Posts: 5,334
Threads: 62
Reputation:
23727
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(03-04-2021, 07:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: "Tone" is pretty subjective.
And BTW I don't care for the tone of this reply when I asked about SSF calling me a liar.
So either give me an example of when I have lied or apologize for this smug "tone".
What?
Man... you asked me why it's ok for me to correct someone, but not ok when you do it.
My answer was that I usually use a different tone. Which, subjectively, I do. There's nothing smug about that. And first and foremost it has nothing to do with you lieing. I have no idea why you would throw this in there and demand an apology. Well, you don't get one, on the grounds that I never claimed you have lied to begin with. I claimed you often use a dismissive tone.
I will add now that you argued quite disingeniuously by throwing a "someone else called me a liar and you need to atone for that now" in there when the initial post I answered to with "tone" had nothing to do with that. I won't apologize for that either.
Posts: 11,286
Threads: 59
Reputation:
45213
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(03-04-2021, 07:27 PM)hollodero Wrote: What?
Man... you asked me why it's ok for me to correct someone, but not ok when you do it.
My answer was that I usually use a different tone. Which, subjectively, I do. There's nothing smug about that. And first and foremost it has nothing to do with you lieing. I have no idea why you would throw this in there and demand an apology. Well, you don't get one, on the grounds that I never claimed you have lied to begin with. I claimed you often use a dismissive tone.
I will add now that you argued quite disingeniuously by throwing a "someone else called me a liar and you need to atone for that now" in there when the initial post I answered to with "tone" had nothing to do with that. I won't apologize for that either.
And now you're starting to see why Fred is routinely accused of dishonesty. Arguing that you said something you did not, which is a Fred staple, and then asking you to apologize for it is dishonest. It is not, however, lying.
As Fred seems to be confused about the difference I thought I'd help.
li·ar
noun
- a person who tells lies.
dis·hon·est
adjective
- behaving or prone to behave in an untrustworthy or fraudulent way.
"he was a dishonest hypocrite prepared to exploit his family"
The difference looks rather definitive (pun intended). 
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(03-04-2021, 07:27 PM)hollodero Wrote: And first and foremost it has nothing to do with you lieing. I have no idea why you would throw this in there and demand an apology.
When I asked you what you thought about SSF calling me a liar your response was
"You reap what you sow"
What else can that mean except you think I am a liar?
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
dis•hon•es•ty (dɪsˈɒn ə sti)
n., pl. -ties.
1. lack of honesty; a disposition to lie, cheat, or steal.
Posts: 581
Threads: 14
Reputation:
4149
Joined: Nov 2018
Mood: None
I was very disappointed in President Biden's reinstatement of the Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
There need not be any "faith-based" governmental offices, nor directors of faith-based programs in the White House.
They could have simply created an Office of Community Initiatives and Partnerships; the office being absent of faith-based appeasement and empowerment. Instead, yet another President felt the need to placate to the religious.
Posts: 5,334
Threads: 62
Reputation:
23727
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(03-04-2021, 07:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When I asked you what you thought about SSF calling me a liar your response was
"You reap what you sow"
What else can that mean except you think I am a liar?
Oh, I see.
Again, I don't know if and why he called you a liar. I also want to stress that I don't care. I did not call you a liar, and I wouldn't know a reason to do so.
"You reap what you sow" was in reference to you getting "bullied". I did not quite tie it to these exact specifics, neither to you being called a liar nor to you having your integrity questioned, nor to the "mischaracterizing statements" example or the "refusing to give examples" example you also provided. Imho you said plenty other stuff that is somewhat akin to all that in respect to "bullying", while possibly not saying precisely the same things that allegedly were said to you. (I do think you mischaracterize statements quite some times. There it is a precise match.)
I often do get why people react the way they do to you in general, this is the jist of my statement. One often earns the tone and attitude one offers, and so imho it's often mainly on you. Not trying to be offensive, but trying to be honest. (I did not advocate being Mr. Nice Guy under all circumstances, far from it.)
Just to clarify, I am not claiming that I am inherently better, I have my own issues in that regard and many others. And the same is true for other people as well. I'm not trying to be smug or a preacher. But yeah, you reap what you sow, that's just my take on this.
Posts: 12,141
Threads: 133
Reputation:
32879
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(03-04-2021, 05:50 PM)hollodero Wrote: Admittedly, I have a higher passion to single out people that apparently only consider everyone else the problem when this imho clearly is not so clear cut. Might SSF qualify for that, I don't really think so. I got the impression he does not see himself as perfect beyond doubt either. I'm fine with you disagreeing.
- Also, I must have called statements of SSF hyperbolic a thousand times now. And I already got sucked into (ok, might have been my own fault) into this more specific conversation once, and I don't think I deliberatley omitted SSF or treated him with velvet gloves in any way. And I did not do so here. There's an aspect regarding bullying I just happen to have a similar viewpoint on, or a similar observation on. To a point and not totally, which I think I made clear in roughly a thousand words or so too.
Regarding your ongoing quarrels with him. I have to admit. I usually skip those conversations. They are not really pleasant or entertaining to me. So I just cannot pass judgment one way or another, or who's more at fault for these ongoing escalations. When it was still SFF vs. Dino, I thought it to be roughly a 50/50 split that made neither look particularly good. Told SSF that as well, with specific examples and everything. Sorry for not being able to do so again, I just can't go through these point-by-point altercations that gets produced between you two.
Well, one person can't be a mob. Think of it what you will, but he does not gang up and usually acts as a lone wolf. That he's not fond of your posts, or fred's posts, well aside from the merits to me that's not bullying someone out.
I most certainly don't endorse all of his ways to express things. And I said so many times in the past. I mean, I personally can't complain, he never said anything belittling or offensive to me, which is less than happened the other way round. I am not pitch perfect either and don't want to be the referee or put myself beyond all fault in the first place. I sure see him saying stuff that I would deem over the top. I see him getting responses that I deem over the top too. Many conversations and words tend to be lead in an overly dismissive, overly offensive, overly belittling tone, and SSF gets a lot of that thrown at him, but nope he is no saint in that regard either. Didn't feel the need to specifically state that, but apparently you want me to, so there. It's not like this is a secret.
I don't doubt you have skipped our "ongoing quarrels," and so are reluctant to "pass judgement." Most do skip them.
But here is what you missed in my quarrels with SSF, just so you might understand why I become incensed, probably for the first time in the new forum, when someone blameless shares an "aspect on bullying" with SSF, as he constructs a bullying problem "out there" in some others.
The pattern is the same on every thread, including this one, your thread. I make arguments about the topic, and he jumps in to "call out" my "lies" and "hypocrisy." And then the thread is off topic, as I often feel the need to correct misattributed statements. (As a poster on the Limbaugh thread put it: "Lather, rinse, repeat.") But not always, as sometimes I urge SSF to get back on topic, or just ignore the ad hominem. And in the past he has said much worse. To which I can only add that I have not returned in kind. At all. Ever. The mods have never suspended me or deleted my posts to stabilize a thread. A record which you seem to acknowledge. And SSF does too, obliquely, when he occasionally promises to change his behavior, or when, lacking anything else, and in a pique of faux outrage, he leverages one of my "lols" to an order of hyperbolic condescension.
So I am not "reaping what I sow." You may indeed have carefully criticized some of his "hyperbole," but you have never to my knowledge said to him "You are bullying," as you did Fred.
And I am going to go out on a limb here and say there is no thread in this forum in which SSF has been just merrily discoursing along on topic when Dino, out of nowhere, landed on him with verbal abuse. Closest I can recall is Dino once followed a personal attack on me with "This is why we can't have nice things." Sometimes Dino defends himself. More often he ignores denigrating posts. He reaps far more than he sows. I am going to go out on a limb again and say there is not thread in which someone launches unprovoked attacks on SSF in which he, Dino-style, just moves on.
If a poster announces a mission to "call out hypocrisy" wherever he finds it, you far-seeing and reasonable Hollo, know that he surely will find it, and at the expense of forum peace. I don't have to persuade you that "calling out hypocrisy" is not a solution to the problem of bullying, but a cause of it. And only one person in this forum has settled on that mission. A refusal to name names may indeed express a wish not to expose someone, but it may also be just a kind of innuendo, a claim no one can check, deployed to buttress an otherwise unsupported narrative. Like a "lone wolf" who refers to himself in the plural, speaking for a group of unnamed, who agree with his construction of those "others."
I close acknowledging you don't want this discussion. I don't either. Part of your difficulty in not seeing "who's more at fault" is your desire not to take sides, not to single out anyone. And I don't want you to change that. Your post #67 and others show that you understand perfectly well that people may decide to leave the forum, not because they are bullied, but because they don't want beliefs challenged.
But when you share with SSF, "a similar view on an aspect of bullying" while unable to see "who's more at fault for these ongoing escalations," then of course he's going to respond "Well stated." And I am going to fill in some blanks.
Posts: 12,141
Threads: 133
Reputation:
32879
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(03-04-2021, 07:57 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I was very disappointed in President Biden's reinstatement of the Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
There need not be any "faith-based" governmental offices, nor directors of faith-based programs in the White House.
They could have simply created an Office of Community Initiatives and Partnerships; the office being absent of faith-based appeasement and empowerment. Instead, yet another President felt the need to placate to the religious.
Aha. An on topic post!
I did not like the concept of "faith-based" initiatives in the Bush administration, which among other things excepted groups like the Salvation Army from federal hiring practices while allowing them to get federal money. As a result, non-Christians were fired.
But in this case I am wondering if, perhaps, this is part of an effort to be more bi-partisan, to address the "other side" through its own language and policies. "Placating the religious" might be politically expedient right now.
Look at the goals Biden and Harris want to address through this program.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/02/14/fact-sheet-president-biden-reestablishes-the-white-house-office-of-faith-based-and-neighborhood-partnerships/
Posts: 12,141
Threads: 133
Reputation:
32879
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(03-04-2021, 07:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Both definitions are the same.
They both based on a lack of truthfulness.
So what exactly is the difference?
Fred,
Don't go there. The only way to really settle SSF "lie" accusations is to juxtapose quotes--him against the record.
The farther you are from textual evidence, the greater his advantage. So don't go down the rabbit hole of parsing definitions,
if you don't have applicable text before you.
Second point, don't use SSF terms. Don't call him a "liar" or "hypocrite" even if he calls you one. I assure you it does not bother
him, and it helps others write disputes off as "both sides" doing it. The textual juxtaposition does bother him. But save that
for the future.
People who enter this thread now expect to address the "religious" topic. They will bolt if they see this kind of empty back and forth,
a series of angry posts referring to no text they can see nor any incident they are familiar with.
Let's go back on topic.
Posts: 5,334
Threads: 62
Reputation:
23727
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(03-04-2021, 09:15 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't doubt you have skipped our "ongoing quarrels," and so are reluctant to "pass judgement." Most do skip them.
But here is what you missed in my quarrels with SSF, just so you might understand why I become incensed, probably for the first time in the new forum, when someone blameless shares an "aspect on bullying" with SSF, as he constructs a bullying problem "out there" in some others.
The pattern is the same on every thread, including this one, your thread. I make arguments about the topic, and he jumps in to "call out" my "lies" and "hypocrisy." And then the thread is off topic, as I often feel the need to correct misattributed statements. (As a poster on the Limbaugh thread put it: "Lather, rinse, repeat.") But not always, as sometimes I urge SSF to get back on topic, or just ignore the ad hominem. And in the past he has said much worse. To which I can only add that I have not returned in kind. At all. Ever. The mods have never suspended me or deleted my posts to stabilize a thread. A record which you seem to acknowledge. And SSF does too, obliquely, when he occasionally promises to change his behavior, or when, lacking anything else, and in a pique of faux outrage, he leverages one of my "lols" to an order of hyperbolic condescension.
So I am not "reaping what I sow." You may indeed have carefully criticized some of his "hyperbole," but you have never to my knowledge said to him "You are bullying," as you did Fred.
And I am going to go out on a limb here and say there is no thread in this forum in which SSF has been just merrily discoursing along on topic when Dino, out of nowhere, landed on him with verbal abuse. Closest I can recall is Dino once followed a personal attack on me with "This is why we can't have nice things." Sometimes Dino defends himself. More often he ignores denigrating posts. He reaps far more than he sows. I am going to go out on a limb again and say there is not thread in which someone launches unprovoked attacks on SSF in which he, Dino-style, just moves on.
If a poster announces a mission to "call out hypocrisy" wherever he finds it, you far-seeing and reasonable Hollo, know that he surely will find it, and at the expense of forum peace. I don't have to persuade you that "calling out hypocrisy" is not a solution to the problem of bullying, but a cause of it. And only one person in this forum has settled on that mission. A refusal to name names may indeed express a wish not to expose someone, but it may also be just a kind of innuendo, a claim no one can check, deployed to buttress an otherwise unsupported narrative. Like a "lone wolf" who refers to himself in the plural, speaking for a group of unnamed, who agree with his construction of those "others."
I close acknowledging you don't want this discussion. I don't either. Part of your difficulty in not seeing "who's more at fault" is your desire not to take sides, not to single out anyone. And I don't want you to change that. Your post #67 and others show that you understand perfectly well that people may decide to leave the forum, not because they are bullied, but because they don't want beliefs challenged.
But when you share with SSF, "a similar view on an aspect of bullying" while unable to see "who's more at fault for these ongoing escalations," then of course he's going to respond "Well stated." And I am going to fill in some blanks.
Points of clarification. :)
It was not my intention to get someone's support and admiration. I said things I feel are true, SSF agreed with things I said. So yeah, we seem to share a perspective on certain things. Doesn't mean I endorse him over you or anything of that kind. I'm not endorsing anyone, I have my own mind and whether SSF likes or dislikes what I say has nothing to do with it. I gave up aiming for approval a long time ago.
Eg. fred. Yeah, I kinda started it and it was kinda unnecessary. It's not that I feel I'm wrong on that though. And lo and behold, within a short time I was asked to either "apologize or prove he's a liar". This is a typical style I'd call deliberately misinterpreting someone else's posts. I might be particularly upset about that kind of communication I deem destructive and belittling, and I suppose I'm not the only one. It's bfinesque. I can also very well imagine that many, when confronted with that, either react visibly angry or with being outta here. Imho, a lot of hostility stems from that, albeit it finds continuations that go way beyond it.
Eg. SSF. Again, I don't see him as flawless (same goes for myself), for one he's a Steelers fan and allegedly sociopathic... but yeah I also feel he takes many things one step too far, and that includes these everlasting quarrels with Dino or with you. I don't think it serves conversations best to accuse someone of faux intellectualism etc. and I get why this is seen as derogatory. I just don't have that much of a personal problem with that, my mind apparently strips that away, and as far as I can tell he also usually has a point to make beyond that. By that I am not intending to put out an objective ranking of who's better and worse than anyone else. It's just me not being so annoyed abouth that, for whatever reason..
With SSF vs. Dino. I can understand how it's enraging when being told again and again how he's part of the right-wing echo chamber and parrots Tucker and whatnot. Which kind is Dino's oft-used go-to move. I get angry when people tell me that my opinions are rooted in being brainwashed by CNN too. Or he accuses SSF of defending Trump, of secretly supporting Trump, all kinds of things that are demonstrably not so. That SSF further escalates things as well, yeah, that is/was true and I said so many times in the past, and I said so here.
Eg. you. I did not say you reap what you sow (said that to fred, where I believe it applies). I do see though that you take issue in me not blaming SSF significantly more than anyone else. And ok, that is your take on things. I'm not delving too deep into your conversations to claim one way or another (I even tried yesterday, but with cross-references to yet another older thread I stopped again), so I can't tell you what you want. Whenever there's an ongoing spat, there's an element of taking baits though. You could very well just leave him be if you so please. Imho, as you indicated your style is to explain things, and if someone has a different take, you feel the need to further explain yourself, to add more points, as in "if you don't agree with me, I need to make myself clearer". I do not complain about that, I am the exact same kind of person. And get perceived as arrogant at times for being that kind of person. I mind fred's style more than SSF's style and yours probably the least of the bunch. But others might just feel different, and that's fine. You're definitely right that you don't outright offend people or call them names, and this is more than I can say about others. You deserve recognition for that imho, and I give it to you. Case in point, you're a bit angry with me and yet none of your words are irreverent.
What I will say though, in the end, I feel there's a general tendency of not taking issue with one of your own. Eg. the way you perceive Dino vs SSF, to me, seems in some part rooted in the fact that you usually agree with Dino on the issues. Which can lead to a tendency to blame the person you don't agree with more, or even exclusively. And there I have another perspective, not because I force myself into neutrality, but because I'm not an American and imho not so deeply captured by a certain "us vs. them" mentality that is pretty prevalent in the US and its people. I might see that incorrectly for sure, but it's what I believe to observe quite some time.
I will add that this sure goes both ways. Non-liberals usually don't take issue with other non-liberals either, including when there's talk about stolen elections or FBI treason or how Michelle Obama was a *****. I do see SSF's point that it's only you liberals as very shaky, and this also is something I did express. He doesn't take issue with me saying so. Why such things are different when you say that, well I don't quite know. It's not because I'm inherently better, that's for sure. It's probably because I'm an exotic bird.
Posts: 5,334
Threads: 62
Reputation:
23727
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(03-04-2021, 07:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Both definitions are the same.
They both based on a lack of truthfulness.
So what exactly is the difference?
To prove it's not the same one counter-example is sufficient. I have one. When someone secretly has an extramarital affair, that's dishonest. When said someone flat out tells his wife that he doesn't have an affair, that's being a liar.
Not the same thing, even if there's a lack of truthfulness in both instances.
When it comes to debates, it might not be so clear-cut, but for sure someone can sport a dishonest style of argueing withoug flat-out telling a lie.
Posts: 38,881
Threads: 1,711
Reputation:
55832
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
(03-05-2021, 10:59 AM)hollodero Wrote: Points of clarification. :)
It was not my intention to get someone's support and admiration. I said things I feel are true, SSF agreed with things I said. So yeah, we seem to share a perspective on certain things. Doesn't mean I endorse him over you or anything of that kind. I'm not endorsing anyone, I have my own mind and whether SSF likes or dislikes what I say has nothing to do with it. I gave up aiming for approval a long time ago.
Eg. fred. Yeah, I kinda started it and it was kinda unnecessary. It's not that I feel I'm wrong on that though. And lo and behold, within a short time I was asked to either "apologize or prove he's a liar". This is a typical style I'd call deliberately misinterpreting someone else's posts. I might be particularly upset about that kind of communication I deem destructive and belittling, and I suppose I'm not the only one. It's bfinesque. I can also very well imagine that many, when confronted with that, either react visibly angry or with being outta here. Imho, a lot of hostility stems from that, albeit it finds continuations that go way beyond it.
Eg. SSF. Again, I don't see him as flawless (same goes for myself), for one he's a Steelers fan and allegedly sociopathic... but yeah I also feel he takes many things one step too far, and that includes these everlasting quarrels with Dino or with you. I don't think it serves conversations best to accuse someone of faux intellectualism etc. and I get why this is seen as derogatory. I just don't have that much of a personal problem with that, my mind apparently strips that away, and as far as I can tell he also usually has a point to make beyond that. By that I am not intending to put out an objective ranking of who's better and worse than anyone else. It's just me not being so annoyed abouth that, for whatever reason..
With SSF vs. Dino. I can understand how it's enraging when being told again and again how he's part of the right-wing echo chamber and parrots Tucker and whatnot. Which kind is Dino's oft-used go-to move. I get angry when people tell me that my opinions are rooted in being brainwashed by CNN too. Or he accuses SSF of defending Trump, of secretly supporting Trump, all kinds of things that are demonstrably not so. That SSF further escalates things as well, yeah, that is/was true and I said so many times in the past, and I said so here.
Eg. you. I did not say you reap what you sow (said that to fred, where I believe it applies). I do see though that you take issue in me not blaming SSF significantly more than anyone else. And ok, that is your take on things. I'm not delving too deep into your conversations to claim one way or another (I even tried yesterday, but with cross-references to yet another older thread I stopped again), so I can't tell you what you want. Whenever there's an ongoing spat, there's an element of taking baits though. You could very well just leave him be if you so please. Imho, as you indicated your style is to explain things, and if someone has a different take, you feel the need to further explain yourself, to add more points, as in "if you don't agree with me, I need to make myself clearer". I do not complain about that, I am the exact same kind of person. And get perceived as arrogant at times for being that kind of person. I mind fred's style more than SSF's style and yours probably the least of the bunch. But others might just feel different, and that's fine. You're definitely right that you don't outright offend people or call them names, and this is more than I can say about others. You deserve recognition for that imho, and I give it to you. Case in point, you're a bit angry with me and yet none of your words are irreverent.
What I will say though, in the end, I feel there's a general tendency of not taking issue with one of your own. Eg. the way you perceive Dino vs SSF, to me, seems in some part rooted in the fact that you usually agree with Dino on the issues. Which can lead to a tendency to blame the person you don't agree with more, or even exclusively. And there I have another perspective, not because I force myself into neutrality, but because I'm not an American and imho not so deeply captured by a certain "us vs. them" mentality that is pretty prevalent in the US and its people. I might see that incorrectly for sure, but it's what I believe to observe quite some time.
I will add that this sure goes both ways. Non-liberals usually don't take issue with other non-liberals either, including when there's talk about stolen elections or FBI treason or how Michelle Obama was a *****. I do see SSF's point that it's only you liberals as very shaky, and this also is something I did express. He doesn't take issue with me saying so. Why such things are different when you say that, well I don't quite know. It's not because I'm inherently better, that's for sure. It's probably because I'm an exotic bird.
Point of order: The bold is Fred's go to...not mine. I have accused SSF of never admitting he is wrong and that he seems to be an expert of so many subjects its a wonder he has time for the message board...  ...and he believes I am a cop hater, which I am not.
My only other thing to add is that with SSF or anyone that I might disagree with all I ask is you show your sources and provide links. Opinions are great, personal experience is wonderful, facts and data are better.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Posts: 5,334
Threads: 62
Reputation:
23727
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(03-05-2021, 11:26 AM)GMDino Wrote: Point of order: The bold is Fred's go to...not mine. I have accused SSF of never admitting he is wrong and that he seems to be an expert of so many subjects its a wonder he has time for the message board... ...and he believes I am a cop hater, which I am not.
My only other thing to add is that with SSF or anyone that I might disagree with all I ask is you show your sources and provide links. Opinions are great, personal experience is wonderful, facts and data are better.
You also at times make bold assumptions about someone else's views and affiliations or what faulty echo chambers they are beholden to. Probably not in the same frequency as some others, that I consider true, but still.
I say that while usually agreeing with you on the merits. I also am not really that keen on pointing that out, but for some reason unbeknown to myself everyone showing up here gets a smack from me these days and I am determined to decrease my popularity, so there you go.
And yeah, stubbornness... that is something I perceive as an American trait. Many are experts on all kinds of issues and are deeply unwilling to ever admit they weren't entirely right on everything. This is something that used to baffle me a lot. I couldn't possibly single out any individual in that regard. I rather developed the same trait for my own hollodero persona.
On the cops thing, I seem to remember believing you painted quite a one-sided picture, but when I said so you clarified that you don't see it as such, so yeah on these grounds alone I don't see you as a cop hater. Don't know if SSF does or said so, but if he did, I don't agree with that.
Posts: 38,881
Threads: 1,711
Reputation:
55832
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
(03-05-2021, 12:07 PM)hollodero Wrote: You also at times make bold assumptions about someone else's views and affiliations or what faulty echo chambers they are beholden to. Probably not in the same frequency as some others, that I consider true, but still.
I say that while usually agreeing with you on the merits. I also am not really that keen on pointing that out, but for some reason unbeknown to myself everyone showing up here gets a smack from me these days and I am determined to decrease my popularity, so there you go.
And yeah, stubbornness... that is something I perceive as an American trait. Many are experts on all kinds of issues and are deeply unwilling to ever admit they weren't entirely right on everything. This is something that used to baffle me a lot. I couldn't possibly single out any individual in that regard. I rather developed the same trait for my own hollodero persona.
On the cops thing, I seem to remember believing you painted quite a one-sided picture, but when I said so you clarified that you don't see it as such, so yeah on these grounds alone I don't see you as a cop hater. Don't know if SSF does or said so, but if he did, I don't agree with that.
Again I said "go to". I might use that if I feel it has merits but that is dependent on the conversation and the poster. I'm not questioning your perception, just clarifying what I know I do...not how it might be seen by others.
Years ago had one poster who write long paragraphs about what he thought on a subject...and it turned out he was copying and pasting from right wing sites without linking to them. As if the thoughts were his alone. When that was pointed out they took offense. Felt "bullied" that such plagiarism was even mentioned. They no longer post here but that is because of what they posted and an inability to follow the board rules not because they felt bullied.
We all have our flaws. Most of us try and change. Sometimes we fail. I know I have. I also know that as I get older (I was in my mid 30's when I joined the original board back in 2005) I care LESS about "arguing" and the back and forth that gets nowhere. More to the point I took SSF's advice this year and shut up. I post a little less. My posts are (usually) a little shorter. And I don't "engage" or take the bait just to argue.
I never did care what anyone thought of me because no one here "knows" me...at least in real life. I just want to enjoy the back and forth without the drama. To that end I asked the good cop/bad cop thread to be deleted. No matter how many times I explained myself it would never be understood or believed. I was tired of the fighting and ended it.
Anyway Trump has cult like followers and he has people who are afraid that crossing those followers would be bad for the party so they kiss the ring so to be speak. Since a lot of religions can be seen as cults that should answer the original question.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Posts: 5,334
Threads: 62
Reputation:
23727
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(03-05-2021, 12:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: Again I said "go to". I might use that if I feel it has merits but that is dependent on the conversation and the poster. I'm not questioning your perception, just clarifying what I know I do...not how it might be seen by others.
Years ago had one poster who write long paragraphs about what he thought on a subject...and it turned out he was copying and pasting from right wing sites without linking to them. As if the thoughts were his alone. When that was pointed out they took offense. Felt "bullied" that such plagiarism was even mentioned. They no longer post here but that is because of what they posted and an inability to follow the board rules not because they felt bullied.
Seems like a case where you were totally justified. Never meant to advocate not calling a spade a spade.
There are instances where I feel things are called a spade just on the grounds they are not distinctly something else, but I leave it at that.
(03-05-2021, 12:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: We all have our flaws.
Yup, that is my take as well.
(03-05-2021, 12:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: Most of us try and change. Sometimes we fail. I know I have. I also know that as I get older (I was in my mid 30's when I joined the original board back in 2005) I care LESS about "arguing" and the back and forth that gets nowhere. More to the point I took SSF's advice this year and shut up.
I noticed. Didn't think you'd stick to it for too long, such announcements have a tendency to last for five minutes or so, including when I make them. You followed through. Not bad.
(03-05-2021, 12:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: I post a little less. My posts are (usually) a little shorter. And I don't "engage" or take the bait just to argue.
I never did care what anyone thought of me because no one here "knows" me...at least in real life.
I know you voted for McCain once. How could you. :)
Well, I care a bit what people think about me, I guess there's always an aspect of narcissism that I can't quite shake off totally. I used to be way way worse in that regard though. At least that's what I claim - I modestly admit a flaw, say I worked on it and it's gotten better, hoping that everyone thinks that's so cool of me...
(03-05-2021, 12:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: I just want to enjoy the back and forth without the drama. To that end I asked the good cop/bad cop thread to be deleted. No matter how many times I explained myself it would never be understood or believed. I was tired of the fighting and ended it.
Never talk to teachers about teachers. Is what I learned. I guess it's similar with police. Some issues are just sensitive.
(03-05-2021, 12:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: Anyway Trump has cult like followers and he has people who are afraid that crossing those followers would be bad for the party so they kiss the ring so to be speak. Since a lot of religions can be seen as cults that should answer the original question.
That seems to be the problem with my OP. It's apparently a "well, duh" for many. Which makes me glad there is someone like SSF who challenges it.
But yeah. Trump is a religion for many, there is no breaking through, it is beyond rationality just like religion is. Many many others (maybe more in numbers) just like conservaitve policies and see reality as such, that it needs this Trump base to get a conservative in office to get judges and tax cuts or whatever and that Jeb Bush or whoever won't cut it. Understandable to a point, objectionable when it turns into what it turned into, a dangerous authoritarian shitshow full of lies and hatred. And there's the politicians who just have no spine, no principle, no nothing. In a way, Lindsey Graham disgusts me more than Trump. At least Trump is authentic in his persona and assholery, he always was a lying sack of shit. Lindsey et al. don't even have a persona, zero honor, zero integrity, and if somehow smacking little girls became popular with a critical mass of voters, they'd do that on TV as well.
Posts: 12,141
Threads: 133
Reputation:
32879
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(03-05-2021, 10:59 AM)hollodero Wrote: Points of clarification. :)
What I will say though, in the end, I feel there's a general tendency of not taking issue with one of your own. Eg. the way you perceive Dino vs SSF, to me, seems in some part rooted in the fact that you usually agree with Dino on the issues. Which can lead to a tendency to blame the person you don't agree with more, or even exclusively. And there I have another perspective, not because I force myself into neutrality, but because I'm not an American and imho not so deeply captured by a certain "us vs. them" mentality that is pretty prevalent in the US and its people. I might see that incorrectly for sure, but it's what I believe to observe quite some time.
I will add that this sure goes both ways. Non-liberals usually don't take issue with other non-liberals either, including when there's talk about stolen elections or FBI treason or how Michelle Obama was a *****. I do see SSF's point that it's only you liberals as very shaky, and this also is something I did express. He doesn't take issue with me saying so. Why such things are different when you say that, well I don't quite know. It's not because I'm inherently better, that's for sure. It's probably because I'm an exotic bird.
Not going to let this personal attack slide!!!
lol No wait. I actually am. Tamed by your fluency and good sense.
And yes, this is me: "your style is to explain things, and if someone has a different take, you feel the need to further explain yourself, to add more points, as in "if you don't agree with me, I need to make myself clearer". But I add that when doing this I am also listening to others and searching for critique, what went wrong in my communication--which means I can be wrong, refuted, etc. It just has to be by argument and evidence. E.g., the thread I started on the RWM and the Big Lie--that was a "test model" and big ask for productive critique. Not a demand for assent. I did take care to remind people they did not need to respond to my responses (for fear of wearying them or seeming overbearing).
I was going to send you a private message apologizing for posting a too-long "clarification" to the last person in this forum who needed it, and the last person I wanted to get all worried about stepping on verbal mines planted during some previous war.
But I'll do it now, in public. Sorry Hollo!
PS Going to attack Dino first chance I get. Whatever it is, he won't get away with it this time.
Posts: 5,334
Threads: 62
Reputation:
23727
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(03-05-2021, 11:42 PM)Dill Wrote: Not going to let this personal attack slide!!!
lol No wait. I actually am. Tamed by your fluency and good sense.
And yes, this is me: "your style is to explain things, and if someone has a different take, you feel the need to further explain yourself, to add more points, as in "if you don't agree with me, I need to make myself clearer". But I add that when doing this I am also listening to others and searching for critique, what went wrong in my communication--which means I can be wrong, refuted, etc. It just has to be by argument and evidence. E.g., the thread I started on the RWM and the Big Lie--that was a "test model" and big ask for productive critique. Not a demand for assent. I did take care to remind people they did not need to respond to my responses (for fear of wearying them or seeming overbearing).
I was going to send you a private message apologizing for posting a too-long "clarification" to the last person in this forum who needed it, and the last person I wanted to get all worried about stepping on verbal mines planted during some previous war.
But I'll do it now, in public. Sorry Hollo!
PS Going to attack Dino first chance I get. Whatever it is, he won't get away with it this time.
lol.... yeah as I said, I am the same kind of person; and for the record I don't think anything you do falls under "bullying", though I have difficulties to define that term in the first place.
Eg. is it bullying when I talk to someone more conservative and then someone else swoops in and answers on this person's behalf, painting his mindset as ridiculous and backwards or something in that area. Many people do that. You don't do that. You just tend to appear a certain way with certain people, as do I for similar reasons.
And, to the main part, no one needs to apologize to me about anything.
Posts: 38,881
Threads: 1,711
Reputation:
55832
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
Seems like a good place to leave this.
Trump will continue to use his win in 2016 to raise money for...Trump.
Pure grifting.
And millions of people will send money out of pure devotion. It is a cult/religion.
![[Image: 158868585_753493345293856_69427324517115...e=606E5086]](https://scontent.fpit1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/158868585_753493345293856_6942732451711587500_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=uj901vQjMV8AX9Uc_is&_nc_ht=scontent.fpit1-1.fna&oh=5f03dbcc55586615d1f4f18b445e3620&oe=606E5086)
Quote:Congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) responded to a statement from former President Donald Trump about political donations on Monday, saying Trump was desperate to remain relevant.
Trump issued the statement as part of an ongoing dispute with the Republican National Committee about the use of his image in fundraising solicitations for the party.
"No more money for RINOS [Republicans in Name Only]," he said. "They do nothing but hurt the Republican Party and our great voting base—they will never lead us to Greatness."
Democrats Give Up on Bill Honoring Capitol Police After GOP Stonewalling
READ MORE
Democrats Give Up on Bill Honoring Capitol Police After GOP Stonewalling
The statement called for donations directly to the former president's Save America PAC and added: "We will bring it all back stronger than ever before!"
Kinzinger, a Republican who represents Illinois' 16th congressional district, shared an image of the statement on Twitter.
"As I have said: Trump demands loyalty and gives none," Kinzinger wrote. "Statement of a man desperate for relevance but feeling the changing tides."
Kinzinger was just one of 10 Republican members of the House to vote in favor of impeaching Trump following the deadly Capitol riot on January 6. The former president was acquitted in the Senate.
Trump's latest comments come amid a clash with the RNC over the use of his image. The GOP has continued to use photos of Trump as part of its fundraising efforts but the former president has recently objected to the practice.
His team sent a letter to the RNC on March 5 asking the organization to "immediately cease and desist the unauthorized use of President Donald J. Trump's name, image, and/or likeness in all fundraising, persuasion, and/or issue speech."
RNC chief counsel J. Justin Riemer responded in a letter on Monday, writing that his client "has every right to refer to public figures as it engages in core, First Amendment-protected political speech" and that "it will continue to do so in pursuit of these common goals."
Riemer also said that Trump had "reaffirmed" to RNC chair Ronna McDaniel at the weekend "that he approves of the RNC's current use of his name in fundraising and other materials, including for our upcoming donor retreat event at Palm Beach at which we look forward to him participating."
That letter prompted Trump's statement about RINOs. Once a commonly used term on the right, RINO generally means any member of the Republican Party—especially elected officials—who is seen as insufficiently conservative. It had fallen out of favor to a degree during Trump's time in office but has recently been used to describe Republicans who are not supportive of the former president.
Adam Kinzinger has been asked for comment on this article.
READ MORE
And while a few get it, the cat is out of the bag. And with spineless "leaders" like McConnell saying they would back him in 2024 they are writing their own obituary for the party.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Posts: 38,881
Threads: 1,711
Reputation:
55832
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
Graham is the Matt Gaetz of Mitch McConnells.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lindsey-graham-trump-destroy-gop_n_6045aefcc5b613cec15eec0a
Quote:Lindsey Graham Says Trump Could Make The GOP Stronger — Or Destroy It
In an Axios interview, the Republican senator admitted the former president has a “dark side.”
![[Image: 5c53f909360000000b68109e.jpg?ops=100_100]](https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5c53f909360000000b68109e.jpg?ops=100_100)
By Mary Papenfuss
Donald Trump could make the Republican Party bigger and stronger, or he could destroy it, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in an Axios interview Sunday.
But as one of Trump’s staunchest supporters, he isn’t about to turn his back on the former president. Graham still regards Trump as the leader of an important movement, even though he has “lots problems facing him.”
“There’s something about Trump. There’s a dark side — and there’s some magic there,” Graham told Axios’ Jonathan Swan. “What I’m trying to do is just harness the magic.”
Graham also claimed that Trump could alter the Republican Party.
“He can make it bigger. He can make it stronger. He can make it more diverse. And he also could destroy it,” Graham said.
In recent weeks, Trump has vowed to battle against the 10 Republican House members who voted for his impeachment and seven GOP senators who voted to convict him of inciting the violent Capitol attack on Jan 6. Just last month Trump endorsed a Republican primary challenger to Ohio Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, who voted for impeachment.
Trump has also ordered the Republican National Committee not to use his name or image for fundraising without his express consent.
Graham condemned Trump for his role in the riot hours after it happened. He also said Trump would “get his share of blame in history” for the Capitol insurrection, but that it was time to “move on.”
That said, Graham was once a scathing critic of Trump:
Check out the video clip of the Axios interview above.
"Gosh darn he did some bad stuff but I might be able to ride his 'magic' coattails to a little more popularity and then when I'm long gone history can have him even though I knew he was awful before he was ever elected."
What a milquetoast.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
|
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
