand, could not even bring yourself to admit she was doing a Nazi salute.
The implications of what people were trying to do with that picture (woman with Trump shirt and arm in the air) were obvious. I didn't dismiss that she could be making the gesture. She did it because people were harassing her, which was something I found likely (along with the possibility of it being a staged photo).
Again, it wasn't simply about discussing the implications of the gesture, but what the gesture itself was. You couldn't even bring yourself to admit she was doing a Nazi salute.
And it bothers you personally that I exercised skepticism about what some private citizen was doing with her arm for a few seconds months ago?
Why would it bother me personally? It's simply a perfect illustration of you turning a blind eye to the reality of anything negative appearing in the same sentence as "Trump", even if it's a clear as day Nazi salute (again, I'm not talking about the intent behind the salute, only the gesture itself).
What do you mean, I hope you're not implying if you make a sentence from "Nazi salute" and "Trump" that he's somehow guilty by association?
I am saying that you are so much of a Trump apologist that you're going to turn a blind eye to, or deny, the reality of anything with a negative connotation that has even a remote connection to Trump, even if he has no actual responsibility over it, and even if the facts of the matter are hitting you in the face. Now, if you're done asking me about unrelated claims that I'm not making, we can drop this vacuous exchange.
If you can't do anything but repeat yourself 50 times, you ought to stop starting conversations with me.
I've already told you I never, at any moment, dismissed that she was doing the salute. If you recall, this was at a time when clickbaiters were desperately trying to milk the appearance of any kind of white supremacy or Nazi connection to Trump. They had just tried to frame the right-hand voting pledge as the Nazi salute. Skepticism was totally appropriate. Even calling me an apologist over a non-issue like this now assumes that there's something to apologize for.
You're the one making me repeat myself by continuously going on unrelated tangents. Perhaps if you didn't ask me if I was being personally bothered by your skepticism or if I was calling Trump guilty by association, and instead addressed the actual point I was making, I wouldn't have to repeat myself. Drone was spot-on. I recall the discussion perfectly, and you wrote that you had "no idea" of what was going on, and didn't know "what she was doing". You went out of your way to avoid recognizing it was obviously a Nazi salute. Also, an apologist is someone" who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something". Anyway, if you have nothing else to add, I suggest again we move on from this pointless back-and-forth. You can send me a PM if you'd like.
Almost every time I try to add something to the "discussion" with you, you call it a tangent and refuse to engage at all. I'm actually curious how old you are.
This is the reason I don't pretend to know what's going on in photos without context: + Show Spoiler +
The notion that the Sanders campaign has been "drowning out" Hillary's substantive policy expressions is so off-base relative to media exposure, it's delusional.
A freight train derailed close to Washington DC early Sunday and is leaking hazardous material and causing disruption in the area of the capital.
More than 10 cars are understood to have left the tracks, a small portion of the long, 175-car southbound train. No injuries have been reported.
At least three cars are leaking a hazardous substance, according to Doug Buchanan, a spokesman for the District of Columbia fire department.
Mayor Muriel Bowser said at a news conference that the leak was contained, but officials were not sure how much had leaked.
“The fumes should not cause you any problems and you should not be able to smell them anywhere else,” said DC Fire and EMS Deputy Chief John Donnelly.
It was not immediately clear what caused the derailment. Crews were inspecting the tracks, which are used by CSX, Metro and Amtrak, and were working to restore service. Photos tweeted by DC Fire and Emergency after the derailment showed cars in a zigzag line across the tracks.
Chris Nellum said he lives nearby and his window looks directly over the tracks.
The train derailed near the Rhode Island Avenue metro station shortly before 7am local time and the nearby avenue was closed to road traffic.
On April 30 2016 20:48 kwizach wrote: [quote] Yes, I am talking about that woman -- I'm not saying she was a Nazi, I'm saying she was doing a Nazi salute, which anyone with an ounce of honesty agreed was the case. She said so as well. You, on the other hand, could not even bring yourself to admit she was doing a Nazi salute.
The implications of what people were trying to do with that picture (woman with Trump shirt and arm in the air) were obvious. I didn't dismiss that she could be making the gesture. She did it because people were harassing her, which was something I found likely (along with the possibility of it being a staged photo).
Again, it wasn't simply about discussing the implications of the gesture, but what the gesture itself was. You couldn't even bring yourself to admit she was doing a Nazi salute.
And it bothers you personally that I exercised skepticism about what some private citizen was doing with her arm for a few seconds months ago?
Why would it bother me personally? It's simply a perfect illustration of you turning a blind eye to the reality of anything negative appearing in the same sentence as "Trump", even if it's a clear as day Nazi salute (again, I'm not talking about the intent behind the salute, only the gesture itself).
What do you mean, I hope you're not implying if you make a sentence from "Nazi salute" and "Trump" that he's somehow guilty by association?
I am saying that you are so much of a Trump apologist that you're going to turn a blind eye to, or deny, the reality of anything with a negative connotation that has even a remote connection to Trump, even if he has no actual responsibility over it, and even if the facts of the matter are hitting you in the face. Now, if you're done asking me about unrelated claims that I'm not making, we can drop this vacuous exchange.
If you can't do anything but repeat yourself 50 times, you ought to stop starting conversations with me.
I've already told you I never, at any moment, dismissed that she was doing the salute. If you recall, this was at a time when clickbaiters were desperately trying to milk the appearance of any kind of white supremacy or Nazi connection to Trump. They had just tried to frame the right-hand voting pledge as the Nazi salute. Skepticism was totally appropriate. Even calling me an apologist over a non-issue like this now assumes that there's something to apologize for.
You're the one making me repeat myself by continuously going on unrelated tangents. Perhaps if you didn't ask me if I was being personally bothered by your skepticism or if I was calling Trump guilty by association, and instead addressed the actual point I was making, I wouldn't have to repeat myself. Drone was spot-on. I recall the discussion perfectly, and you wrote that you had "no idea" of what was going on, and didn't know "what she was doing". You went out of your way to avoid recognizing it was obviously a Nazi salute. Also, an apologist is someone" who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something". Anyway, if you have nothing else to add, I suggest again we move on from this pointless back-and-forth. You can send me a PM if you'd like.
Almost every time I try to add something to the "discussion" with you, you call it a tangent and refuse to engage at all. I'm actually curious how old you are.
This is the reason I don't pretend to know what's going on in photos without context: + Show Spoiler +
What exactly did you want or expect me to say?
In which universe is not replying to my post and asking me instead if I'm personally bothered by your skepticism, or if I'm calling Trump guilty by association, "adding something to the discussion"? In both cases it's you dismissing the actual point being discussed in favor of a different position that you imagined and decided to attribute to me. Your picture shows hand gestures different from the one done by the protester, which was unmistakeably a Nazi salute. You could simply have said "It's a Nazi salute, but there are plenty of reasons she could have done it that don't involve wanting to actually show support for the Nazi". Instead, and like I've said repeatedly, you went out of your way to avoid calling it a Nazi salute.
On May 01 2016 13:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watched Obama's final White House Correspondence Dinner... it's amazing how hilarious and eloquent of an orator he still is after all these years... and he literally dropped the mic on his way out!
This man should the the highest grossing inflation adjusted former president just through speech fees alone
Larry Wilmore bombed so hard I almost felt bad for the guy. Don't think I've cringed that much since the situation roasted Trump.
To be fair, his show is just as cringe worthy. This is par for the course.
On May 01 2016 02:22 oBlade wrote: [quote] The implications of what people were trying to do with that picture (woman with Trump shirt and arm in the air) were obvious. I didn't dismiss that she could be making the gesture. She did it because people were harassing her, which was something I found likely (along with the possibility of it being a staged photo).
Again, it wasn't simply about discussing the implications of the gesture, but what the gesture itself was. You couldn't even bring yourself to admit she was doing a Nazi salute.
And it bothers you personally that I exercised skepticism about what some private citizen was doing with her arm for a few seconds months ago?
Why would it bother me personally? It's simply a perfect illustration of you turning a blind eye to the reality of anything negative appearing in the same sentence as "Trump", even if it's a clear as day Nazi salute (again, I'm not talking about the intent behind the salute, only the gesture itself).
What do you mean, I hope you're not implying if you make a sentence from "Nazi salute" and "Trump" that he's somehow guilty by association?
I am saying that you are so much of a Trump apologist that you're going to turn a blind eye to, or deny, the reality of anything with a negative connotation that has even a remote connection to Trump, even if he has no actual responsibility over it, and even if the facts of the matter are hitting you in the face. Now, if you're done asking me about unrelated claims that I'm not making, we can drop this vacuous exchange.
If you can't do anything but repeat yourself 50 times, you ought to stop starting conversations with me.
I've already told you I never, at any moment, dismissed that she was doing the salute. If you recall, this was at a time when clickbaiters were desperately trying to milk the appearance of any kind of white supremacy or Nazi connection to Trump. They had just tried to frame the right-hand voting pledge as the Nazi salute. Skepticism was totally appropriate. Even calling me an apologist over a non-issue like this now assumes that there's something to apologize for.
You're the one making me repeat myself by continuously going on unrelated tangents. Perhaps if you didn't ask me if I was being personally bothered by your skepticism or if I was calling Trump guilty by association, and instead addressed the actual point I was making, I wouldn't have to repeat myself. Drone was spot-on. I recall the discussion perfectly, and you wrote that you had "no idea" of what was going on, and didn't know "what she was doing". You went out of your way to avoid recognizing it was obviously a Nazi salute. Also, an apologist is someone" who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something". Anyway, if you have nothing else to add, I suggest again we move on from this pointless back-and-forth. You can send me a PM if you'd like.
Almost every time I try to add something to the "discussion" with you, you call it a tangent and refuse to engage at all. I'm actually curious how old you are.
This is the reason I don't pretend to know what's going on in photos without context: + Show Spoiler +
What exactly did you want or expect me to say?
In which universe is not replying to my post and asking me instead if I'm personally bothered by your skepticism, or if I'm calling Trump guilty by association, "adding something to the discussion"? In both cases it's you dismissing the actual point being discussed in favor of a different position that you imagined and decided to attribute to me. Your picture shows hand gestures different from the one done by the protester, which was unmistakeably a Nazi salute. You could simply have said "It's a Nazi salute, but there are plenty of reasons she could have done it that don't involve wanting to actually show support for the Nazi". Instead, and like I've said repeatedly, you went out of your way to avoid calling it a Nazi salute.
I'm asking you those questions, including your age and what response you want from me that will get you to stop, because I'm obviously trying to figure out why you keep doing this to the thread. I've got your opinion already. The conversation was months ago. I just asked you point blank what you want me to say, and you have nothing, is that right?
A freight train derailed close to Washington DC early Sunday and is leaking hazardous material and causing disruption in the area of the capital.
More than 10 cars are understood to have left the tracks, a small portion of the long, 175-car southbound train. No injuries have been reported.
At least three cars are leaking a hazardous substance, according to Doug Buchanan, a spokesman for the District of Columbia fire department.
Mayor Muriel Bowser said at a news conference that the leak was contained, but officials were not sure how much had leaked.
“The fumes should not cause you any problems and you should not be able to smell them anywhere else,” said DC Fire and EMS Deputy Chief John Donnelly.
It was not immediately clear what caused the derailment. Crews were inspecting the tracks, which are used by CSX, Metro and Amtrak, and were working to restore service. Photos tweeted by DC Fire and Emergency after the derailment showed cars in a zigzag line across the tracks.
Chris Nellum said he lives nearby and his window looks directly over the tracks.
The train derailed near the Rhode Island Avenue metro station shortly before 7am local time and the nearby avenue was closed to road traffic.
On May 01 2016 09:34 kwizach wrote: [quote] Again, it wasn't simply about discussing the implications of the gesture, but what the gesture itself was. You couldn't even bring yourself to admit she was doing a Nazi salute.
And it bothers you personally that I exercised skepticism about what some private citizen was doing with her arm for a few seconds months ago?
Why would it bother me personally? It's simply a perfect illustration of you turning a blind eye to the reality of anything negative appearing in the same sentence as "Trump", even if it's a clear as day Nazi salute (again, I'm not talking about the intent behind the salute, only the gesture itself).
What do you mean, I hope you're not implying if you make a sentence from "Nazi salute" and "Trump" that he's somehow guilty by association?
I am saying that you are so much of a Trump apologist that you're going to turn a blind eye to, or deny, the reality of anything with a negative connotation that has even a remote connection to Trump, even if he has no actual responsibility over it, and even if the facts of the matter are hitting you in the face. Now, if you're done asking me about unrelated claims that I'm not making, we can drop this vacuous exchange.
If you can't do anything but repeat yourself 50 times, you ought to stop starting conversations with me.
I've already told you I never, at any moment, dismissed that she was doing the salute. If you recall, this was at a time when clickbaiters were desperately trying to milk the appearance of any kind of white supremacy or Nazi connection to Trump. They had just tried to frame the right-hand voting pledge as the Nazi salute. Skepticism was totally appropriate. Even calling me an apologist over a non-issue like this now assumes that there's something to apologize for.
You're the one making me repeat myself by continuously going on unrelated tangents. Perhaps if you didn't ask me if I was being personally bothered by your skepticism or if I was calling Trump guilty by association, and instead addressed the actual point I was making, I wouldn't have to repeat myself. Drone was spot-on. I recall the discussion perfectly, and you wrote that you had "no idea" of what was going on, and didn't know "what she was doing". You went out of your way to avoid recognizing it was obviously a Nazi salute. Also, an apologist is someone" who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something". Anyway, if you have nothing else to add, I suggest again we move on from this pointless back-and-forth. You can send me a PM if you'd like.
Almost every time I try to add something to the "discussion" with you, you call it a tangent and refuse to engage at all. I'm actually curious how old you are.
This is the reason I don't pretend to know what's going on in photos without context: + Show Spoiler +
What exactly did you want or expect me to say?
In which universe is not replying to my post and asking me instead if I'm personally bothered by your skepticism, or if I'm calling Trump guilty by association, "adding something to the discussion"? In both cases it's you dismissing the actual point being discussed in favor of a different position that you imagined and decided to attribute to me. Your picture shows hand gestures different from the one done by the protester, which was unmistakeably a Nazi salute. You could simply have said "It's a Nazi salute, but there are plenty of reasons she could have done it that don't involve wanting to actually show support for the Nazi". Instead, and like I've said repeatedly, you went out of your way to avoid calling it a Nazi salute.
I'm asking you those questions, including your age and what response you want from me that will get you to stop, because I'm obviously trying to figure out why you keep doing this to the thread. I've got your opinion already. The conversation was months ago. I just asked you point blank what you want me to say, and you have nothing, is that right?
I made my point quite some time ago, and you're the one who replied to my initial post. If you have nothing to say, feel free to stop replying or send me a PM to tell me about how you still have nothing to actually argue but still want to ask me random questions.
In other news... This is getting tiresome.
White House hopeful Bernie Sanders, who has fought the Democratic establishment throughout his campaign, made an extraordinary appeal Sunday for party insiders to help deliver the nomination to him, even if he doesn’t catch rival Hillary Clinton in the remaining primaries and caucuses.
Addressing reporters at the National Press Club in Washington, Sanders made a public plea for Democratic superdelegates to reconsider their allegiances to Clinton, particularly those in states where he has won nominating contests or those who committed to Clinton before he entered the race. [...]
He said a prime target for flipping superdelegates will be those in states where he has soundly defeated Clinton. His campaign distributed a handout listing 11 of those, of which Sanders pointed to several in his remarks.
In Washington state, for example, he said he won the caucuses with nearly 73 percent of the vote against Clinton, characterizing the outcome as “a massive landslide.”
But Clinton has 10 announced superdelegates from the state and Sanders has none.
“I would ask the superdelegates from the state of Washington to respect the wishes of the people in their state,” he said.
Sanders said he thinks he is “entitled” to pick up many superdelegates from such states.
Even the tally sheet the Sanders campaign distributed Sunday underscored how improbable his path is.
Even if Sanders were to manage to flip every Clinton superdelegate in the 11 states on his tally sheet, and even if he were to win every uncommitted superdelegate in those states -- both impossible scenarios -- he would pick up only 77 superdelegates.
When counting both pledged delegates and superdelegates, Clinton’s lead over Sanders is 808 delegates.
When asked about that, Sanders said he also would be relying heavily on other superdelegates who determine that he would have a better chance of defeating Trump in the general election.
On May 01 2016 10:38 oBlade wrote: [quote] And it bothers you personally that I exercised skepticism about what some private citizen was doing with her arm for a few seconds months ago?
Why would it bother me personally? It's simply a perfect illustration of you turning a blind eye to the reality of anything negative appearing in the same sentence as "Trump", even if it's a clear as day Nazi salute (again, I'm not talking about the intent behind the salute, only the gesture itself).
What do you mean, I hope you're not implying if you make a sentence from "Nazi salute" and "Trump" that he's somehow guilty by association?
I am saying that you are so much of a Trump apologist that you're going to turn a blind eye to, or deny, the reality of anything with a negative connotation that has even a remote connection to Trump, even if he has no actual responsibility over it, and even if the facts of the matter are hitting you in the face. Now, if you're done asking me about unrelated claims that I'm not making, we can drop this vacuous exchange.
If you can't do anything but repeat yourself 50 times, you ought to stop starting conversations with me.
I've already told you I never, at any moment, dismissed that she was doing the salute. If you recall, this was at a time when clickbaiters were desperately trying to milk the appearance of any kind of white supremacy or Nazi connection to Trump. They had just tried to frame the right-hand voting pledge as the Nazi salute. Skepticism was totally appropriate. Even calling me an apologist over a non-issue like this now assumes that there's something to apologize for.
You're the one making me repeat myself by continuously going on unrelated tangents. Perhaps if you didn't ask me if I was being personally bothered by your skepticism or if I was calling Trump guilty by association, and instead addressed the actual point I was making, I wouldn't have to repeat myself. Drone was spot-on. I recall the discussion perfectly, and you wrote that you had "no idea" of what was going on, and didn't know "what she was doing". You went out of your way to avoid recognizing it was obviously a Nazi salute. Also, an apologist is someone" who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something". Anyway, if you have nothing else to add, I suggest again we move on from this pointless back-and-forth. You can send me a PM if you'd like.
Almost every time I try to add something to the "discussion" with you, you call it a tangent and refuse to engage at all. I'm actually curious how old you are.
This is the reason I don't pretend to know what's going on in photos without context: + Show Spoiler +
What exactly did you want or expect me to say?
In which universe is not replying to my post and asking me instead if I'm personally bothered by your skepticism, or if I'm calling Trump guilty by association, "adding something to the discussion"? In both cases it's you dismissing the actual point being discussed in favor of a different position that you imagined and decided to attribute to me. Your picture shows hand gestures different from the one done by the protester, which was unmistakeably a Nazi salute. You could simply have said "It's a Nazi salute, but there are plenty of reasons she could have done it that don't involve wanting to actually show support for the Nazi". Instead, and like I've said repeatedly, you went out of your way to avoid calling it a Nazi salute.
I'm asking you those questions, including your age and what response you want from me that will get you to stop, because I'm obviously trying to figure out why you keep doing this to the thread. I've got your opinion already. The conversation was months ago. I just asked you point blank what you want me to say, and you have nothing, is that right?
I made my point quite some time ago, and you're the one who replied to my initial post. If you have nothing to say, feel free to stop replying or send me a PM to tell me about how you still have nothing to actually argue but still want to ask me random questions.
Why don't you stop replying if you can't answer something? It's not all about you. The question of how you want me to respond isn't random at all. But you apparently have no answer because you're posting just to repeat yourself.
On May 01 2016 11:29 kwizach wrote: [quote] Why would it bother me personally? It's simply a perfect illustration of you turning a blind eye to the reality of anything negative appearing in the same sentence as "Trump", even if it's a clear as day Nazi salute (again, I'm not talking about the intent behind the salute, only the gesture itself).
What do you mean, I hope you're not implying if you make a sentence from "Nazi salute" and "Trump" that he's somehow guilty by association?
I am saying that you are so much of a Trump apologist that you're going to turn a blind eye to, or deny, the reality of anything with a negative connotation that has even a remote connection to Trump, even if he has no actual responsibility over it, and even if the facts of the matter are hitting you in the face. Now, if you're done asking me about unrelated claims that I'm not making, we can drop this vacuous exchange.
If you can't do anything but repeat yourself 50 times, you ought to stop starting conversations with me.
I've already told you I never, at any moment, dismissed that she was doing the salute. If you recall, this was at a time when clickbaiters were desperately trying to milk the appearance of any kind of white supremacy or Nazi connection to Trump. They had just tried to frame the right-hand voting pledge as the Nazi salute. Skepticism was totally appropriate. Even calling me an apologist over a non-issue like this now assumes that there's something to apologize for.
You're the one making me repeat myself by continuously going on unrelated tangents. Perhaps if you didn't ask me if I was being personally bothered by your skepticism or if I was calling Trump guilty by association, and instead addressed the actual point I was making, I wouldn't have to repeat myself. Drone was spot-on. I recall the discussion perfectly, and you wrote that you had "no idea" of what was going on, and didn't know "what she was doing". You went out of your way to avoid recognizing it was obviously a Nazi salute. Also, an apologist is someone" who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something". Anyway, if you have nothing else to add, I suggest again we move on from this pointless back-and-forth. You can send me a PM if you'd like.
Almost every time I try to add something to the "discussion" with you, you call it a tangent and refuse to engage at all. I'm actually curious how old you are.
This is the reason I don't pretend to know what's going on in photos without context: + Show Spoiler +
What exactly did you want or expect me to say?
In which universe is not replying to my post and asking me instead if I'm personally bothered by your skepticism, or if I'm calling Trump guilty by association, "adding something to the discussion"? In both cases it's you dismissing the actual point being discussed in favor of a different position that you imagined and decided to attribute to me. Your picture shows hand gestures different from the one done by the protester, which was unmistakeably a Nazi salute. You could simply have said "It's a Nazi salute, but there are plenty of reasons she could have done it that don't involve wanting to actually show support for the Nazi". Instead, and like I've said repeatedly, you went out of your way to avoid calling it a Nazi salute.
I'm asking you those questions, including your age and what response you want from me that will get you to stop, because I'm obviously trying to figure out why you keep doing this to the thread. I've got your opinion already. The conversation was months ago. I just asked you point blank what you want me to say, and you have nothing, is that right?
I made my point quite some time ago, and you're the one who replied to my initial post. If you have nothing to say, feel free to stop replying or send me a PM to tell me about how you still have nothing to actually argue but still want to ask me random questions.
Why don't you stop replying if you can't answer something? It's not all about you. The question of how you want me to respond isn't random at all. But you apparently have no answer because you're posting just to repeat yourself.
On May 01 2016 13:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Watched Obama's final White House Correspondence Dinner... it's amazing how hilarious and eloquent of an orator he still is after all these years... and he literally dropped the mic on his way out!
This man should the the highest grossing inflation adjusted former president just through speech fees alone
Larry Wilmore bombed so hard I almost felt bad for the guy. Don't think I've cringed that much since the situation roasted Trump.
To be fair, his show is just as cringe worthy. This is par for the course.
He had his moments on The Daily Show (I think that show pretty much made everyone who was on it better with a couple exceptions) but yeah, his show is awful. The format is completely worthless. Monologue, then a round table with 4 or 5 people and you want to discuss anything at all in 22 minutes total for all that? You couldn't even have a discussion on your favorite breakfast cereal in that amount of time. Hell Real Time is twice as long and they can't have a decent discussion. It's sad because I think there's a lot that could be done with that sort of format where people actually talk about stuff and it's not super anal. But you can't even scratch the surface in that amount of time with that many people, plus you gotta switch topics to "keep it moving". While his podcast can be super super hit or miss I think Joe Rogan has that aspect right. Sit down and talk with someone 1 on 1 for 3 hours and you can delve deep on stuff and discuss a ton of super interesting topics. If its a good guest it actually feels like a very worth while discussion. But that kind of time isn't allotted on TV so you just get a train wreck. Oh to have Jon and Colbert back.
On May 01 2016 11:29 kwizach wrote: [quote] Why would it bother me personally? It's simply a perfect illustration of you turning a blind eye to the reality of anything negative appearing in the same sentence as "Trump", even if it's a clear as day Nazi salute (again, I'm not talking about the intent behind the salute, only the gesture itself).
What do you mean, I hope you're not implying if you make a sentence from "Nazi salute" and "Trump" that he's somehow guilty by association?
I am saying that you are so much of a Trump apologist that you're going to turn a blind eye to, or deny, the reality of anything with a negative connotation that has even a remote connection to Trump, even if he has no actual responsibility over it, and even if the facts of the matter are hitting you in the face. Now, if you're done asking me about unrelated claims that I'm not making, we can drop this vacuous exchange.
If you can't do anything but repeat yourself 50 times, you ought to stop starting conversations with me.
I've already told you I never, at any moment, dismissed that she was doing the salute. If you recall, this was at a time when clickbaiters were desperately trying to milk the appearance of any kind of white supremacy or Nazi connection to Trump. They had just tried to frame the right-hand voting pledge as the Nazi salute. Skepticism was totally appropriate. Even calling me an apologist over a non-issue like this now assumes that there's something to apologize for.
You're the one making me repeat myself by continuously going on unrelated tangents. Perhaps if you didn't ask me if I was being personally bothered by your skepticism or if I was calling Trump guilty by association, and instead addressed the actual point I was making, I wouldn't have to repeat myself. Drone was spot-on. I recall the discussion perfectly, and you wrote that you had "no idea" of what was going on, and didn't know "what she was doing". You went out of your way to avoid recognizing it was obviously a Nazi salute. Also, an apologist is someone" who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something". Anyway, if you have nothing else to add, I suggest again we move on from this pointless back-and-forth. You can send me a PM if you'd like.
Almost every time I try to add something to the "discussion" with you, you call it a tangent and refuse to engage at all. I'm actually curious how old you are.
This is the reason I don't pretend to know what's going on in photos without context: + Show Spoiler +
What exactly did you want or expect me to say?
In which universe is not replying to my post and asking me instead if I'm personally bothered by your skepticism, or if I'm calling Trump guilty by association, "adding something to the discussion"? In both cases it's you dismissing the actual point being discussed in favor of a different position that you imagined and decided to attribute to me. Your picture shows hand gestures different from the one done by the protester, which was unmistakeably a Nazi salute. You could simply have said "It's a Nazi salute, but there are plenty of reasons she could have done it that don't involve wanting to actually show support for the Nazi". Instead, and like I've said repeatedly, you went out of your way to avoid calling it a Nazi salute.
I'm asking you those questions, including your age and what response you want from me that will get you to stop, because I'm obviously trying to figure out why you keep doing this to the thread. I've got your opinion already. The conversation was months ago. I just asked you point blank what you want me to say, and you have nothing, is that right?
I made my point quite some time ago, and you're the one who replied to my initial post. If you have nothing to say, feel free to stop replying or send me a PM to tell me about how you still have nothing to actually argue but still want to ask me random questions.
Why don't you stop replying if you can't answer something? It's not all about you. The question of how you want me to respond isn't random at all. But you apparently have no answer because you're posting just to repeat yourself.
Doesn't that look like the salute if you didn't know any better?
What question relevant to the discussion am I supposed to answer? You asked me "What exactly did you want or expect me to say?", showing the kind of picture you just did, and I gave you my response: "Your picture shows hand gestures different from the one done by the protester, which was unmistakeably a Nazi salute. You could simply have said "It's a Nazi salute, but there are plenty of reasons she could have done it that don't involve wanting to actually show support for the Nazi". Instead, and like I've said repeatedly, you went out of your way to avoid calling it a Nazi salute". If you're not even reading my posts anymore, it explains why you seem stuck in a loop.
On May 01 2016 15:46 oBlade wrote: [quote] What do you mean, I hope you're not implying if you make a sentence from "Nazi salute" and "Trump" that he's somehow guilty by association?
I am saying that you are so much of a Trump apologist that you're going to turn a blind eye to, or deny, the reality of anything with a negative connotation that has even a remote connection to Trump, even if he has no actual responsibility over it, and even if the facts of the matter are hitting you in the face. Now, if you're done asking me about unrelated claims that I'm not making, we can drop this vacuous exchange.
If you can't do anything but repeat yourself 50 times, you ought to stop starting conversations with me.
I've already told you I never, at any moment, dismissed that she was doing the salute. If you recall, this was at a time when clickbaiters were desperately trying to milk the appearance of any kind of white supremacy or Nazi connection to Trump. They had just tried to frame the right-hand voting pledge as the Nazi salute. Skepticism was totally appropriate. Even calling me an apologist over a non-issue like this now assumes that there's something to apologize for.
You're the one making me repeat myself by continuously going on unrelated tangents. Perhaps if you didn't ask me if I was being personally bothered by your skepticism or if I was calling Trump guilty by association, and instead addressed the actual point I was making, I wouldn't have to repeat myself. Drone was spot-on. I recall the discussion perfectly, and you wrote that you had "no idea" of what was going on, and didn't know "what she was doing". You went out of your way to avoid recognizing it was obviously a Nazi salute. Also, an apologist is someone" who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something". Anyway, if you have nothing else to add, I suggest again we move on from this pointless back-and-forth. You can send me a PM if you'd like.
Almost every time I try to add something to the "discussion" with you, you call it a tangent and refuse to engage at all. I'm actually curious how old you are.
This is the reason I don't pretend to know what's going on in photos without context: + Show Spoiler +
What exactly did you want or expect me to say?
In which universe is not replying to my post and asking me instead if I'm personally bothered by your skepticism, or if I'm calling Trump guilty by association, "adding something to the discussion"? In both cases it's you dismissing the actual point being discussed in favor of a different position that you imagined and decided to attribute to me. Your picture shows hand gestures different from the one done by the protester, which was unmistakeably a Nazi salute. You could simply have said "It's a Nazi salute, but there are plenty of reasons she could have done it that don't involve wanting to actually show support for the Nazi". Instead, and like I've said repeatedly, you went out of your way to avoid calling it a Nazi salute.
I'm asking you those questions, including your age and what response you want from me that will get you to stop, because I'm obviously trying to figure out why you keep doing this to the thread. I've got your opinion already. The conversation was months ago. I just asked you point blank what you want me to say, and you have nothing, is that right?
I made my point quite some time ago, and you're the one who replied to my initial post. If you have nothing to say, feel free to stop replying or send me a PM to tell me about how you still have nothing to actually argue but still want to ask me random questions.
Why don't you stop replying if you can't answer something? It's not all about you. The question of how you want me to respond isn't random at all. But you apparently have no answer because you're posting just to repeat yourself.
Doesn't that look like the salute if you didn't know any better?
No one beats a dead horse like Kwizach.
No one argues that there is a "global cooling" going on instead of global warming, defends the merits of quasi-genocide against Muslims in the Middle East, embodies the "Thanks, Obama" meme, and supports Trump, like xDaunt. If you agree that this line of conversation is over, though, feel free to inform oBlade I already answered his question and invited him to take it to PM if he had any other irrelevant tangents he wanted to pursue.
On May 02 2016 09:44 xDaunt wrote: No one beats a dead horse like Kwizach.
Take "Kwizach" and swap the a and i, remove the w, and switch the z for an s. What do you get? + Show Spoiler +
Kasich, the guy who done Ohio real good
Curious what everyone thinks: is "the establishment" supporting Cruz right now because they prefer him to Trump, or because they think he is the most viable means for them to deny Trump the nomination and allow them to make a choice that would be better for them?
On May 02 2016 09:44 xDaunt wrote: No one beats a dead horse like Kwizach.
Take "Kwizach" and swap the a and i, remove the w, and switch the z for an s. What do you get? + Show Spoiler +
Kasich, the guy who done Ohio real good
Curious what everyone thinks: is "the establishment" supporting Cruz right now because they prefer him to Trump, or because they think he is the most viable means for them to deny Trump the nomination and allow them to make a choice that would be better for them?
All recent news story say they are giving up and just accepting Trump. Many of them sat on the sidelines, torn between their hatred of Cruz and fear of Trump.
If he wins Indiana (more and more likely), they will come around. Sort of. They at least pay lip service, while distancing themselves from him in every other way possible.
This is apparently your discovery of hindsight. It's "unmistakably" the Nazi salute because it happened in the past and we now have the photo's context. And you're not listening. I'm asking you what you expect me to say to you right now. As in what was your goal here?
On May 02 2016 10:12 oBlade wrote: This is apparently your discovery of hindsight. It's "unmistakably" the Nazi salute because it happened in the past and we now have the photo's context. And you're not listening. I'm asking you what you expect me to say to you right now. As in what was your goal here?
...except everyone but you recognized it for what it was before she confirmed it was the Nazi salute and before we had context, because it looks like the Nazi salute and not like anything else -- no need for hindsight. I'm not expecting you to say anything. You're the one who started replying to me for no reason except to say "nuh-uh!", and you've declined repeatedly my invitations to either stop replying or take it to PM. What are you trying to achieve here?
On May 02 2016 10:10 LegalLord wrote: Curious what everyone thinks: is "the establishment" supporting Cruz right now because they prefer him to Trump, or because they think he is the most viable means for them to deny Trump the nomination and allow them to make a choice that would be better for them?
They prefer him to Trump because of Trump's unpredictability. It's a basic application of the "Better the devil you know..." idiom.
On May 02 2016 10:12 oBlade wrote: This is apparently your discovery of hindsight. It's "unmistakably" the Nazi salute because it happened in the past and we now have the photo's context. And you're not listening. I'm asking you what you expect me to say to you right now. As in what was your goal here?
...except everyone but you recognized it for what it was before she confirmed it was the Nazi salute and before we had context, because it looks like the Nazi salute and not like anything else -- no need for hindsight. I'm not expecting you to say anything. You're the one who started replying to me for no reason except to say "nuh-uh!", and you've declined repeatedly my invitations to either stop replying or take it to PM. What are you trying to achieve here?
I'm having a discussion - don't you share that goal? Surely you didn't copy/paste to me a dozen times just to restate that you thought it was 100% certain that the woman was doing a Nazi salute? Did you think I wasn't aware of your opinion?
What's so different about the picture of the man I showed you, besides the angle of the shot, that makes the gesture totally different than the woman's?
After a half-century of waiting, passengers have finally set sail from Miami on an historic cruise to Cuba.
Carnival Corp’s 704-passenger Adonia left port at about 4:24pm local time, bound for Havana. The ship will also visit the ports of Cienfuegos and Santiago de Cuba along the way.
The cruise comes after Cuba loosened its policy banning Cuban-born people from arriving to the country by sea, a rule that threatened to stop the cruises from happening.
When it first announced the cruises, Carnival said it would bar Cuban-born passengers due to the government’s policy. But the Cuban-American community in Miami complained and filed a discrimination lawsuit in response.
After that, the company said it would only sail to Cuba if the policy changed, which Cuba did on 22 April. Cuba-born passengers were aboard when the Adonia left port on Sunday, the company said.
EPT
I'm actually curious how old you are.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Y1yaN3C.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/b2nBYzq.jpg)
