Impeachment Hearings

[GMDino]

(12-16-2019, 02:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote:

Of course anyone with greater than a 3rd grade level of reading comprehension understood the difference was how they came to be in the spotlight and in no way mitigates the insulting of either.

That was an excuse to say it is "okay" for her to be insulted by the POTUS.  "3rd grade level" or not.


I was sure it wouldn't be owned but it was the purest act of optimism to propose it in the first place.

[*bfine32*]

(12-16-2019, 02:51 PM)hollodero Wrote: 1. So, that's the key difference then. Meaning, the Barron scandal was actually worse than POTUS insulting Greta Thunberg. Do I read that correctly, since that key difference aside, it is "much as"...?

Of course I still argue ridiculing and insulting a child is actually way worse than bringing up a child's name and then apologizing for it, but these differences don't seem to be key to you.



2. Case in point, you argue both childs were "insulted". Strange to me, since I do not think mentioning that Trump has a son named Barron is actually any kind of insult. Why is it an insult?

1. No where did I say the Barron sandal was worse; simply mentioned how each became a subject. So your pro bono psycho-analysis is off the mark

2. Both were made a subject of discussion that I felt is best left to adults. Nothing more, nothing less. Trump should not have insulted Greta winning the Time cover and the professor should not have introduced Barron into the impeachment hearings.

[*bfine32*]

(12-16-2019, 03:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: That was an excuse to say it is "okay" for her to be insulted by the POTUS.  "3rd grade level" or not.


I was sure it wouldn't be owned but it was the purest act of optimism to propose it in the first place.

Link to me saying it was OK for POTUS to insult Greta or STFU.

You and others react to subjects introduced in these threads in such an absurd manner that it makes it difficult to take your stance of any subject with much merit.

I've clearly said POTUS should not have insulted Greta. I just made the "mistake" of also stating the Professor should have kept Barron's name out of her mouth.

[hollodero]

(12-16-2019, 03:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. No where did I say the Barron sandal was worse;

I asked the question. You mentioning that the "key" difference is who entered the spotlight willfully and who did not makes that conclusion feasible.

(12-16-2019, 03:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 2. Both were made a subject of discussion that I felt is best left to adults. Nothing more, nothing less. Trump should not have insulted Greta winning the Time cover and the professor should not have introduced Barron into the impeachment hearings.

I agree. Except for the sense of equivalency, as if both instances were similarly wrong. I'd argue one instance is way worse or way "more wrong" than the other.
But again, I ask the question. Do you think the professor mentioning Barron and Trump calling Greta ridiculous and mentally ill are on par with each other? A comparable kind of wrong?
Also, I seldomly do that, but if you please, could you also answer my question how Barron was "insulted". A question that is not about "should the professor have known better". That she should not have used her Barron wordplay is not really questioned by anyone.

[GMDino]

(12-16-2019, 03:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Link to me saying it was OK for POTUS to insult Greta or STFU.

You and others react to subjects introduced in these threads in such an absurd manner that it makes it difficult to take your stance of any subject with much merit.

I've clearly said POTUS should not have insulted Greta. I just made the "mistake" of also stating the Professor should have kept Barron's name out of her mouth.

Sure thing dude.

[BmorePat87]

(12-16-2019, 01:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your not so veiled insults aside.

My response is unchanged. Greta has as much business being the center of Global Warming discussions as Barron does being part of the impeachment hearings. POTUS would be better served just to ignore her, much as Barron should have been ignored in these hearings.

The key difference is one child entered the spotlight willingly and the other was drug into it.

I believe you referred to Karlan was "petty" and said she "bullied" Barron. 

Your response to the President actually mocking a child on twitter is "my response is unchanged" and that the President should have "ignored her" as if she coaxed him into insulting her because she entered the spotlight?

Days of ignoring this after championing Barron and the Trumps and this was what you came up with? Damn, you couldn't have even outright condemned him? Sad.

[*bfine32*]

(12-16-2019, 04:08 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I believe you referred to Karlan was "petty" and said she "bullied" Barron. 

Your response to the President actually mocking a child on twitter is "my response is unchanged" and that the President should have "ignored her" as if she coaxed him into insulting her because she entered the spotlight?

Days of ignoring this after championing Barron and the Trumps and this was what you came up with? Damn, you couldn't have even outright condemned him? Sad.

Once again placing your insults aside (If you continue to insult me I'm liable to get banned)

Semantics as they are: I've said numerous times that Trump was wrong to insult the child. I'm not sure what else you're looking for.

I'm sure I said the Professor was petty; however, I don't recall using the term bully. I think others may have.

[BmorePat87]

(12-16-2019, 04:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Once again placing your insults aside (If you continue to insult me I'm liable to get banned)

Semantics as they are: I've said numerous times that Trump was wrong to insult the child. I'm not sure what else you're looking for.

I'm sure I said the Professor was petty; however, I don't recall using the term bully. I think others may have.

I didn't insult you, I said your response was sad. Nowhere in your response to me did you explicitly say that Trump's response was wrong. The only thing you said that referenced his actions is "POTUS would be better served just to ignore her". 

Did you actually condemn his actions after your responded to me? If so, good! I hope you at least used the same charged language with him as you did with Karlan. 

[fredtoast]

(12-16-2019, 01:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The key difference is one child entered the spotlight willingly and the other was drug into it.

What is the difference key to?  Level of wrong doing?


To me the "key" difference is that one child was directly insulted and the other was not. And that difference is key to the lebel of wrong doing. It id MUCH worse to directly insult a child than just mention his name.

[*bfine32*]

(12-16-2019, 04:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What is the difference key to?  Level of wrong doing?


To me the "key" difference is that one child was directly insulted and the other was not. And that difference is key to the lebel of wrong doing. It id MUCH worse to directly insult a child than just mention his name.

The difference of how they became a topic of discussion.

I consider both acts to be wrong both the professor's and POTUS'. If asked to rank; I'd say POTUS' comments were much more of an insult toward the child than The Professor's. BUT both Adults should have kept the Child's names out of their mouths. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-16-2019, 04:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I didn't insult you, I said your response was sad. Nowhere in your response to me did you explicitly say that Trump's response was wrong. The only thing you said that referenced his actions is "POTUS would be better served just to ignore her". 

Did you actually condemn his actions after your responded to me? If so, good! I hope you at least used the same charged language with him as you did with Karlan. 

Sure thing.

I actually condemned POTUS' comments in post #466. I did this as a disclaimer in hopes that some in this forum wouldn't go where they so often strive to go. it didn't work.

I have further condemned on his comments being inappropriate other times prior to your classifying my "not condemning his words" as sad.

If you don't want to read comments as simply call folks "clowns" for not responding, you don't have to. As long as you don't mind looking like an ass when those people show you they have commented.

[BmorePat87]

(12-16-2019, 05:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure thing.

I actually condemned POTUS' comments in post #466. I did this as a disclaimer in hopes that some in this forum wouldn't go where they so often strive to go. it didn't work.

I have further condemned on his comments being inappropriate other times prior to your classifying my "not condemning his words" as sad.

If you don't want to read comments as simply call folks "clowns" for not responding, you don't have to. As long as you don't mind looking like an ass when those people show you they have commented.

Wait, you’re legit referring to the last time he insulted her and not the most current as proof that you condemned his most current insults?

Solid post.

I stand by my comment that any person who was outraged at the Barron pun but was silent after Trump insulted Greta is a clown. You waited like 5 days before you decided to respond with a post that didn’t condemn Trump, commented on people’s reading levels, and then finally said he “shouldn’t have done it”, so you don’t have to include yourself in that group I guess.

[*bfine32*]

(12-16-2019, 07:35 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Wait, you’re legit referring to the last time he insulted her and not the most current as proof that you condemned his most current insults?

Solid post.

I stand by my comment that any person who was outraged at the Barron pun but was silent after Trump insulted Greta is a clown. You waited like 5 days before you decided to respond with a post that didn’t condemn Trump,  commented on people’s reading levels, and then finally said he “shouldn’t have done it”, so you don’t have to include yourself in that group I guess.

Yes, I "legit" used my comments condemning POTUS' comments toward Greta as proof that I condemned POTUS' comments toward Greta.

Here's the thing:
I mentioned the Professor and stated she shouldn't have put Barron's name in her mouth. Someone chimed in and asked what about FLOTUS' reaction to POTUS' comments on Greta (which I was informed somehow was not whataboutisim). I mentioned that the difference in the two situations was one child was drug into the limelight and the other entered willingly. 

Of course I know the mentality of some on this board so I added a disclaimer to that point of I didn't condone POTUS' comments toward Greta. I had to do this because some on here are more concerned about finding fault in their fellow board member than they are discussing actual points. And guess what. I was 100% correct. 

I too stand by my comment that anyone in this forum that behaves in such a manner looks like an ass. I'll let you determine if you're included in that group. 

[BmorePat87]

(12-16-2019, 08:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, I "legit" used my comments condemning POTUS' comments toward Greta as proof that I condemned POTUS' comments toward Greta.

Here's the thing:
I mentioned the Professor and stated she shouldn't have put Barron's name in her mouth. Someone chimed in and asked what about FLOTUS' reaction to POTUS' comments on Greta (which I was informed somehow was not whataboutisim). I mentioned that the difference in the two situations was one child was drug into the limelight and the other entered willingly. 

Of course I know the mentality of some on this board so I added a disclaimer to that point of I didn't condone POTUS' comments toward Greta. I had to do this because some on here are more concerned about finding fault in their fellow board member than they are discussing actual points. And guess what. I was 100% correct. 

I too stand by my comment that anyone in this forum that behaves in such a manner looks like an ass. I'll let you determine if you're included in that group. 

I’m not sure what me mentioning that Melania is a hypocrite or Greta being an activist has to do with being able to say Trump shouldn’t have tweeted that about Greta this week, but something something discussing actual points?

Never change .

[GMDino]

In other impeachment news:

Trump wrapped up his latest Dear Leader event by claiming Giuliani’s unceasing efforts to dig up dirt on the Bidens in Ukraine stems “out of love” pic.twitter.com/aBkQPqVxAO

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 16, 2019

 


Also I read over the weekend that Rudy is allegedly doing all this work for the POTUS for free but Trump failed to note that on his financial reports.

I'm sure it's just an oversight.  

[hollodero]

(12-16-2019, 05:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I consider both acts to be wrong both the professor's and POTUS'. If asked to rank; I'd say POTUS' comments were much more of an insult toward the child than The Professor's. BUT both Adults should have kept the Child's names out of their mouths. 

Oh thank God.

I agree with that, including the "but", but especially with the ranking. This is where I was coming from from the start. Ranking matters.

(12-16-2019, 08:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course I know the mentality of some on this board so I added a disclaimer to that point of I didn't condone POTUS' comments toward Greta. I had to do this because some on here are more concerned about finding fault in their fellow board member than they are discussing actual points. And guess what. I was 100% correct. 

I too stand by my comment that anyone in this forum that behaves in such a manner looks like an ass. I'll let you determine if you're included in that group. 

Yeah I was kind of an ass. I regret nothing! :)

As for rather discussing board members and their motivations, I continue to be. By mentioning that saying with black and kettle or however that one goes. It might be legit to point that behaviour out, but you yourself are quite masterful in that skill.

[BakertheBeast]

Lets be real here. The Repubs and Trump are just jacking each other off. The Repubs know that Trump found a way to connect with a lot of voters with his "drain the swamp" catch phrase. The Repubs hate Trump as evidence by all the video's a few years back with them saying what a fraud and crook he is. They are putting their hate and distaste aside however to garnish the votes Trump provides in order to stay in power. Some real patriots there. In return, they defend Trump no matter what he says or does and claims he is the best president ever to appeal to the narcissism that has diseased his brain. A big circle jerk.

[BakertheBeast]

Karlan, even though her bringing up Barron was to make a point about how bad Trump wants to be thought of as royalty and not to insult the kid, should of known there would be back lash with her comment, especially talking about a kid who is autistic.

[hollodero]

(12-17-2019, 07:40 AM)BakertheBeast Wrote: Lets be real here. The Repubs and Trump are just jacking each other off. The Repubs know that Trump found a way to connect with a lot of voters with his "drain the swamp" catch phrase. The Repubs hate Trump as evidence by all the video's a few years back with them saying what a fraud and crook he is. They are putting their hate and distaste aside however to garnish the votes Trump provides in order to stay in power. Some real patriots there. In return, they defend Trump no matter what he says or does and claims he is the best president ever to appeal to the narcissism that has diseased his brain. A big circle jerk.

(12-17-2019, 07:47 AM)BakertheBeast Wrote: Karlan, even though her bringing up Barron was to make a point about how bad Trump wants to be thought of as royalty and not to insult the kid, should of known there would be back lash with her comment

I can get behind all of that...

(12-17-2019, 07:47 AM)BakertheBeast Wrote: especially talking about a kid who is autistic.

...but that kind of speculation I consider indecent and actually disrespecting the kid's privacy.

[*bfine32*]

(12-17-2019, 05:23 AM)hollodero Wrote: Oh thank God.

I agree with that, including the "but", but especially with the ranking. This is where I was coming from from the start. Ranking matters.



Yeah I was kind of an ass. I regret nothing! :)

As for rather discussing board members and their motivations, I continue to be. By mentioning that saying with black and kettle or however that one goes. It might be legit to point that behaviour out, but you yourself are quite masterful in that skill.

As I've said: Don't start none won't be none.

Back when this forum first started I asked for a stricter moderation when it come to ad hominem attacks as "self-moderation" was out of control. I further recommended we do a "reboot" and all start fresh. This was met with general ridicule and I was suspended 3 month for "questioning moderation". 

I'm fully willing to engage in civil discourse, but also will go to the gutter if the conversation heads that way.