2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[TheHeel]

Originally Posted by JeremyNick

Woah. Chill out. I just call balls and strikes.

Do you really though?

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by discostu

I go by their responses after Carlson made the claim. NYT seemed straightforward, and yet crickets mostly from Carlson and Fox News.

You've labeled the NYT as the truth; shame on you.

[Siberian13]

Originally Posted by budd2222

Are the charges against Chislaine Maxwell state or federal? Would it be better for the people if they were in state court?

Arrested by Feds and denied bail by federal judge. I just assume federal

[cnewby]

Originally Posted by discostu

I go by their responses after Carlson made the claim. NYT seemed straightforward, and yet crickets mostly from Carlson and Fox News.

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

You've labeled the NYT as the truth; shame on you.

Simply stunning confession.

[NeedChapmans]

All California state schools now have a social justice credit requirement:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...e-15427560.php

Terribly sad.

[JeremyNick]

Originally Posted by TheHeel

Do you really though?

Yes. You just objected to my call and pointed to how pitches were called in a game I didn’t umpire.

It’s called a strawman argument and based off the fact that you objected to that apparent spamming and are fine with this spamming based on your opinion of the content makes it hypocritical.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by cnewby

Simply stunning confession.

It's unbelievable really. Two, relatively moderate posters label Tucker "false" simply because the Times says so. No doubt in their minds. No evidence, just a two sentence denial is good enough for them.

The level of brainwashing that the media does; bravo. I am impressed.

[DegaBama]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

All California state schools now have a social justice credit requirement:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...e-15427560.php

Terribly sad.

There's already tons of worthless courses that mean nothing for a career, let's add another one!

Yet, simple finance is not a required course.

[TheHeel]

Originally Posted by JeremyNick

Yes. You just objected to my call and pointed to how pitches were called in a game I didn’t umpire.

It’s called a strawman argument and based off the fact that you objected to that apparent spamming and are fine with this spamming based on your opinion of the content makes it hypocritical.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by DegaBama

There's already tons of worthless courses that mean nothing for a career, let's add another one!

Yet, simple finance is not a required course.

A shame. But teaching personal finance AFTER the student has likely taken out the loan for school would surely backfire!

[Siberian13]

Originally Posted by DegaBama

There's already tons of worthless courses that mean nothing for a career, let's add another one!

Yet, simple finance is not a required course.

I’ve never understood that when I was in school. No one ever taught simple finance or how to be financially responsible. Hopefully that’s changed at the high school level by now, I’d assume.

[discostu]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

You've labeled the NYT as the truth; shame on you.

Originally Posted by cnewby

Simply stunning confession.

Two cats walk into a pet store, immediately a bird goes missing.

Owner says, "which one of you ate my bird?"

One bird immediately says, "I didn't eat your bird."

The other bird says nothing.

[Siberian13]

Originally Posted by discostu

Two cats walk into a pet store, immediately a bird goes missing.

Owner says, "which one of you ate my bird?"

One bird immediately says, "I didn't eat your bird."

The other bird says nothing.

Cannibalism is a big problem in the bird community

[JeremyNick]

Originally Posted by DegaBama

There's already tons of worthless courses that mean nothing for a career, let's add another one!

Yet, simple finance is not a required course.

I had to take a required course in Undergrad. I honestly can’t remember the name but it was some Social Science course. First day of class the teacher says there is no textbook and the class grade is based off opinion papers written around the topics we discuss in classes. In my naïveté I was extremely happy.

Wrong. The grades of your papers were not based around the construct of your ideas, support of them or anything tangible. It was based around whether the professor agreed with your perspective. I was a white 20 year old conservative male, she was an African American mid 40s liberal female. After she wrote very little feedback on my papers besides “I don’t agree” and gave them Cs, I met with her and discussed.

I quickly realized she simply didn’t like my perspective but also gave me an opportunity to rewrite my papers. So I did, multiple times. The last time she simply slapped a B on top and wrote “we’ll just have to agree to disagree”. So for my last paper that was allowed to be on a topic of our choice I wrote on the history of Christianity. Something I knew she had no interest or opinion on. I was right. I got an A and the only comment she wrote was, “I don’t understand why you wrote this paper”.

That was only one of two Bs I received my whole sophomore year. It opened my eyes to the first time to the reality of the twisted nature of many college classes. I was a physiology major so there wasn’t a strong social component to any of my classes and that required elective was an eye-opener to the reality of college thought teaching.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by discostu

Two cats walk into a pet store, immediately a bird goes missing.

Owner says, "which one of you ate my bird?"

One bird immediately says, "I didn't eat your bird."

The other bird says nothing.

I see. You exemplify Twitter. Those that scream the loudest are those to be taken most seriously.

That you don't even consider the bird flew away OR that the first cat ate it suggests you have no interest in the truth or the facts. You'll believe what Cat #1 tells you, just like our Cuomo friend from earlier. No critical thinking of any kind.

[Siberian13]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

I see. You exemplify Twitter. Those that scream the loudest are those to be taken most seriously.

That you don't even consider the bird flew away OR that the first cat ate it suggests you have no interest in the truth or the facts. You'll believe what Cat #1 tells you, just like our Cuomo friend from earlier. No critical thinking of any kind.

What cats? He said birds.

[DegaBama]

Originally Posted by Siberian13

I’ve never understood that when I was in school. No one ever taught simple finance or how to be financially responsible. Hopefully that’s changed at the high school level by now, I’d assume.

I would hope so, I wish I had it. Simple things like that, car repair, home ec, things like that are much more valuable than most courses.

Originally Posted by JeremyNick

I had to take a required course in Undergrad. I honestly can’t remember the name but it was some Social Science course. First day of class the teacher says there is no textbook and the class grade is based off opinion papers written around the topics we discuss in classes. In my naïveté I was extremely happy.

Wrong. The grades of your papers were not based around the construct of your ideas, support of them or anything tangible. It was based around whether the professor agreed with your perspective. I was a white 20 year old conservative male, she was an African American mid 40s liberal female. After she wrote very little feedback on my papers besides “I don’t agree” and gave them Cs, I met with her and discussed.

I quickly realized she simply didn’t like my perspective but also gave me an opportunity to rewrite my papers. So I did, multiple times. The last time she simply slapped a B on top and wrote “we’ll just have to agree to disagree”. So for my last paper that was allowed to be on a topic of our choice I wrote on the history of Christianity. Something I knew she had no interest or opinion on. I was right. I got an A and the only comment she wrote was, “I don’t understand why you wrote this paper”.

That was only one of two Bs I received my whole sophomore year. It opened my eyes to the first time to the reality of the twisted nature of many college classes. I was a physiology major so there wasn’t a strong social component to any of my classes and that required elective was an eye-opener to the reality of college thought teaching.

I think we went to the same college, I has a similar course and similar experience, almost to a T. She actually had to face the dean of her department a couple of times, from what I remember, because she would call basically call students racists for simple disagreeing with her. There was also a trend in the grades of the white students and the black students. Crazy stuff.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by Siberian13

What cats? He said birds.

The gentlemen takes the Times at face value; he's in for a rough enough life as is!

No need to pile on. An honest mistake in the fable; but one that does nothing to further his point.

[JeremyNick]

Originally Posted by discostu

Two cats walk into a pet store, immediately a bird goes missing.

Owner says, "which one of you ate my bird?"

One bird immediately says, "I didn't eat your bird."

The other bird says nothing.

It was the lizard.

[techtre2003]

Originally Posted by Chris Lyle

Interesting little tid bit on the accuracy of some of the numbers when it comes to covid.

A small business that a friend of mine works at was given tests for all their employees to take to see if they had the virus. They packed it back up and sent it back declining to use the tests and got a letter back saying that 30% of their office had the virus.

How does that work???

It's no wonder there are people that get frustrated over this whole thing and just throw up their hands.

There's just too many reports like this out there for me to even begin to believe any of the numbers anymore. There was a report earlier this week that some of you may have seen where people were signing up for testing but decided to leave because the wait was too long and were later called and told they tested positive. Between these types of things, the false-positives, the false-negatives, the recording of deaths not even related to covid being report as covid deaths, the numbers being reported as assumed covid and on and on - I just don't see how anyone can trust any of the numbers being put out.

[discostu]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

I see. You exemplify Twitter. Those that scream the loudest are those to be taken most seriously.

That you don't even consider the bird flew away OR that the first cat ate it suggests you have no interest in the truth or the facts. You'll believe what Cat #1 tells you, just like our Cuomo friend from earlier. No critical thinking of any kind.

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

The gentlemen takes the Times at face value; he's in for a rough enough life as is!

No need to pile on. An honest mistake in the fable; but one that does nothing to further his point.

It's fun, I get it.

You have kids, if one of them makes a claim that the other denies and then the kid who made the claim does nothing to deny or further back up the claim...logic dictates you pick a side.

Carlson's claim seemed farfetched to begin with considering it is not policy to release addresses of subjects in articles.

It's not as farfetched as Jussie Smollett's, but certainly appears to be a fabrication to elicit a response.

Regardless, if we're in a battle of integrity between NYT and Tucker Carlson...you've got to pick a side.

At the end, facts don't matter. Carlson got what he wanted...a victim story. The reporters got doxed and it washed off of him.

America.

[GeechQuest]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

So you believe Tucker made the story up, outed two random people on his show "just because"?

Again, it's a non zero chance but it doesn't make any sense. The most likely conclusion is that a story was going to go up in the Times about his house in Maine; and this was his way of not wanting it published. Good for Tucker, the story may not be published.

Well you asked for conservatives who doxed and said you hadn't seen it, there you go.

Has Tucker been doxed yet? I haven't seen it if he has.

Instead of defending Tucker for something that didn't happen, why not address the doxing of the reporter? Seems like an odd stance.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by discostu

It's fun, I get it.

You have kids, if one of them makes a claim that the other denies and then the kid who made the claim does nothing to deny or further back up the claim...logic dictates you pick a side.

Carlson's claim seemed farfetched to begin with considering it is not policy to release addresses of subjects in articles.

It's not as farfetched as Jussie Smollett's, but certainly appears to be a fabrication to elicit a response.

Regardless, if we're in a battle of integrity between NYT and Tucker Carlson...you've got to pick a side.

At the end, facts don't matter. Carlson got what he wanted...a victim story. The reporters got doxed and it washed off of him.

America.

Everything you just said is wrong. Amazing.

I don't have to pick any side. You see, I get to draw my own conclusions; it's one of the beautiful things about having a functioning cerebral cortex. I don't have to believe the Times and I don't have to believe Tucker. I'm allowed to figure it out for myself, come to my own conclusion.

And my conclusion is that the Times was going to run a story about Tucker's home in Maine, to which Tucker vehemently did not want to happen. And my guess is that the Times had no intention of publishing the actual address, but enough details for people to know where it is if they went looking. Best guess what happened.

But I leave open the possibility for other things. I believe the above to be the most likely scenario, but certainly don't take Tucker at face value and equally don't believe the Times at face value. You, suggesting that not only must I take a side, but that I should believe the Times because they deny the claim is ludicrous.

BTW, in your example above, both kids are lying.

[GeechQuest]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Everything you just said is wrong. Amazing.

I don't have to pick any side. You see, I get to draw my own conclusions; it's one of the beautiful things about having a functioning cerebral cortex. I don't have to believe the Times and I don't have to believe Tucker. I'm allowed to figure it out for myself, come to my own conclusion.

And my conclusion is that the Times was going to run a story about Tucker's home in Maine, to which Tucker vehemently did not want to happen. And my guess is that the Times had no intention of publishing the actual address, but enough details for people to know where it is if they went looking. Best guess what happened.

But I leave open the possibility for other things. I believe the above to be the most likely scenario, but certainly don't take Tucker at face value and equally don't believe the Times at face value. You, suggesting that not only must I take a side, but that I should believe the Times because they deny the claim is ludicrous.

BTW, in your example above, both kids are lying.

Back to reality...

Tucker hasn't been doxed. Even though both you and Carlson somehow knew he was going to be doxed on Thursday, he obviously wasn't.

On the contrary, the Times reporter was doxed.

Everything else is assumptions.

So to recap:

Tucker wasn't doxed
Times reporter was

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by GeechQuest

Well you asked for conservatives who doxed and said you hadn't seen it, there you go.

Has Tucker been doxed yet? I haven't seen it if he has.

Instead of defending Tucker for something that didn't happen, why not address the doxing of the reporter? Seems like an odd stance.

If Tucker made up the claim, what he did is reprehensible. If he didn't then I shed no tears for the reporter who was outed.

That the NYT is not publishing a story on Tucker has no bearing on the actions of the Times and that specific reporter (or reporters). The best I can do is tell you that if I was aware of a story being printed regarding a home I owned, by an organization like the Times or the Post, I would likely do the same in an attempt to stop it.

For the same reason I don't have the Trump flag on the flag pole outside, I don't want strangers knowing I'm republican. Adds unnecessary risk to my family.