Crash...you are living proof of an aborigine gangbang...
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by iam416 View PostWell, I'm certain it can't be disproven, proving a negative being what it is and all. The question remains whether it can be proven, at least in terms of public perception and legally speaking.
Originally posted by iam416 View PostI actually think it's closer to 40-42% -- the part of the country that is all-in on DJT. I think the remaining 8-12% is a pretty big deal. They're skeptical. They've been fed a line and are inclined to believe it. But, they're not there, yet. That's the basis -- credible or not -- for my take on it.
Originally posted by iam416 View PostI'm fairly certain that gads of media outlets make decisions every day based on their intended market. There is no "universal" way to cover an issue. How you approach the issue and the extent you cover it is up the media source. I think that's on display in almost every issue from, say, the Orlando nightclub shooting to Comey's testimony.
- Top
Comment
-
could have effectively disproven the allegations IMO
We have to remain consistent with our currency here. Initially we were discussing the cachet of trust, i.e. whether the nuance of needing to cover an issue that leads nowhere would be digested by half the populace, and whether that belief should influence coverage. Now we’re veering into market-based decisions. Certainly some overlap exists, but as I mentioned above, I don't see the risks as great as you do.
To be clear, I'm making not making any statements as to how the press should do their job. I'm entirely unqualified to speak on that matter. I am, however, opining as to how the electorate will react to a certain hypothetical set of events.Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
- Top
Comment
-
hack:...These are our courts. They should reflect us, and not some weird other evolved standard that fits not one single person's notion of reality. The courts system is sick. It allows obvious criminals who are likely traitors to run the country....
As an aside, I read an article last week that posited that the travel ban kerfuffle is the logical outcome of "disparate impact" jurisprudence.
- Top
Comment
-
As an aside, I read an article last week that posited that the travel ban kerfuffle is the logical outcome of "disparate impact" jurisprudence.
There was nothing neutral about the travel ban. It was quite fucking explicit non-neutral -- it applies only to folks from certain countries. So, again, I say poppycock!Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
- Top
Comment
-
Originally posted by iam416 View PostI think you have to keep him. If you remove him you're creating a genuine mid-term election issue. If you have him there then (a) you already have someone in place doing the job when/if the Ds win the House; and (b) he can potentially save you.
But, whatever. I'm sure that whatever the worst political decision is -- that'll be the choice.
- Top
Comment
-
The world isn't ending, yet, Wiz. You'll know the end is nigh when the Browns are in the Super Bowl or M wins an undisputed national title.Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
- Top
Comment
-
Heh. The approach seems to be "Innocent, but act guilty" or "Guilty, and act guilty".
The sheer level of incompetence approaches the Callahan Defensive Gambit of Ought Seven. Conceding 76 to Kansas in FOOTBALL ought to be grounds for banishment from this fucking solar system.Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
- Top
Comment
-
Internet tough guy caricature doesn't really change the record.
That's you. I politely asked you to explain yourself a little further rather than just toss a veiled insult at me, and included there a show of respect, undue or not, in hopes of avoiding this sort of thing:
I don't appreciate ``absolute worst of progressive thought". Your tone is unfortunate, but you're you and I like and respect you anyways, and your points are very much worth listening to when you actually unpack them with the patience and care required for the nuance they contain. So please just make your case instead of assertions like that. I don't see "Words have meaning" as a statement that belongs anywhere on the political spectrum.
There's a please in there and much praise for you and all that, and yet still this is where we've ended up. You seem to be too prickly to endure a challenge, and are without a doubt ungrateful and nonreciprocating of the respect and courtesy you've been afforded. Clearly undeserving of it. I think it doesn't take expertise in statutory law here -- if it were all open and shut as you say it were then all lawyers would agree and we'd have no need for courts and judges. Which is obviously not the case. So, you don't wanna discuss, but you do want to toss out insults.
So, yes. Internet tough guy doesn't change the record. Applaud yourself all you like for your clarity and force of thought, but that's bullshit. Sometimes you are unclear on purpose. Other times -- the occasional ones where you have had the courage to engage -- I've come to a better understanding of your poorly-worded thoughts. That would be the ideal here. You're not good at communicating what you think, becuase you assume too much as a starting point. That's OK -- people shouldn't have to be perfect and precise in real time to get their point across. I think its OK to be asked for clarification. Doesn't have to be taken as an insult or a challenge.
You should behave better here.Last edited by hack; June 13, 2017, 12:15 PM.
- Top
Comment
Comment