|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
It seems a small (yet somehow impossible) ask to me for people to argue with positions people have articulated rather than to imbue them with the positions they imagine they hold (whether they do or not).
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Despite rhetoric about financing their campaigns through grassroots support all but Warren and Sanders have been sucking up to wall street begging for cash.
In February, Pete Buttigieg stepped into the Manhattan office of Wall Street veteran Charles Myers to talk politics over deli sandwiches. Citigroup Inc. Managing Director Yann Coatanlem hosted a fundraiser in March for Kamala Harris at his Fifth Avenue apartment, where she shook the paw of the banker’s labradoodle. Three days later, former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. partner Bruce Heyman raised more than $100,000 for Amy Klobuchar at his home in Chicago. He’s planning an event for Joe Biden this fall.
The mayor of South Bend, Ind., the senators from California and Minnesota, and the ex-vice president are among the Democratic presidential candidates disavowing corporate cash, lobbyist checks, or the super PAC system. They’re trying to outdo each other with promises to finance their campaigns with grassroots contributions. But while they play down the role of money and influence, longtime Wall Street donors who have both say little has changed. “I’ve talked to about half of them, and I have not run into a single one who said, ‘Hey, you worked at Goldman Sachs, I can’t take your money,’ ” says Heyman, who helped elect Barack Obama by collecting checks from friends, and later became his ambassador to Canada. “I’ve not heard that—ever.”
There is one notable difference. “In the past, there was no candidate who didn’t come to New York, Chicago, L.A. for money,” says Lasry. “Today, there are two candidates who aren’t doing that—Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.” Few bankers would want to promote those senators anyhow. This month, Vermont’s Sanders proposed capping credit card interest rates, calling banks “modern-day loan sharks.” Warren, from Massachusetts, has pitched a tax on family assets above $50 million to wipe out student debt. She wants to jail executives whose companies’ negligence causes harm, citing bank bosses and the financial crisis.
www.bloomberg.com
|
On May 23 2019 08:26 On_Slaught wrote:
Sorry but I need to correct my post from yesterday. 5 kids have not died in US custody... it turns out 6 have, with the 6th being unreported since Sept 2018. Have to wonder how many others might be hidden from the public.
Somewhere in DC there is a GOP staffer desperately searching for records of a migrant child that died during the Obama administration.
My state practically shut down out child services department when a single child died due to negligence in the care of his parents. The parents were on the child services list of "troubled families" that required intervention and clearly that was the case. But it was still the parents fault, but the state agency took the heat for not doing enough. The Trump administration lets six kids die and just acts like it is nothing, because they are migrants and are unworthy of concern. All while pardoning convicted war criminals.
I would love to say the fight over buisness records and taxes was small compared to this stuff, but I know that the administration would fight 10 times harder if the democrats tried to investigate the border patrol's bullshit. The democrats can't take on that busted ass agency unless they control both chambers.
|
Like how they skipped a lot of other candidates in that embarrassing article. I'd toss that shit out or let the animals have it.
|
|
|
On May 23 2019 11:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
It seems a small (yet somehow impossible) ask to me for people to argue with positions people have articulated rather than to imbue them with the positions they imagine they hold (whether they do or not).
That would be perfectly fine, if their position on a given topic was actually articulated. We're only left to imagine what Danglars actually thinks on half the topics that come up in this thread, but I'm some kind of monster who thinks he's just "an amalgamation of other conservatives". If he wants to express his own opinion on a subject, rather than matador his way into a rhetorical 1-up on everyone he argues with, this wouldn't be an issue. At all.
|
On May 23 2019 11:07 JimmiC wrote:
Are we pretending that Newsunshine didn't restate his question in a clear and polite matter, or is he somehow held to the standard of the other poster that Danglars was not as found of? And if so isn't Danglars doing exactly what he says he is mad at? I mean he could just say, that is not my position this is, but he is working so very hard to not say his position so he can still celebrate with xD, with none of the risk of stating the position. But this is also your style many times so I guess you can appreciate it more than I can.
There are some real alternatives, I hope we see the Dem's go that route. However, I'm not sure how much this person will get done unless they also collect both houses. Trump had both and still struggled to get much done so I'm not even sure if that is a given unless everyone is pulling in the same direction.
Danglars stated a position people can take issue with, the problem is they wanted to take issue with things xDaunt said and wrongfully (at least so far as they've demonstrated) attribute them to Danglars, and apparently missed that xDaunt acknowledged this discrepancy in their stated positions and instead continue to impugn danglars personally since he refuses to defend an argument he didn't make.
Someone accused danglars without context
On May 23 2019 05:34 Rasalased wrote:
If people like xDaunt and Dangers are so determined to tell us that the Democrats are making a mistake in talking about Trump, money laundering, and Russia, does that then mean they think the opposite?
Danglars makes clear, the position he's taking.
On May 23 2019 05:41 Danglars wrote:
I said they’re making a mistake in impeachment talk and going after Barr. The rest is just commentary on the investigation into FISA warrants and the counterintelligence investigation.
Then people whine about him instead of just addressing his argument that impeachment talk and going after Barr is a mistake and instead want to argue a position he hasn't articulated but is easier for those doing it to argue against.
It makes it really hard to discuss even slightly complex stuff if people can just, without context, say someone's position is something it isn't and take offense at being expected to recognize and make amends for their error before continuing.
To me it looks like the people not addressing his argument as articulated are preventing the clarification they are claiming to be after, not danglars.
To put a point on it, it's more reasonable to presume Danglars isn't taking a position on whether the things he didn't specify are mistakes or not at the moment as xDaunt did, not continue to argue danglars is a jerk for not entertaining what started as a disingenuous representation of his position from which he is to argue out of.
On May 23 2019 11:36 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 11:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
It seems a small (yet somehow impossible) ask to me for people to argue with positions people have articulated rather than to imbue them with the positions they imagine they hold (whether they do or not). That would be perfectly fine, if their position on a given topic was actually articulated. We're only left to imagine what Danglars actually thinks on half the topics that come up in this thread, but I'm some kind of monster who thinks he's just "an amalgamation of other conservatives". If he wants to express his own opinion on a subject, rather than matador his way into a rhetorical 1-up on everyone he argues with, this wouldn't be an issue. At all.
Except he took a position, you just want to argue about something he didn't take a position on instead by assigning him a position he didn't articulate and are inexplicably upset at danglars for that.
|
This might be the last time I'll do this because it distracts from the thread.
If people like xDaunt and Dangers are so determined to tell us that the Democrats are making a mistake in talking about Trump, money laundering, and Russia On May 23 2019 05:57 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 05:41 Danglars wrote:
I said they’re making a mistake in impeachment talk and going after Barr. The rest is just commentary on the investigation into FISA warrants and the counterintelligence investigation. You really should spend more time reading my posts than the time you spend (mis)typing my name. I mean, xDaunt literally said
Zero retractions and zero quotes of my posts mean I have no reason to ignore the lies and answer new questions. It's positively Trumpian. Lie twice, and go on asking questions and act injured when you don't receive a response.
I have no reason to believe the new posts will be any better regarded than my old ones, so you can admit fault and apologize or continue to make up what I said to satisfy your own predispositions. Two choices. It's only fools that continue to answer questions and craft posts to people that literally just got done demonstrating they've read nothing and understood nothing.
|
On May 23 2019 11:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 11:07 JimmiC wrote:
Are we pretending that Newsunshine didn't restate his question in a clear and polite matter, or is he somehow held to the standard of the other poster that Danglars was not as found of? And if so isn't Danglars doing exactly what he says he is mad at? I mean he could just say, that is not my position this is, but he is working so very hard to not say his position so he can still celebrate with xD, with none of the risk of stating the position. But this is also your style many times so I guess you can appreciate it more than I can.
There are some real alternatives, I hope we see the Dem's go that route. However, I'm not sure how much this person will get done unless they also collect both houses. Trump had both and still struggled to get much done so I'm not even sure if that is a given unless everyone is pulling in the same direction.
Danglars stated a position people can take issue with, the problem is they wanted to take issue with things xDaunt said and wrongfully (at least so far as they've demonstrated) attribute them to Danglars, and apparently missed that xDaunt acknowledged this discrepancy in their stated positions and instead continue to impugn danglars personally since he refuses to defend an argument he didn't make. Someone accused danglars without context Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 05:34 Rasalased wrote:
If people like xDaunt and Dangers are so determined to tell us that the Democrats are making a mistake in talking about Trump, money laundering, and Russia, does that then mean they think the opposite? Danglars makes clear, the position he's taking. Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 05:41 Danglars wrote:
I said they’re making a mistake in impeachment talk and going after Barr. The rest is just commentary on the investigation into FISA warrants and the counterintelligence investigation. Then people whine about him instead of just addressing his argument that impeachment talk and going after Barr is a mistake and instead want to argue a position he hasn't articulated but is easier for those doing it to argue against. It makes it really hard to discuss even slightly complex stuff if people can just, without context, say someone's position is something it isn't and take offense at being expected to recognize and make amends for their error before continuing. To me it looks like the people not addressing his argument as articulated are preventing the clarification they are claiming to be after, not danglars. To put a point on it, it's more reasonable to presume Danglars isn't taking a position on whether the things he didn't specify are mistakes or not at the moment as xDaunt did, not continue to argue danglars is a jerk for not entertaining what started as a disingenuous representation of his position from which he is to argue out of. Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 11:36 NewSunshine wrote:On May 23 2019 11:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
It seems a small (yet somehow impossible) ask to me for people to argue with positions people have articulated rather than to imbue them with the positions they imagine they hold (whether they do or not). That would be perfectly fine, if their position on a given topic was actually articulated. We're only left to imagine what Danglars actually thinks on half the topics that come up in this thread, but I'm some kind of monster who thinks he's just "an amalgamation of other conservatives". If he wants to express his own opinion on a subject, rather than matador his way into a rhetorical 1-up on everyone he argues with, this wouldn't be an issue. At all. Except he took a position, you just want to argue about something he didn't take a position on instead by assigning him a position he didn't articulate and are inexplicably upset at danglars for that.
Thank you for reading. I may disagree with you on most of your political philosophy, but I know I'm generally read and understood. I swear, I say enough controversial things on a variety of topics to avoid people having to assign false positions to me. Fifteen minutes of posting could be solved with two minutes of
Argue with anything I've written, provided you keep it civil.
On May 23 2019 11:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +In February, Pete Buttigieg stepped into the Manhattan office of Wall Street veteran Charles Myers to talk politics over deli sandwiches. Citigroup Inc. Managing Director Yann Coatanlem hosted a fundraiser in March for Kamala Harris at his Fifth Avenue apartment, where she shook the paw of the banker’s labradoodle. Three days later, former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. partner Bruce Heyman raised more than $100,000 for Amy Klobuchar at his home in Chicago. He’s planning an event for Joe Biden this fall.
The mayor of South Bend, Ind., the senators from California and Minnesota, and the ex-vice president are among the Democratic presidential candidates disavowing corporate cash, lobbyist checks, or the super PAC system. They’re trying to outdo each other with promises to finance their campaigns with grassroots contributions. But while they play down the role of money and influence, longtime Wall Street donors who have both say little has changed. “I’ve talked to about half of them, and I have not run into a single one who said, ‘Hey, you worked at Goldman Sachs, I can’t take your money,’ ” says Heyman, who helped elect Barack Obama by collecting checks from friends, and later became his ambassador to Canada. “I’ve not heard that—ever.”
There is one notable difference. “In the past, there was no candidate who didn’t come to New York, Chicago, L.A. for money,” says Lasry. “Today, there are two candidates who aren’t doing that—Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.” Few bankers would want to promote those senators anyhow. This month, Vermont’s Sanders proposed capping credit card interest rates, calling banks “modern-day loan sharks.” Warren, from Massachusetts, has pitched a tax on family assets above $50 million to wipe out student debt. She wants to jail executives whose companies’ negligence causes harm, citing bank bosses and the financial crisis. www.bloomberg.com
Biden's really the one in front racking up a ton of big money donors. It's a little sad to see Buttigieg wading into it. In my opinion, it hurts his image. Klobuchar too. It's expected for Kamala.
|
|
|
On May 23 2019 12:58 JimmiC wrote:Thank you Danglars, im excited for the new you that answers. I choose this story of yours. We have many questions you never answered so start with those. + Show Spoiler +On March 16 2019 02:06 Danglars wrote:
Stories abound. My pro life friend was an unviable fetus for several months up to birth. She was diagnosed with huge abnormalities that guaranteed a death soon after birth. Her mom still wanted to have her after being encouraged to have an abortion by her doctors, friends, and family. Some of the stuff they said to her mom was pure evil.
The surgeons were ready the second she was born to operate. She was rushed into the operating room, mom didn’t even get to hold her. Everything was fine inside. No problems. She’s in her early thirties now. She has had to exercise a lot of forgiveness to the people that wanted to kill her.
I’m very much at odds with people that deny the humanity of the fetus to make it sound like abortion is as morally unquestionable as removing a tumor. Ok. I know the current political climate means compromise on when to legally permit the killing of your unborn child (and who decides). None of that justifies the baby-killers protestors of clinics.
There’s also the morally grey protestors that remind expectant mothers that their baby has a heartbeat, can feel pain, and know the sound of their mothers voice. I know people who are alive today because their mom changed their mind a few steps from the door of the abortion clinic. Talk to them and you might find a moral dilemma condemning all protestors. The questions were, Show nested quote +On March 17 2019 01:15 KwarK wrote:
What confuses me is the part where the girl who everyone agreed would definitely not live is alive. We skipped over a resurrection somewhere in the story. Show nested quote +On March 16 2019 06:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Just answer the question Danglars. What "Some of the stuff they said to her mom was pure evil." Go on. You are happy to give an anecdote, but not to elaborate on the part that doesn't make any sense in context. Show nested quote +On March 19 2019 07:59 Plansix wrote:
I want to know the name of the hospital and doctors involved, because they must be terrible at their job to declare a healthy baby to be a non-viable fetus. The world needs to know.
Am I going to have to be the one to point out there isn't a question mark in this entire post?
|
|
|
On May 23 2019 13:50 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 13:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2019 12:58 JimmiC wrote:Thank you Danglars, im excited for the new you that answers. I choose this story of yours. We have many questions you never answered so start with those. + Show Spoiler +On March 16 2019 02:06 Danglars wrote:
Stories abound. My pro life friend was an unviable fetus for several months up to birth. She was diagnosed with huge abnormalities that guaranteed a death soon after birth. Her mom still wanted to have her after being encouraged to have an abortion by her doctors, friends, and family. Some of the stuff they said to her mom was pure evil.
The surgeons were ready the second she was born to operate. She was rushed into the operating room, mom didn’t even get to hold her. Everything was fine inside. No problems. She’s in her early thirties now. She has had to exercise a lot of forgiveness to the people that wanted to kill her.
I’m very much at odds with people that deny the humanity of the fetus to make it sound like abortion is as morally unquestionable as removing a tumor. Ok. I know the current political climate means compromise on when to legally permit the killing of your unborn child (and who decides). None of that justifies the baby-killers protestors of clinics.
There’s also the morally grey protestors that remind expectant mothers that their baby has a heartbeat, can feel pain, and know the sound of their mothers voice. I know people who are alive today because their mom changed their mind a few steps from the door of the abortion clinic. Talk to them and you might find a moral dilemma condemning all protestors. The questions were, On March 17 2019 01:15 KwarK wrote:
What confuses me is the part where the girl who everyone agreed would definitely not live is alive. We skipped over a resurrection somewhere in the story. On March 16 2019 06:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Just answer the question Danglars. What "Some of the stuff they said to her mom was pure evil." Go on. You are happy to give an anecdote, but not to elaborate on the part that doesn't make any sense in context. On March 19 2019 07:59 Plansix wrote:
I want to know the name of the hospital and doctors involved, because they must be terrible at their job to declare a healthy baby to be a non-viable fetus. The world needs to know. Am I going to have to be the one to point out there isn't a question mark in this entire post? I might be missing your point here. Do you think because the people did not put question marks Danglars was unaware they were questions? Or did you purely make that post to be a jerk? Or are you simply pointing out that those are more statements of fact and Danglars story is completely made up? Id rather let him answer, but feel free to chime in.
They literally aren't questions, at best they are rhetorical questions that didn't intend a response or signal an effort at good faith dialogue (they assumed danglars story wasn't either, perhaps correctly).
If you're going to impugn someone by suggesting they don't answer questions it would behoove your argument to provide questions, not barbs vaguely masked as curiosity as your weapon.
If you want him to elaborate on the story, ask a question that doesn't presume things he didn't write is the point.
|
Meh I’ve asked questions before only to be ignored as well. It’s not a one time thing or anything.
|
On May 23 2019 14:18 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Meh I’ve asked questions before only to be ignored as well. It’s not a one time thing or anything.
I mean I have a position of put up or shut up when it comes to accusations like this. If I wanted to make this argument about xDaunt I would point to my question about where the internment of Japanese Americans falls in his articulated framework of intranational morality vs. international amorality as an example of him dodging a direct and reasonable question.
Then he could argue the merit of my argument instead of a post like this which can only hope to trigger a "nu uh" type of post in response from the accused. Because while the accusation is specific and oft repeated the supporting evidence is far more scarcely referenced.
I might as well say now that I think the argument in question could be made and won, the point danglars and myself are pointing out is we can't get there if your arguments are simply unsubstantiated allegations that people double down on and scoff off the expectation they use something beyond hegemonic perception as evidence.
|
|
|
On May 23 2019 14:38 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 14:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2019 13:50 JimmiC wrote:On May 23 2019 13:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2019 12:58 JimmiC wrote:Thank you Danglars, im excited for the new you that answers. I choose this story of yours. We have many questions you never answered so start with those. + Show Spoiler +On March 16 2019 02:06 Danglars wrote:
Stories abound. My pro life friend was an unviable fetus for several months up to birth. She was diagnosed with huge abnormalities that guaranteed a death soon after birth. Her mom still wanted to have her after being encouraged to have an abortion by her doctors, friends, and family. Some of the stuff they said to her mom was pure evil.
The surgeons were ready the second she was born to operate. She was rushed into the operating room, mom didn’t even get to hold her. Everything was fine inside. No problems. She’s in her early thirties now. She has had to exercise a lot of forgiveness to the people that wanted to kill her.
I’m very much at odds with people that deny the humanity of the fetus to make it sound like abortion is as morally unquestionable as removing a tumor. Ok. I know the current political climate means compromise on when to legally permit the killing of your unborn child (and who decides). None of that justifies the baby-killers protestors of clinics.
There’s also the morally grey protestors that remind expectant mothers that their baby has a heartbeat, can feel pain, and know the sound of their mothers voice. I know people who are alive today because their mom changed their mind a few steps from the door of the abortion clinic. Talk to them and you might find a moral dilemma condemning all protestors. The questions were, On March 17 2019 01:15 KwarK wrote:
What confuses me is the part where the girl who everyone agreed would definitely not live is alive. We skipped over a resurrection somewhere in the story. On March 16 2019 06:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Just answer the question Danglars. What "Some of the stuff they said to her mom was pure evil." Go on. You are happy to give an anecdote, but not to elaborate on the part that doesn't make any sense in context. On March 19 2019 07:59 Plansix wrote:
I want to know the name of the hospital and doctors involved, because they must be terrible at their job to declare a healthy baby to be a non-viable fetus. The world needs to know. Am I going to have to be the one to point out there isn't a question mark in this entire post? I might be missing your point here. Do you think because the people did not put question marks Danglars was unaware they were questions? Or did you purely make that post to be a jerk? Or are you simply pointing out that those are more statements of fact and Danglars story is completely made up? Id rather let him answer, but feel free to chime in. They literally aren't questions, at best they are rhetorical questions that didn't intend a response or signal an effort at good faith dialogue (they assumed danglars story wasn't either, perhaps correctly). If you're going to impugn someone by suggesting they don't answer questions it would behoove your argument to provide questions, not barbs vaguely masked as curiosity as your weapon. If you want him to elaborate on the story, ask a question that doesn't presume things he didn't write is the point. What did they say that was pure evil, is not a question? What happened to the girl, is not a question? What hospital was this at, is not a question? If you would like I could rewrite them with question marks so it is clearer for you. There were others in the thread with them, I guess I should have picked them or rewrote it Or instead of constantly dodging shit, him or you could just answer straight forward.
Yes, that was my point. That if you wanted to accuse him of not answering questions you should have provided examples of him not answering questions, or simply asked the questions. Also that the indignant attitude toward rather rudimentary expectations is unbecoming.
|
|
|
On May 23 2019 17:09 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 14:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2019 14:38 JimmiC wrote:On May 23 2019 14:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2019 13:50 JimmiC wrote:On May 23 2019 13:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2019 12:58 JimmiC wrote:Thank you Danglars, im excited for the new you that answers. I choose this story of yours. We have many questions you never answered so start with those. + Show Spoiler +On March 16 2019 02:06 Danglars wrote:
Stories abound. My pro life friend was an unviable fetus for several months up to birth. She was diagnosed with huge abnormalities that guaranteed a death soon after birth. Her mom still wanted to have her after being encouraged to have an abortion by her doctors, friends, and family. Some of the stuff they said to her mom was pure evil.
The surgeons were ready the second she was born to operate. She was rushed into the operating room, mom didn’t even get to hold her. Everything was fine inside. No problems. She’s in her early thirties now. She has had to exercise a lot of forgiveness to the people that wanted to kill her.
I’m very much at odds with people that deny the humanity of the fetus to make it sound like abortion is as morally unquestionable as removing a tumor. Ok. I know the current political climate means compromise on when to legally permit the killing of your unborn child (and who decides). None of that justifies the baby-killers protestors of clinics.
There’s also the morally grey protestors that remind expectant mothers that their baby has a heartbeat, can feel pain, and know the sound of their mothers voice. I know people who are alive today because their mom changed their mind a few steps from the door of the abortion clinic. Talk to them and you might find a moral dilemma condemning all protestors. The questions were, On March 17 2019 01:15 KwarK wrote:
What confuses me is the part where the girl who everyone agreed would definitely not live is alive. We skipped over a resurrection somewhere in the story. On March 16 2019 06:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Just answer the question Danglars. What "Some of the stuff they said to her mom was pure evil." Go on. You are happy to give an anecdote, but not to elaborate on the part that doesn't make any sense in context. On March 19 2019 07:59 Plansix wrote:
I want to know the name of the hospital and doctors involved, because they must be terrible at their job to declare a healthy baby to be a non-viable fetus. The world needs to know. Am I going to have to be the one to point out there isn't a question mark in this entire post? I might be missing your point here. Do you think because the people did not put question marks Danglars was unaware they were questions? Or did you purely make that post to be a jerk? Or are you simply pointing out that those are more statements of fact and Danglars story is completely made up? Id rather let him answer, but feel free to chime in. They literally aren't questions, at best they are rhetorical questions that didn't intend a response or signal an effort at good faith dialogue (they assumed danglars story wasn't either, perhaps correctly). If you're going to impugn someone by suggesting they don't answer questions it would behoove your argument to provide questions, not barbs vaguely masked as curiosity as your weapon. If you want him to elaborate on the story, ask a question that doesn't presume things he didn't write is the point. What did they say that was pure evil, is not a question? What happened to the girl, is not a question? What hospital was this at, is not a question? If you would like I could rewrite them with question marks so it is clearer for you. There were others in the thread with them, I guess I should have picked them or rewrote it Or instead of constantly dodging shit, him or you could just answer straight forward. Yes, that was my point. That if you wanted to accuse him of not answering questions you should have provided examples of him not answering questions, or simply asked the questions. Also that the indignant attitude toward rather rudimentary expectations is unbecoming. My sincerest apologies. I was unaware when he offered to answer any questions to what he had written that there was such a strict formula to follow and that I had to first get it by his internet lawyer who shares his predilections for long word salads that obscure the point in an attempt to dodge them. Let me know if this is better. Here is your post Danglars. + Show Spoiler +On March 16 2019 02:06 Danglars wrote:
Stories abound. My pro life friend was an unviable fetus for several months up to birth. She was diagnosed with huge abnormalities that guaranteed a death soon after birth. Her mom still wanted to have her after being encouraged to have an abortion by her doctors, friends, and family. Some of the stuff they said to her mom was pure evil.
The surgeons were ready the second she was born to operate. She was rushed into the operating room, mom didn’t even get to hold her. Everything was fine inside. No problems. She’s in her early thirties now. She has had to exercise a lot of forgiveness to the people that wanted to kill her.
I’m very much at odds with people that deny the humanity of the fetus to make it sound like abortion is as morally unquestionable as removing a tumor. Ok. I know the current political climate means compromise on when to legally permit the killing of your unborn child (and who decides). None of that justifies the baby-killers protestors of clinics.
There’s also the morally grey protestors that remind expectant mothers that their baby has a heartbeat, can feel pain, and know the sound of their mothers voice. I know people who are alive today because their mom changed their mind a few steps from the door of the abortion clinic. Talk to them and you might find a moral dilemma condemning all protestors. What were the pure evil things that doctors friends and family said to her? How did the girl who everyone said would not live did live? What was the diagnosis and how was it wrong? What and where was the hospital and who were the Doctors that made this mistake?
I brought that up when you conversed about your wife's sad loss and what that meant to you. You then accused me of malice and hurt on "something I have expressed was extremely painful and the worst moment of my life" and "this type of posting and person is who the moderators should be looking to remove." I cannot in good faith pursue any conversation on this subject with you knowing just how much I was in the wrong for talking in detached manner about the subject and not showing empathy and support. I think the best course of action is to cool it on this subject. The old assertion by Rasalased is very worn out as well.
|
On May 23 2019 17:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 17:09 JimmiC wrote:On May 23 2019 14:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2019 14:38 JimmiC wrote:On May 23 2019 14:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2019 13:50 JimmiC wrote:On May 23 2019 13:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2019 12:58 JimmiC wrote:Thank you Danglars, im excited for the new you that answers. I choose this story of yours. We have many questions you never answered so start with those. + Show Spoiler +On March 16 2019 02:06 Danglars wrote:
Stories abound. My pro life friend was an unviable fetus for several months up to birth. She was diagnosed with huge abnormalities that guaranteed a death soon after birth. Her mom still wanted to have her after being encouraged to have an abortion by her doctors, friends, and family. Some of the stuff they said to her mom was pure evil.
The surgeons were ready the second she was born to operate. She was rushed into the operating room, mom didn’t even get to hold her. Everything was fine inside. No problems. She’s in her early thirties now. She has had to exercise a lot of forgiveness to the people that wanted to kill her.
I’m very much at odds with people that deny the humanity of the fetus to make it sound like abortion is as morally unquestionable as removing a tumor. Ok. I know the current political climate means compromise on when to legally permit the killing of your unborn child (and who decides). None of that justifies the baby-killers protestors of clinics.
There’s also the morally grey protestors that remind expectant mothers that their baby has a heartbeat, can feel pain, and know the sound of their mothers voice. I know people who are alive today because their mom changed their mind a few steps from the door of the abortion clinic. Talk to them and you might find a moral dilemma condemning all protestors. The questions were, On March 17 2019 01:15 KwarK wrote:
What confuses me is the part where the girl who everyone agreed would definitely not live is alive. We skipped over a resurrection somewhere in the story. On March 16 2019 06:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Just answer the question Danglars. What "Some of the stuff they said to her mom was pure evil." Go on. You are happy to give an anecdote, but not to elaborate on the part that doesn't make any sense in context. On March 19 2019 07:59 Plansix wrote:
I want to know the name of the hospital and doctors involved, because they must be terrible at their job to declare a healthy baby to be a non-viable fetus. The world needs to know. Am I going to have to be the one to point out there isn't a question mark in this entire post? I might be missing your point here. Do you think because the people did not put question marks Danglars was unaware they were questions? Or did you purely make that post to be a jerk? Or are you simply pointing out that those are more statements of fact and Danglars story is completely made up? Id rather let him answer, but feel free to chime in. They literally aren't questions, at best they are rhetorical questions that didn't intend a response or signal an effort at good faith dialogue (they assumed danglars story wasn't either, perhaps correctly). If you're going to impugn someone by suggesting they don't answer questions it would behoove your argument to provide questions, not barbs vaguely masked as curiosity as your weapon. If you want him to elaborate on the story, ask a question that doesn't presume things he didn't write is the point. What did they say that was pure evil, is not a question? What happened to the girl, is not a question? What hospital was this at, is not a question? If you would like I could rewrite them with question marks so it is clearer for you. There were others in the thread with them, I guess I should have picked them or rewrote it Or instead of constantly dodging shit, him or you could just answer straight forward. Yes, that was my point. That if you wanted to accuse him of not answering questions you should have provided examples of him not answering questions, or simply asked the questions. Also that the indignant attitude toward rather rudimentary expectations is unbecoming. My sincerest apologies. I was unaware when he offered to answer any questions to what he had written that there was such a strict formula to follow and that I had to first get it by his internet lawyer who shares his predilections for long word salads that obscure the point in an attempt to dodge them. Let me know if this is better. Here is your post Danglars. + Show Spoiler +On March 16 2019 02:06 Danglars wrote:
Stories abound. My pro life friend was an unviable fetus for several months up to birth. She was diagnosed with huge abnormalities that guaranteed a death soon after birth. Her mom still wanted to have her after being encouraged to have an abortion by her doctors, friends, and family. Some of the stuff they said to her mom was pure evil.
The surgeons were ready the second she was born to operate. She was rushed into the operating room, mom didn’t even get to hold her. Everything was fine inside. No problems. She’s in her early thirties now. She has had to exercise a lot of forgiveness to the people that wanted to kill her.
I’m very much at odds with people that deny the humanity of the fetus to make it sound like abortion is as morally unquestionable as removing a tumor. Ok. I know the current political climate means compromise on when to legally permit the killing of your unborn child (and who decides). None of that justifies the baby-killers protestors of clinics.
There’s also the morally grey protestors that remind expectant mothers that their baby has a heartbeat, can feel pain, and know the sound of their mothers voice. I know people who are alive today because their mom changed their mind a few steps from the door of the abortion clinic. Talk to them and you might find a moral dilemma condemning all protestors. What were the pure evil things that doctors friends and family said to her? How did the girl who everyone said would not live did live? What was the diagnosis and how was it wrong? What and where was the hospital and who were the Doctors that made this mistake? I brought that up when you conversed about your wife's sad loss and what that meant to you. You then accused me of malice and hurt on "something I have expressed was extremely painful and the worst moment of my life" and "this type of posting and person is who the moderators should be looking to remove." I cannot in good faith pursue any conversation on this subject with you knowing just how much I was in the wrong for talking in detached manner about the subject and not showing empathy and support. I think the best course of action is to cool it on this subject. The old assertion by Rasalased is very worn out as well.
Okay, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Someone's wife being severely distraught after a miscarriage is not an extraordinary claim. Whereas your claim most definitely was. In the eternally useful words of Wikipedia: [citation needed]
|
The fact that Dangers is so worked up about it really tells you something, right?
But maybe the people debating them could answer. They are both extremely hardcore loyal GOPers. They are both arguing here for years. If they think dems talking about Trump and impeachment is a mistake, they would want dem supporting posters here to think the opposite, right?
User was warned for this post: Please try harder to spell users' names correctly
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
