1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Time to give Trump Presidency it's own Thread.Follow

#877 Jan 16 2018 at 9:20 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,003 posts
Decided that they're out of context before even hearing them eh?
#878 Jan 17 2018 at 12:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Allegory wrote:
Decided that they're out of context before even hearing them eh?

Gbaji is not a complicated guy.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#879 Jan 17 2018 at 9:04 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,641 posts
California is trying to split politically again, this time in half instead of into six.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#880 Jan 17 2018 at 9:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
So any predictions on what Bannon will say to the grand jury? Should be interesting...

Smiley: popcorn


I'm sure the out of context quotes leaked to the media will be much more interesting. Oh wait! That was probably what you were talking about. My bad!
Well don't get me wrong liberal outrage does have it's amusing side, kind of like a kitten that gets all floofed up when in attack mode. This was more about reports coming out that he was going to be more open about testifying to the grand jury than to congress, and him being quasi-adversarial with the president as of late.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#881 Jan 17 2018 at 9:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, Trump played the Executive Privilege card which meant that Bannon was curtailed in what he could say to Congress but no such protections apply to the grand jury investigation. So it's bound to produce more information.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#882 Jan 17 2018 at 9:49 AM Rating: Good
***
1,088 posts
Gbaji, you ******* ******. Answer me this question: why are you so stupid?

And don't ******* ***** out by rejecting my premise or trying to turn things around on me. You ARE stupid, and you WILL explain why.

Or I'll yell really loud.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#883 Jan 17 2018 at 10:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,331 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
California is trying to split politically again, this time in half instead of into six.


We're not, actually. That rumor is being floated (again) by RT, the Russian news outlet for useful idiots.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#884 Jan 17 2018 at 11:10 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,641 posts
Samira wrote:
We're not, actually. That rumor is being floated (again) by RT, the Russian news outlet for useful idiots.
Well, I got it from Fox News.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#885 Jan 17 2018 at 8:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,380 posts
Allegory wrote:
Decided that they're out of context before even hearing them eh?


Just making an historical observation about closed door hearings and what typically gets leaked out of them.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#886 Jan 17 2018 at 9:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,380 posts
Samira wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
California is trying to split politically again, this time in half instead of into six.


We're not, actually. That rumor is being floated (again) by RT, the Russian news outlet for useful idiots.


You mean the Russian funded news outlet that made up about 85% of the report on Russian election meddling that was "released" by 17 intelligence agencies (but written by just three)? Those of us who actually read the report, rather than just repeating what others told us about it, know this. We also know that the report detailed year by year information about this outlet, how it operates, how it's funded, and how it influences election outcomes (and how its issues positions reads like the planks in the Democratic party platform).


But hey. All anyone talks about is how the Russians hacked the DNC and leaked to wikileaks to help Trump win the election. Cause that's what the report was all about, right? Lol! That bit is like one paragraph in the report dropped in absent any support or context, suspiciously similarly to how the whole "riot that grew out of outrage over a video" showed up in the Behghazi report. I'm sure there was no executive meddling in that one at all.

What? Someone had to at least mention Trump, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#887 Jan 17 2018 at 9:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,380 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
So any predictions on what Bannon will say to the grand jury? Should be interesting...

Smiley: popcorn


I'm sure the out of context quotes leaked to the media will be much more interesting. Oh wait! That was probably what you were talking about. My bad!
Well don't get me wrong liberal outrage does have it's amusing side, kind of like a kitten that gets all floofed up when in attack mode. This was more about reports coming out that he was going to be more open about testifying to the grand jury than to congress, and him being quasi-adversarial with the president as of late.


I think that liberals love to grossly exaggerate divisions within the GOP, I guess out of some need to support their own inner narrative or something. They then sit around fantasizing about all the juicy things that might be said, or happen. They get themselves really worked up about this, buying every leaked quote, allegation, and speculation that shows up, printing it in their periodicals, and breathlessly reading what was printed, patting themselves on the back for how well informed about the issues they are.

And then reality shows up, and it's not remotely close to what they thought. And instead of concluding that maybe they should stop listening to and believing the liberal echo chamber, they speculate about cover ups, and conspiracies instead. Um... Bannon and Trump had a falling out. It was almost certainly not remotely about Russia. I happen to think the entire Russia thing is a complete smokescreen handed to the rabid left to give them something to believe in other than the simple fact that the Dems failed them.

This is almost certainly going to be one guy with a big ego blaming another guy with a big ego for his own dumb decisions. But those decisions weren't about Russia. They weren't about election tampering. They weren't about anything other than disagreements over who gets to decide the political equivalent of the color of the drapes on the wall. It'll be much ado about nothing.

But I'm sure they'll find something titillating to provide to the audience at home. Probably something juicy Bannon called Trump one time, or his recollection of an opinion someone had about why someone else might have done something. More red meat for the crowd. We demand bread and circuses!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#888 Jan 18 2018 at 1:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Those of us who actually read the report, rather than just repeating what others told us about it, know this

No one believes that you read anything and "repeating what others told them" is your usual operation.

So, you read that Haidt book yet? The one where you read someone else's book review and started pretending that you were an expert? Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#889 Jan 18 2018 at 8:18 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,641 posts
Jophiel wrote:
No one believes that you read anything and "repeating what others told them" is your usual operation.
Looks like someone hit the factory reset. He's back to using "liberal" as a derogative again. Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#890 Jan 19 2018 at 7:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,380 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Those of us who actually read the report, rather than just repeating what others told us about it, know this

No one believes that you read anything and "repeating what others told them" is your usual operation.


Ah, so ignore what I wrote about the report, don't bother to determine if it's accurate, and just toss rhetoric in my direction instead. That's pretty much par for the course. Yes Joph. I've read the report. I read it shortly after it came out. I've posted about it here on this forum. How about addressing what I'm saying instead of just denying that I read some source somewhere?

Quote:
So, you read that Haidt book yet? The one where you read someone else's book review and started pretending that you were an expert? Smiley: laugh


Yeah. Kinda the same thing. No, I haven't read the book. I told you this way back when. I've told you this every time you've raised the issue. I have also pointed out, multiple times, that the book is not the only source of information (much less the best source) about the subject I was talking about. The guy has a freaking website where he talks about his pillar theory, explains it in great detail, writes blogs about it, answers people's questions, provides data on the studies he's done related to it (which aren't in the book btw), and a host of things that are quite sufficient for someone to speak intelligently about the subject.

What's more telling is that you have not once even bothered to attempt to argue that my understanding of what he was talking about is actually wrong. You're just playing this silly game instead. If you think I'm wrong about something, say that, and then back it up. Bypassing the discussion entirely is counterproductive.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#891 Jan 19 2018 at 7:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,380 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
No one believes that you read anything and "repeating what others told them" is your usual operation.
Looks like someone hit the factory reset. He's back to using "liberal" as a derogative again. Smiley: disappointed


If it were a derogative, then the term itself would be offensive. It's not. It's a label that applies to a group of people based on their socio-political alignment. Using it to reference that group of people is proper. Following that up with several paragraphs describing my observations of the behavior of that group is certainly proper as well. Now, if you disagree with my description and evaluation of their behavior, you're free to disagree. But simply hand waving the whole thing away by declaring that I'm using the word "liberal" as an offensive term is, much like Joph's response, completely non-productive.

Not that I suspect you want to be productive, but whatever.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#892 Jan 20 2018 at 12:55 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,609 posts
Seeing as the dictionary definition for liberal is "open-minded anf amenable to change" and that for conservative is "close-minded and resistant to change" I'm OK with gbaji using those terms, because it's funny.

Edited, Jan 19th 2018 11:56pm by Bijou
____________________________
Smash wrote:
My next mixed metaphor will include chocolate cake.

#893 Jan 20 2018 at 1:00 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,609 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
No one believes that you read anything and "repeating what others told them" is your usual operation.
Looks like someone hit the factory reset. He's back to using "liberal" as a derogative again. Smiley: disappointed


If it were a derogative, then the term itself would be offensive. It's not..
Any word can be derogative if the context makes it so.


Remember when we used to use "gbaji'd" in place of "raped"? "gbaji" is not, in and of itself derogatory, but we sure turned it into a derogative anyway, didn't we?


NERN2ENGRISH.
____________________________
Smash wrote:
My next mixed metaphor will include chocolate cake.

#894 Jan 20 2018 at 1:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
How about addressing what I'm saying instead of just denying that I read some source somewhere?

Because, in all sincerity and honesty, I don't believe you've read it.

Quote:
No, I haven't read the book. I told you this way back when. I've told you this every time you've raised the issue. I have also pointed out, multiple times, that the book is not the only source of information (much less the best source) about the subject I was talking about.

You're adorable.

"You guys are listening to other sources about this report but I've actually read it! Well, I claim to have anyway..."
"Why on earth would I need to read a book when I can just have other people tell me what it said?"

Quote:
The guy has a freaking website

I've read the website. It's not remotely in depth and nothing approaching the book. Know how I know this? Because I've read the book so I'm actually qualified to make that statement as opposed to someone who is just trying to make excuses for why he'd rather parrot what a book report told him than potentially have his comfortably cherry-picked lines challenged.

But tell us again all about how you don't let other people tell you what to think.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#895 Jan 22 2018 at 9:12 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,641 posts
gbaji wrote:
If it were a derogative, then the term itself would be offensive. It's not.
That's not how derogatives work, genius. Do I also have to explain why "genius" in that sentence is a derogative? Most people could probably pick up on it, but with you I'm just not sure.
gbaji wrote:
Not that I suspect you want to be productive, but whatever.
I'd like to imagine you learning basic High School English would be a lot more productive use of our time than your just being a contrarian.

Edited, Jan 22nd 2018 10:15am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#896 Jan 23 2018 at 9:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,380 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If it were a derogative, then the term itself would be offensive. It's not.
That's not how derogatives work, genius.


That is exactly how derogatives work.

Quote:
Do I also have to explain why "genius" in that sentence is a derogative?


It's not. I get that you used the wrong term and are attempting to double down on it, or something, but you are still wrong.

Quote:
Most people could probably pick up on it, but with you I'm just not sure.


Most people would properly label your use of the term as irony. Because... wait for it... that's how you were using the term.

Quote:
I'd like to imagine you learning basic High School English would be a lot more productive use of our time than your just being a contrarian.


This is also an example of irony. Unintended irony, but irony nonetheless.

Edited, Jan 23rd 2018 7:29pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#897 Jan 23 2018 at 9:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,380 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
How about addressing what I'm saying instead of just denying that I read some source somewhere?

Because, in all sincerity and honesty, I don't believe you've read it.


And you'd be wrong on that.

Quote:
Quote:
The guy has a freaking website

I've read the website. It's not remotely in depth and nothing approaching the book.


Which would be a great argument if the thing I was talking about was stuff in the book that *isn't* on the web site, or wasn't referenced in the study he conducted, which is what I was specifically talking about.

But that's not the case here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#898 Jan 24 2018 at 12:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Which would be a great argument if the thing I was talking about was stuff in the book that *isn't* on the web site, or wasn't referenced in the study he conducted, which is what I was specifically talking about.

It's a great argument that you're talking about concepts of which you have very shallow and selective knowledge because you're basing them off a rather shallow overview from a website and the cherry-picking of some conservative books reviews all delighted that someone said some less than stellar things about liberals.

Look, whatever. I know you're never going to read the book. You're absolutely not the sort to challenge yourself and you'd rather make a thousand excuses for why you're just too damn special to need to read it than risk reading something that doesn't fit neatly into your beliefs. "Hey, this guy said liberals are like X! Haha, boy ain't that the truth! He said conservatives are what now? Well, I never read that and I don't ever intend to but ain't that something about the liberals? Haha!" It's cool, we've been at this for going on two decades now or something. Trust me, you're not exactly full of surprises.

Edited, Jan 24th 2018 9:40am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#899 Jan 24 2018 at 9:13 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,641 posts
gbaji wrote:
That is exactly how derogatives work.
It isn't. I'd suggest checking a dictionary (or even Google) but you're already back peddling from reading another book so it'd be kind of redundant.
gbaji wrote:
I get that you used the wrong term and are attempting to double down on it, or something, but you are still wrong.
Not according to any dictionary, in this reality at least, but that was a nice attempt at using terms that were used on you. Like a parrot, this one.
gbaji wrote:
Most people would properly label your use of the term as irony. Because... wait for it... that's how you were using the term.
Most people would recognize the use of irony derogatorily, but ... well, wait for it ... you don't understand how derogatives work in the first place, Shakespeare.
gbaji wrote:
Unintended irony, but irony nonetheless.
You trying to explain a language when you don't even know the words is quite ironic.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#900 Jan 24 2018 at 9:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,380 posts
Jophiel wrote:
It's a great argument that you're talking about concepts of which you have very shallow and selective knowledge because you're basing them off a rather shallow overview from a website and the cherry-picking of some conservative books reviews all delighted that someone said some less than stellar things about liberals.


They are concepts that match with my own observations over the last couple decades Joph. Long before I'd heard of Haidt and his study, heck, long before he did his study, I have been observing the very same thing that he discovered. I've been posting on this forum for probably the last 15+ years about how liberals and conservative are not just flip sides of the same coin, but actually speak a different language and place priorities on different things.

I'm not starting with "some guy on the internet says this so it must be true!". I get that for you, appeal to authority is super important, but for me, it's not. I started with my own observations of this behavior difference between liberals and conservatives, and have commented on it many times. Then, one day, I run across some link or article somewhere discussing the same thing I've noticed (and I'm not along among conservatives for noticing this btw), and it points to this study that Haidt did, where he basically confirmed the very same thing I'd been observing for years.

For me, its not about what Haidt thinks about the data, or his philosophical approach, or whatever. It's that this study confirms what I'd been observing myself. I frankly don't care what he writes about in his book in addition to this. The key point for me is that his study very firmly confirms something I'd already suspected based on my own observations. So yeah, I'm more than comfortable repeating my own observations and opinions, and then pointing at Haidts work as additional support for same.

How many times over how many years have I said that liberals and conservatives speak a different language? How many times have I posted about how I'll make an argument for a position I hold, only to either have the liberal response appear to be a complete lack of understanding of what I'm talking about, or flat out disbelief that my stated argument is *really* why I hold the position I do, followed up with something like "You're just saying that because it sounds better, but you really believe... <insert strawman argument here>". This has been happening since long before I'd ever heard of Haidt.

This wasn't something I read about and then adopted Joph. I'm not taking Haidt's work and applying it. I'm starting with my own observations and only care about Haidt's work to the point that it provides one more data point in support of those observations. So yeah, reading the book is irrelevant to that.

Typically, you completely failed to understand this though. Which, I suppose, is just another data point in support of the observation. Liberals literally do no understand Conservative thinking. You insist on framing it within your own tightly bounded viewpoint. And when our positions don't match yours, you assume it's because we're "evil", or "stupid", or whatever, and it never occurs to you that we're looking at things in a completely different (and frankly broader) way.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#901 Jan 24 2018 at 9:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
It's that this study confirms what I'd been observing myself. I frankly don't care what he writes about in his book in addition to this.

Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 0 All times are in CDT