Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[NeedsAdjustments]

Yeah..... saw that.

Trump more concerned that the other party is getting free air time.  Doesn't wish it to be criminalized - but regulated.  Wants the election commission to get involved.

How does one define "free air time" or otherwise political advertising being "given" to a political party?
An editorial in the New York Times?
A Washington Post reporting on the "President's" Russia ties that he calls "fake news?"
That absurd segment I saw on FOX "News" this morning accusing Elizabeth Warren of wanting to abolish the Constitution?

I didn't get an answer to the question I asked yesterday on this subject, and I don't expect to get one now.  But the slippery slope here is obvious. 

And even if one were to define a SNL parody of the President as political advertising, the Supreme Court (in a ruling that Conservatives applauded) has already spoken on the Government's ability to regulate it.

To be clear, calling political satire "free air time" for a party is absurd on its face.  I play along here, for a second, in an attempt to demonstrate why that is.

I in no way expect kiidcarter8 to understand.

Again.......

my comments were to show that Trump's position has little to do with suppressing free speech.  That is all.

I have no idea if he will get anywhere with it.

Glad to hear you are arguing that it is only a little bit suppression of free speech, but you still haven't explained how SNL satire is, in your view, only a "little" protected.

[whiskeypriest]

Yeah..... saw that.

Trump more concerned that the other party is getting free air time.  Doesn't wish it to be criminalized - but regulated.  Wants the election commission to get involved.

How does one define "free air time" or otherwise political advertising being "given" to a political party?
An editorial in the New York Times?
A Washington Post reporting on the "President's" Russia ties that he calls "fake news?"
That absurd segment I saw on FOX "News" this morning accusing Elizabeth Warren of wanting to abolish the Constitution?

I didn't get an answer to the question I asked yesterday on this subject, and I don't expect to get one now.  But the slippery slope here is obvious. 

And even if one were to define a SNL parody of the President as political advertising, the Supreme Court (in a ruling that Conservatives applauded) has already spoken on the Government's ability to regulate it.

To be clear, calling political satire "free air time" for a party is absurd on its face.  I play along here, for a second, in an attempt to demonstrate why that is.

I in no way expect kiidcarter8 to understand.

Again.......

my comments were to show that Trump's position has little to do with suppressing free speech.  That is all.

I have no idea if he will get anywhere with it.

Using government regulation to demand equal time suppresses free speech. Both by chilling political speech and requiring the presentation of.contrary speech. That is what it is designed to do. And I see no.reason from his own comments that he is concerned with, for instance, demanding equal time for Democrats on Faux and Friends, or.the Sinclair Network. Or for that matter, other Republicans. It is all about his inability to take criticism and his desire to use the government to pursue people who criticize him.

[facilitatorn]

For example, 81% of Americans are about evenly split between “trump is a white nationalist” and “trump is too sick and dumb to know whether or not he’s a white nationalist or even understand what a white nationalist is”.

[kiidcarter8]

Yeah..... saw that.

Trump more concerned that the other party is getting free air time.  Doesn't wish it to be criminalized - but regulated.  Wants the election commission to get involved.

How does one define "free air time" or otherwise political advertising being "given" to a political party?
An editorial in the New York Times?
A Washington Post reporting on the "President's" Russia ties that he calls "fake news?"
That absurd segment I saw on FOX "News" this morning accusing Elizabeth Warren of wanting to abolish the Constitution?

I didn't get an answer to the question I asked yesterday on this subject, and I don't expect to get one now.  But the slippery slope here is obvious. 

And even if one were to define a SNL parody of the President as political advertising, the Supreme Court (in a ruling that Conservatives applauded) has already spoken on the Government's ability to regulate it.

To be clear, calling political satire "free air time" for a party is absurd on its face.  I play along here, for a second, in an attempt to demonstrate why that is.

I in no way expect kiidcarter8 to understand.

Again.......

my comments were to show that Trump's position has little to do with suppressing free speech.  That is all.

I have no idea if he will get anywhere with it.

Glad to hear you are arguing that it is only a little bit suppression of free speech, but you still haven't explained how SNL satire is, in your view, only a "little" protected.

I am not arguing at all.

[barton]

Do you really not understand the meaning of "argument" in the context of a political discussion of issues? 

noun
1.an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.
"I've had an argument with my father"
synonyms:   quarrel, disagreement, squabble, fight, difference of opinion, dispute, wrangle, clash, altercation, feud, dissension, war of words, contretemps, exchange of views....

2.
a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
"there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal"
synonyms:   reasoning, line of reasoning, logic, case...

When the term is used at a message board, it's usually the second definition. 

[NeedsAdjustments]

kiidcarter8 is hopeless.  He can't defend his bad position, so he pretends he isn't.  But repeating a position over and over while ignoring contrary evidence is arguing.  The only kind he knows, in fact.

Not the first time I've genuinely lamented the inability of the conservative side here to actually defend their position.  bambu is garbage, kiidcarter8 out of his depth (even here) and REDSTATEWARD gets lost when forced to stray from the path the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page laid out for him.

If an argument has merit, give us the facts that support it!  Otherwise, why do you think your ramblings should have value to anyone else?

[kiidcarter8]

quarrel, disagreement, squabble, fight, difference of opinion, dispute, wrangle, clash, altercation, feud, dissension, war of words, contretemps, exchange of views....

Yeah....... none of that is what I am doing or interested in doing

Nor do I wish to convince anyone of anything

[whiskeypriest]

Do you really not understand the meaning of "argument" in the context of a political discussion of issues? 

noun
1.an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.
"I've had an argument with my father"
synonyms:   quarrel, disagreement, squabble, fight, difference of opinion, dispute, wrangle, clash, altercation, feud, dissension, war of words, contretemps, exchange of views....

2.
a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
"there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal"
synonyms:   reasoning, line of reasoning, logic, case...

When the term is used at a message board, it's usually the second definition.

Man: Oh look, this isn't an argument.

Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is.

Man: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.

Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: It is!

Mr. Vibrating: It is not.

Man: Look, you just contradicted me.

Mr. Vibrating: I did not.

Man: Oh you did!!

Mr. Vibrating: No, no, no.

Man: You did just then.

Mr. Vibrating: Nonsense!

Man: Oh, this is futile!

Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: I came here for a good argument.

Mr. Vibrating: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.

Man: An argument isn't just contradiction.

Mr. Vibrating: It can be.

Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

Mr. Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'

Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is!

Man: No it isn't!

Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

(short pause)

Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: It is.

Mr. Vibrating: Not at all.

Man: Now look.

[whiskeypriest]

Dammit, how did I wind up out of that list, you senile hag?

[bambu-wisdom]

Today is International Happiness Day.

[barton]

I love the Python Argument Clinic sketch.  Also the beginning, where he stumbles into Abuse by mistake. 

[barton]

My advice: don't throw peanuts to the peanut gallery Three.

If your advice is of value  why do you keep deleting it?   

Also isn't throwing peanuts to a peanut gallery a bit redundant?

If you want more argument from me, you'll have to pay extra.

[bambu-wisdom]

kiidcarter8 is hopeless.  He can't defend his bad position, so he pretends he isn't.  But repeating a position over and over while ignoring contrary evidence is arguing.  The only kind he knows, in fact.

Not the first time I've genuinely lamented the inability of the conservative side here to actually defend their position.  bambu is garbage, kiidcarter8 out of his depth (even here) and REDSTATEWARD gets lost when forced to stray from the path the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page laid out for him.

If an argument has merit, give us the facts that support it!  Otherwise, why do you think your ramblings should have value to anyone else?

Bambu, CarterKid and JimboRedNutState are the theee stooges of Elba who are here just because
They have no better entertainment options than this: playing stupid on a internet Forum.
They are not here to discuss politics and be persuaded about anything.  They are just here to play stupid and, in Jimbo's words "just to get a reaction or rise out of someone."
Of the three, JumboNit is the most pathetic.  Boozo is the most useless. And CarteKid is just passing time until pro football returns and he can return to his prime interest - picking games and trying to convince Banks how he, carterKid, is the greatest handicapper since Jimmie the Greek.
The kid is kidding, Boozo is just a clown from down underwear, and JumbiNut is a pathetic plagiariser who hasn't had a thought of his own since he can't remember when.

My advice: don't throw peanuts to the peanut gallery Three.

Hang on a minute, that's not true.
I have plenty of entertainment options.
What I write here I am very serious about.   
Playing stupid on an internet forum?...oh please.  I am 'stupid'...when compared to real rocket scientists. 'Stupid' academically that is.

Not here to discuss politics and be persuaded?
Gee, I thought anything to do with Trump is politics...and most of what I post is indeed 'political'.
Be persuaded?  I was persuaded that Abe Lincoln was a good guy and not a bad guy like the YouTube video said.
I have to be persuaded to your ideas/beliefs?  Where does it say that in the forum rules?

Here's one for you;

'Wisdom is not limited to the world of academia".

[NeedsAdjustments]

As for the Shining City on the Hill, on top of exporting White Supremacy, the US, through Trump, is also now promoting the suppression of journalists/media and free speech in other countries:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/03/19/trump-bolsonaro-fake-news-bts-nr-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/this-week-in-politics/

We should be so proud. Sure looks like Trump is.

[bambu-wisdom]

As for the Shining City on the Hill, on top of exporting White Supremacy, the US, through Trump, is also now promoting the suppression of journalists/media and free speech in other countries:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/03/19/trump-bolsonaro-fake-news-bts-nr-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/this-week-in-politics/

We should be so proud. Sure looks like Trump is.

Listening to the radio and reading the paper today...it seems to me that the Right downunder are still 'speaking'...they're just being a lot more careful with their choice of words. Getting video, tapes of interviews, and asking simple questions. No abusive language, no anger....

https://www.2gb.com/ben-fordham-finally-drags-the-truth-out-of-michael-daley/

[/b]Ben Fordham finally drags the truth out of Michael Daley[/b]

After relentless questioning and repeated attempts to dodge the issue, Michael Daley has finally admitted he was wrong in claiming fire sprinklers were ripped out of Allianz Stadium by the SCG Trust.

The Opposition Leader made the claims in an explosive interview with Alan Jones and was later caught lying again about his comments.
Ben Fordham has repeatedly called Mr Daley out on his lies and offered him the opportunity to correct the record.
He finally agreed to an interview and, after persistent questioning, the alternate premier eventually gave in and conceded he was wrong.

#####

Mr Daley also said in the interview with no 1 radio host that if elected he was going to sack the SCG Trust board members and replace them with [I think I heard him say elsewhere] "50%women".
Last night's tv news said that he has already received 'a legal letter' from one board member.