- Oct 2, 2020
- 28,155
- 15,278
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Please try giving me a concise to the point reply, instead of whatever that lenthy composition was supposed to be.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Please try giving me a concise to the point reply, instead of whatever that lenthy composition was supposed to be.Some people are. Most aren't. But if you're concerned about it then how about you start a thread on national security and what internal elements are a danger. See if you can't stick to the facts, put forward honest opinions have a sensible discussion about it.
Nah...don't be silly. I was only joking. That's not possible in the current reality. A sensible discussion? Gee, I nearly spilled my drink (the sun's going down here). But hey, you gotta laugh. Even thought the current atmosphere is too thick with bulldust to raise a giggle let alone a full throated chuckle.
Let's face it. From someone who has no time for Mrs. Clinton (and had hardly any for Mr. Clinton), I can tell you that the woman spends a lot of time with her stiletto hovering pretty close to her mouth. She is an incredibly intelligent woman but she knows it (as opposed to one or two I could mention who are incredibly stupid but don't - I know which is by far the worst but the other grates terribly). And that means she is a lot smarter than a significant proportion of the country. And it annoys her that there are so many who are not too smart but yet seem to revel in that fact. Who keep wanting to prove it. Who think it a source of pride in some way. Yeah, I know that annoys you about her as well.
I said something earlier today in some similar thread that the further you move to the right, the less sense of humour you have. I guess it also applies if you find yourself wafting about in the rarified atmosphere of those who have certainty in whatever position they take, far above the great unwashed who say that they know, but are clearly incapable of putting together a meaningful couple of sentences explaining their position. So she's not a chuckle meister. Stand up is not her forte. The hyperbolic quip or knowing satirical aside with a subtly raised eyebrow is beyond her. So what she says comes across a little too seriously. A little too earnest.
But gee, someone would have to be as dumb as a box of rocks to think that what she actually said was what she literally thought should happen. It makes me frustrated as all get out that an offhand comment, albeit ill advised in the current climate, was even thought worth discussing in the first instance, let alone one that's produced close to 250 posts in a few hours.
And what does it lead to? Just more of the frustrating same. 'Oh, you think she didn't mean it? Well, what about THIS!' Really? Is that what counts as an argument in the forum these days? A question which will immediately trigger the usual schoolyard response: 'Well, they started it, sir! Why are you picking on me!'
This is all we get these days. Without checking I don't even know if this is in the political section. Ah, no. Current events. As if this facetious (and foolish) comment was an event that rated anything more than a passing glance. But it's all grist to the mill. Grind these comments up into a paste and you can keep throwing it at the opposition and see if you can score a couple of points. As long as you know it's just cheap points you think you are scoring. Whereas what you are doing is undermining the whole process of political debate and turning in to a game.
Here's an honest question. Can anyone tell me the last time there was a genuine discussion on a political policy that either party had mentioned anywhere? I really can't remember.
Anyway. As you were.
This is interesting. You accused someone of paranoid hyperbole, that you then in turn produced yourself.Thank you for proving my point. Neither Secretary Clinton nor anyone in this thread has said anything about "brainwashing, propagandizing, re-educating, etc. at an institute, facility, health services center or anything like that. You're literally saying, "those people want to get me", not only does no one want to get you, no one wants to do to you what You're claiming "they" want to do you.
All your scenarios exist only in your imagination.
I read the most amazing fan fiction on CF.
Ah, yes. Another thing that never happened happened but right leaning folks insist is endemic in this country.
It's almost like you're trying to prove my point for me again .
>> This sort of mentality reminds me of @iluvatar5150 s thread where it seems that quite a few on the right have so immersed themselves in right wing rhetoric that liberals or anyone who even holds a left of center position or two, is not merely a political opponent, but fundamentally evil, actively trying to destroy America and possibly literally demonic. The Left ™ cannot be compromised with because they are so fundamentally evil and they must be exiled or destroyed.
You made no coherent reply to any point. There was nothing credible or relevant in regard to what you posted. It was part of the game that so many play these day. Cheap point scoring. He said...she said...what about this...so I guess that means...Please try giving me a concise to the point reply...
Okey dokey.You made no coherent reply to any point. There was nothing credible or relevant in regard to what you posted. It was part of the game that so many play these day. Cheap point scoring. He said...she said...what about this...so I guess that means...
But everyone is doing it. As I said, it's what passes for political debate these days. It's a complete waste of time. Which would be better spent discussing, and I mean genuinely discussing politics. You know, what policies are being presented, what should be presented, what policies might work. How they might work. How they could be improved. Seen anything like that recently? No, me neither.
And I know exactly what would happen if a policy was presented for discussion. I could paraphrase one and ask if you supported it and I guarantee you'd need to check whose policy it was before you could tell me.
Brad isn’t worthy of being read?Please try giving me a concise to the point reply, instead of whatever that lenthy composition was supposed to be.
A lot of this “bickering=cogent-political-thought“ is fallout from the time when the SPORTSBALL (and NASCAR) got axed while we were in pandemic-mode, as if politics is really a team-sport.You made no coherent reply to any point. There was nothing credible or relevant in regard to what you posted. It was part of the game that so many play these day. Cheap point scoring. He said...she said...what about this...so I guess that means...
But everyone is doing it. As I said, it's what passes for political debate these days. It's a complete waste of time. Which would be better spent discussing, and I mean genuinely discussing politics. You know, what policies are being presented, what should be presented, what policies might work. How they might work. How they could be improved. Seen anything like that recently? No, me neither.
And I know exactly what would happen if a policy was presented for discussion. I could paraphrase one and ask if you supported it and I guarantee you'd need to check whose policy it was before you could tell me.
Worthy has nothing to do with it.Brad isn’t worthy of being read?
hmm
None of that has to do with the topic of conversation. Those who are disgruntled over debates taking place, should post their complaints to the rant section. Or just simply not subject themselves to an environment they don't approve of.A lot of this “bickering=cogent-political-thought“ is fallout from the time when the SPORTSBALL (and NASCAR) got axed while we were in pandemic-mode, as if politics is really a team-sport.
She said half of Trump supporters were deplorable so why should we think she’s talking about any less now?If they are such a small minority such as those who stormed the capital, and all those people are in jail, then who is hillary talking about?
No, just defeated as I pointed out earlierYep. I'm one of the people who thinks that some of Donald's ardent faithful are have fallen so deep into his personality cult that it might require cult deprogramming to help them reconnect to reality.
What NO ONE in this thread has advocated is "want(ing) to put all Donald supporters in reeducation camps". That is pure red hat persecution fantasy.
This is hilariously ironic. Because it's really more telling about Donald's ardently faithful believers. As I've noted previously:
Yeah, how stupid on our part to think that she might actually mean what she said.Some people are. Most aren't. But if you're concerned about it then how about you start a thread on national security and what internal elements are a danger. See if you can't stick to the facts, put forward honest opinions have a sensible discussion about it.
Nah...don't be silly. I was only joking. That's not possible in the current reality. A sensible discussion? Gee, I nearly spilled my drink (the sun's going down here). But hey, you gotta laugh. Even thought the current atmosphere is too thick with bulldust to raise a giggle let alone a full throated chuckle.
Let's face it. From someone who has no time for Mrs. Clinton (and had hardly any for Mr. Clinton), I can tell you that the woman spends a lot of time with her stiletto hovering pretty close to her mouth. She is an incredibly intelligent woman but she knows it (as opposed to one or two I could mention who are incredibly stupid but don't - I know which is by far the worst but the other grates terribly). And that means she is a lot smarter than a significant proportion of the country. And it annoys her that there are so many who are not too smart but yet seem to revel in that fact. Who keep wanting to prove it. Who think it a source of pride in some way. Yeah, I know that annoys you about her as well.
I said something earlier today in some similar thread that the further you move to the right, the less sense of humour you have. I guess it also applies if you find yourself wafting about in the rarified atmosphere of those who have certainty in whatever position they take, far above the great unwashed who say that they know, but are clearly incapable of putting together a meaningful couple of sentences explaining their position. So she's not a chuckle meister. Stand up is not her forte. The hyperbolic quip or knowing satirical aside with a subtly raised eyebrow is beyond her. So what she says comes across a little too seriously. A little too earnest.
But gee, someone would have to be as dumb as a box of rocks to think that what she actually said was what she literally thought should happen. It makes me frustrated as all get out that an offhand comment, albeit ill advised in the current climate, was even thought worth discussing in the first instance, let alone one that's produced close to 250 posts in a few hours.
And what does it lead to? Just more of the frustrating same. 'Oh, you think she didn't mean it? Well, what about THIS!' Really? Is that what counts as an argument in the forum these days? A question which will immediately trigger the usual schoolyard response: 'Well, they started it, sir! Why are you picking on me!'
This is all we get these days. Without checking I don't even know if this is in the political section. Ah, no. Current events. As if this facetious (and foolish) comment was an event that rated anything more than a passing glance. But it's all grist to the mill. Grind these comments up into a paste and you can keep throwing it at the opposition and see if you can score a couple of points. As long as you know it's just cheap points you think you are scoring. Whereas what you are doing is undermining the whole process of political debate and turning in to a game.
Here's an honest question. Can anyone tell me the last time there was a genuine discussion on a political policy that either party had mentioned anywhere? I really can't remember.
Anyway. As you were.
Yes. That's exactly the point I am making. You seem to be totally unaware. As I said, she is an intelligent woman. And to suggest that she thinks that 'de-programming' sections of the American population could literally be a serious consideration, then...I can't come to any other conclusion.Yeah, how stupid on our part to think that she might actually mean what she said.
Are we supposed to take you seriously? I can’t be sure nowYes. That's exactly the point I am making. You seem to be totally unaware. As I said, she is an intelligent woman. And to suggest that she thinks that 'de-programming' sections of the American population could literally be a serious consideration, then...I can't come to any other conclusion.
That being a symptom of the problem. You can't seem to understand when someone is making a serious comment or not.Are we supposed to take you seriously? I can’t be sure now
It seems you're equating her making a rather tongue-in-cheek comment about MAGA extremists behaving like a cult for a policy statement about a law she would like passed. She did not actually propose any such law. Nor, frankly, can she at this point. She isn't in office anywhere.Yeah, how stupid on our part to think that she might actually mean what she said.
She was quite obviously being perfectly serious. You're exploiting Poe's Law by proxy.That being a symptom of the problem. You can't seem to understand when someone is making a serious comment or not.
Unlike Poe's Law regarding text, it's plainly obvious from her facial expression and her tone of voice that she was dead serious. Although she probably regretted saying it out loud immediately afterwards.It seems you're equating her making a rather tongue-in-cheek comment
She may have been, but that doesn't mean she was proposing a law to do that.Unlike Poe's Law regarding text, it's plainly obvious from her facial expression and her tone of voice that that she was dead serious. Although she probably regretted saying it immediately afterwards.
I'm sure they will. Just as I'm sure no actual law ever will.Hopefully humorous memes and skits about Clinton's Deprogramming Camps will follow.
It's obvious that no one would willingly submit to being "deprogrmed".She may have been, but that doesn't mean she was proposing a law to do that.
It's the thought that counts.I'm sure they will. Just as I'm sure no actual law ever will.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?