(09-29-2016, 11:20 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(09-29-2016, 10:47 AM)Duchess Wrote: I'm not against him personally but he seems lacking in so many ways. I want smart, knowledgeable people in positions of power, I want people who are fast on their feet and know how to deal with others in a firm, respectful manner. I don't want a clown or a pothead.

Yeah, I feel the same way.

There are parts of the established political system that I don't like at all myself. Special interest control over many in Congress, campaign finance regulations (or lack thereof), little policy attention to problems facing the middle class, for-profit criminal justice corruption...

I think Sanders did a great job bringing those types of issues to the national forefront and I'm glad Clinton jumped on board and adopted much of his key platform points, in addition to the reform plans she herself had previously introduced.

Trump gets credit from me for shaking up some of the established Republican politicians who didn't see the level of public frustration across the country (some of which they created, in my opinion) and who seemed prepared to keep doing the same old same old. But, Trump doesn't present clear or realistic solutions and often doesn't listen to the experienced experts who are attempting to advise him. He's not a credible candidate to address/fix the problems and improve the system, in my view.

The established Democrats are a lot that need shaking too. Its not as one sided as you seem to be portraying it. In today's news it seems the democrats are the ones threatening a government shutdown, but that may be OK for them to do. Last time it was the republicans fault and they were demonized. Both parties are in need of a smack down. Greed knows no political boundaries.

I agree completely that there are some bad policies and practices on both sides of the aisle, Mags. And, the shaking that's going down has affected both parties, which is good.

But, I think in this particular election cycle, the Independent running as a Democrat and the established Democratic nominee have done a much better job addressing the problems, laying out and articulating solutions, and speaking intelligently to the American people than the Republican nominee.

Citizens United, the NRA strong-hold on established politicians, government attempts to interfere on people's choices when it comes to their bodies and the bedroom (often rationalized by the politicians'/party's religious beliefs), proposing unconstitutional policies, failure to acknowledge and address racial inequities, advocating policies that benefit the very wealthy at the expense of the rest, publicly spreading false claims and rhetoric and denying science..are some of the major political problems of concern to me and which I see as having been advocated/perpetuated primarily by the GOP.

The next debate is scheduled for October 9 at 9:00 PM EST. It will be held at Washington University in St. Louis. It will be a Town Hall format. Citizens like you & I will be asking the candidates questions.

(09-29-2016, 01:43 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I agree completely that there are some bad policies and practices on both sides of the aisle, Mags. And, the shaking that's going down has affected both parties, which is good.

But, I think in this particular election cycle, the Independent running as a Democrat and the established Democratic nominee have done a much better job addressing the problems, laying out and articulating solutions, and speaking intelligently to the American people than the Republican nominee.

Citizens United, the NRA strong-hold on established politicians, government attempts to interfere on people's choices when it comes to their bodies and the bedroom (often rationalized by the politicians'/party's religious beliefs), proposing unconstitutional policies, failure to acknowledge and address racial inequities, advocating policies that benefit the very wealthy at the expense of the rest, publicly spreading false claims and rhetoric and denying science..are some of the major political problems of concern to me and which I see as having been advocated/perpetuated primarily by the GOP.

All of that can be laid on Democrats depending on which side of the table you are on. Telling religious organizations that they must accept abortions, using racial inequality as a tool to create more dissent, pushing somewhat questionable science into taxable tools, pushing unprepared legislation under the guise of affordable insurance, paying terrorists ransom while telling parents not to do the same, instituting gambling casinos in the name of taxable benefits, commuter rail that becomes a never ending project that blows all margins of a budget. Allowing foreign refugees in, paying for their flights over without even asking if they are part of a terrorist organization to "speed up the process"

There's plenty of stupidity out there and its not so one sided. There is no way in hell everyone will be happy but forcing the majority to think like the minority is an uphill battle and will never happen.

I don't think it's a goal to force everyone to think alike. If it is, it's a fantasy that's bound to fail.

And, as an Independent, there are times that I've aligned more and voted for Republican candidates. But, you're right, that meant voting for a person and a party with which I disagreed on some social policies. There are always compromises, no matter which person or party I decide to vote for.

There were a couple of 2016 Republican primary candidates whose experience, views, and temperaments I would have seriously considered supporting in the general presidential election. Donald Trump isn't one of them and continues to be less a credible candidate as time passes, for me.

Anyway, in less than two months, we'll know whether we'll be living with Donald Trump as the leader of our country. If so, I'll hope he performs better for the American people and as a world leader than I expect. But, either way, I won't be forced to think like he does (which I don't assume is how the majority of Americans think) and don't have the unrealistic expectation that if Clinton is elected that Trump and his supporters will suddenly be forced or motivated to view many things as she does, or as I do. That's not how it works in a diverse Democracy, which is still the best political system I know of.

(09-29-2016, 11:07 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(09-29-2016, 10:35 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: I never claimed a liberal wrote it. If you assumed as much that's on you. I don't really care what side of the isle the author sits on, there were some very good points in the piece which as you say above you even agree on so just appreciate it for what it is and get over your link obsession.

Did you read the first sentence of what you copied and pasted where it says the writer worked for a typically "left wing" publication, which equates to 'liberal or socialist" leaning?

I don't appreciate lazy-mindedness and lies, especially from people who constantly argue against proven facts and logic and propagate obvious bullshit (whether it's linked or not), Gunnar. Sometimes I'll set the record straight because it's not hard to do.

The points that I said made some sense in the piece were ones we and many others have expressed multiple times as well, but it was Fredrick who authored that well-written piece and it didn't take more than a couple of seconds to confirm that fact (without Snopes) and give him appropriate credit. You get credit for being the sucker, once again, who got reeled in and then spread a hoax claim that you liked. I can tolerate that easily, but it's not something I appreciate.

I typed it. Doesn't say anything about the political leanings of the author. It says the publication leans to the left. You assumed the rest. Not my bad if you can't differentiate. Maybe read it again before you make that leap to a conclusion? Just a suggestion.

(09-29-2016, 11:51 AM)cannongal Wrote: You're much nicer than Lady Cop would have been. She would have tazed & skewered BG for posting that drivel with out a source/reference link.

Hard to believe it will be four years next month since LC passed.

Once LC torched me because she didn't think the story I posted in the science thread was interesting enough. I still miss her here sometimes.

She was a board badass alright and I nor anyone but Gunnar has ever had any problem following the easy and sensible attribute guidelines she posted for all members. They're based on basic integrity and common sense, which most people possess naturally. There are always one or two in a group who won't or can't handle them though, even when asked by Duchess and Mags. Takes all kinds...

(09-29-2016, 05:10 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Once LC torched me because she didn't think the story I posted in the science thread was interesting enough.

That's awful! My God.

We can't have that going on. We encourage posting, not discourage.

(09-29-2016, 04:52 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(09-29-2016, 11:07 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(09-29-2016, 10:35 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: I never claimed a liberal wrote it. If you assumed as much that's on you. I don't really care what side of the isle the author sits on, there were some very good points in the piece which as you say above you even agree on so just appreciate it for what it is and get over your link obsession.

Did you read the first sentence of what you copied and pasted where it says the writer worked for a typically "left wing" publication, which equates to 'liberal or socialist" leaning?

I don't appreciate lazy-mindedness and lies, especially from people who constantly argue against proven facts and logic and propagate obvious bullshit (whether it's linked or not), Gunnar. Sometimes I'll set the record straight because it's not hard to do.

The points that I said made some sense in the piece were ones we and many others have expressed multiple times as well, but it was Fredrick who authored that well-written piece and it didn't take more than a couple of seconds to confirm that fact (without Snopes) and give him appropriate credit. You get credit for being the sucker, once again, who got reeled in and then spread a hoax claim that you liked. I can tolerate that easily, but it's not something I appreciate.

I typed it. Doesn't say anything about the political leanings of the author. It says the publication leans to the left. You assumed the rest. Not my bad if you can't differentiate. Maybe read it again before you make that leap to a conclusion? Just a suggestion.

Derp. It's a word for word post snagged from elsewhere, Gunnar. You didn't bother citing or linking the source you ripped it from, but that's just you being you.

If you for some reason retyped the first line instead of copying and pasting it, then you copied and posted the first line, which doesn't make any difference.

There was no assumption on my part. You're either lying about not comprehending the obvious inference of the hoax attribution, or you're too dense to grasp the obvious point. Either way, it's too bad for you.

The point of the hoax/lie attribution was to add credibility to a piece written by an extremist and get gullible people like you to repost it with the false implication that "even a lefty/liberal can see the merit in supporting Trump and his views."

If you wanna keep digging yourself a hole here by arguing otherwise, I'm not gonna try to stop you or bother arguing with you about it. Keep shoveling...

(09-29-2016, 05:14 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(09-29-2016, 05:10 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Once LC torched me because she didn't think the story I posted in the science thread was interesting enough.

That's awful! My God.

We can't have that going on. We encourage posting, not discourage.

It wasn't a problem, of course. She was on a tear that week. It was about zoologists teaching chimpanzees how to use laptops or something like that. I thought it was really interesting. She apparently did not!

Post-Debate Feedback

--Trump, and many of his supporters, have been vocal about his having been viewed as the winner in many polls. But, the polls he spoke of were online polls where citizens navigate to a website and vote from their device. One poll cited by Trump, from the conservative Drudge Report, had Trump winning the debate 82 percent to 18 percent.

--But, the professionally conducted debate performance polls all show that viewers felt Clinton beat Trump by a wide margin and post-debate election polls show her gaining support.

--However, in an interview, Trump claimed a post-debate poll by CBS said he had won the debate. CBS quickly pointed out they did not conduct a post-debate poll.

--Another swing toward Clinton came from the backing of the Arizona Republic, a conservative newspaper founded in 1890 that has only backed Republican candidates in its 126 year history. The Republic, the largest newspaper in Arizona, came out in favor of Clinton Tuesday.

"The challenges the United States faces domestically and internationally demand a steady hand, a cool head and the ability to think carefully before acting," the paper wrote. "Hillary Clinton understands this. Donald Trump does not. Clinton has the temperament and experience to be president. Donald Trump does not." The paper also said that Clinton "is the only choice to move America ahead."

--Meanwhile, Real Clear Politics said she now has a 2.9 point lead nationally in RCP poll averages, and climbing.

--Today, Trump claimed the debate was rigged.

Ref: www.digitaljournal.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-gets-surges-ahead-in-first-polls-after-debate/article/475950#ixzz4Lh8GVrjo
_______________________

I'm kinda interested in the VP debates to be held on October 4^th. Kaine and Pence have very different styles. I don't know a lot about Pence and very little about Kaine.

(09-29-2016, 05:35 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(09-29-2016, 04:52 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(09-29-2016, 11:07 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(09-29-2016, 10:35 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: I never claimed a liberal wrote it. If you assumed as much that's on you. I don't really care what side of the isle the author sits on, there were some very good points in the piece which as you say above you even agree on so just appreciate it for what it is and get over your link obsession.

Did you read the first sentence of what you copied and pasted where it says the writer worked for a typically "left wing" publication, which equates to 'liberal or socialist" leaning?

I don't appreciate lazy-mindedness and lies, especially from people who constantly argue against proven facts and logic and propagate obvious bullshit (whether it's linked or not), Gunnar. Sometimes I'll set the record straight because it's not hard to do.

The points that I said made some sense in the piece were ones we and many others have expressed multiple times as well, but it was Fredrick who authored that well-written piece and it didn't take more than a couple of seconds to confirm that fact (without Snopes) and give him appropriate credit. You get credit for being the sucker, once again, who got reeled in and then spread a hoax claim that you liked. I can tolerate that easily, but it's not something I appreciate.

I typed it. Doesn't say anything about the political leanings of the author. It says the publication leans to the left. You assumed the rest. Not my bad if you can't differentiate. Maybe read it again before you make that leap to a conclusion? Just a suggestion.

Derp. It's a word for word post snagged from elsewhere, Gunnar. You didn't bother citing or linking the source you ripped it from, but that's just you being you.

If you for some reason retyped the first line instead of copying and pasting it, then you copied and posted the first line, which doesn't make any difference.

There was no assumption on my part. You're either lying about not comprehending the obvious inference of the hoax attribution, or you're too dense to grasp the obvious point. Either way, it's too bad for you.

The point of the hoax/lie attribution was to add credibility to a piece written by an extremist and get gullible people like you to repost it with the false implication that "even a lefty/liberal can see the merit in supporting Trump and his views."

If you wanna keep digging yourself a hole here by arguing otherwise, I'm not gonna try to stop you or bother arguing with you about it. Keep shoveling...

Its your MO. Do what you do. I have no horse in this race. Opine on

No links. Sorry HOtD. I know you live for that shit. More importantly, can you deny the logic in what was posted? Without a link? Are you capable of free thought? Can you allow yourself to think freely without links?

(09-30-2016, 12:34 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: No links. Sorry HOtD. I know you live for that shit. More importantly, can you deny the logic in what was posted? Without a link? Are you capable of free thought? Can you allow yourself to think freely without links?

Jesus Christ, you're dense. It's got nothing to do with free thinking. It's called giving credit where credit is due.

To repost somebody's original work with out proper attribution is called plagiarism.

The whole reason why LC used to nail the attribution point home, is because she felt that plagiarism would put the forum in legal jeopardy.

Maybe if you thought a little more freely, you'd be able to get your head out of your ass and realize that HoTD doesn't 'live' for links-she lives for proper attribution and knowledge that if someone is going to post something to prove a point, they back that post up with a source that can be verified.

(09-30-2016, 12:34 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: No links. Sorry HOtD. I know you live for that shit. More importantly, can you deny the logic in what was posted? Without a link? Are you capable of free thought? Can you allow yourself to think freely without links?

That makes no sense, Gunnar. I already weighed in on the content/logic of FREDRICK's piece and never questioned the validity of discussing it. We were addressing YOUR logic and actions here. But, to answer your questions...Newsflash: jacking other people's thoughts/words and posting them without credit, which is what you routinely do, is the opposite of "free thought." On the other hand, citing/linking sources to pieces and facts upon which one bases his/her own commentary and opinion, which is what I routinely do, is simply good form in the process of exercising free thought and expression. Plus, I didn't ask you for a link -- you've already made it clear to us that you're the one Mock member (of which there have been three I've ever asked to provide a link in over 5 years) who isn't capable of meeting minimum board guidelines. I accept your shortcoming.

So, back to reality........what you managed to accomplish this time was to cut/paste/re-type someone else's post/email, and present it as your own. That's nothing new for you and nothing I'd bother addressing with you at this point. But, on top of that, the post/email you jacked contained another person's original content, which was also not credited and was falsely claimed to have been published in a typically left-wing publication. On top of that, you then falsely/ignorantly attributed the original content to "Kaplan" (when Roy Kaplan appears to simply be the person who sent the email/post that you jacked, or a person whose name appeared at the bottom of that email/post for some other reason - definitely not the writer of the original content). When called out on it, you failed to own it and address it, so I addressed it.

Mock's not heavy on rules, but we're not an unoriginal horseplop/dipshit breeding ground either. So, after years of being a member of the community, maybe you can learn to at least own your shit like most everyone else who doesn't run off like crybabies. If not, keep making up nonsensical excuses and projecting - it's lame, but can be pretty amusing stuff. It's up to you.

P.s. If you once again proclaim that you're "Too Lazy, Do Not Read", I'll once again believe you.

(09-28-2016, 09:25 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 02:31 PM)cannongal Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 01:56 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: I think Kaplan pretty much nailed it.

Kaplan didn't write that.

Yeah, I've never seen anyone try to pass that blog post off as being the work of "Kaplan from The New Yorker" before. But, that piece is definitely not the work of NY columnists Michael Kaplan or Thomas Kaplan.

And, I have no idea who the hell Roy Kaplan is, but he didn't write it either. Neither did Gabe Kaplan from Welcome Back Kotter.

That piece was written like a year or so ago by an obsessed anti-Obama hater, avid birther blogger, and yuge Trump supporter named Don Fredrick. Ref: http://thecompleteobamatimeline.com/index.html

The piece (wherein a couple of the points make some sense, to me) was plucked from the anti-government conspiracy theorist's Facebook page and circulated with a hoax claim that it was written by a high profile liberal writer, in order to inspire gullible people (who don't need no stinking attribution verification or source link) to feed the bullshit machine by passing it along as a credible and left-wing perspective.

Didn't know anything about the article, but I knew for damn sure it wasn't in the New Yorker. They don't publish pure horse shit like that. Sounded like BG wrote it himself. It's a whiny rant in defense of being an asshole.

(10-01-2016, 02:16 PM)Donovan Wrote: Didn't know anything about the article, but I knew for damn sure it wasn't in the New Yorker. They don't publish pure horse shit like that. Sounded like BG wrote it himself. It's a whiny rant in defense of being an asshole.

Yeah, it's obvious that none of the contributing writers for the New Yorker publication penned that piece of extreme right-wing, anti-Obama, anti-government rhetoric. I think it's well-written, but it's just a repackaging of the same bullshit I've been hearing/reading from those camps for 8 years.

My favorite points on Fredrick's list of serious national grievances and failures of the Democratic Party (about which he claims 'much of the country' is fed up and a vote for Trump could fix) are: 'Michelle Obama's food police', 'Michelle Obama's vacations', 'Barack Obama's vacations', 'Barack Obama's arrogant and condescending lectures' and 'Barack Obama's golf'...

Even for people who actually agree with Fredrick's assessment and see those points as problems or national crises, obviously a vote for anyone (or no one) in 2016 would be as effective as a vote for Trump in alleviating their angst, though I won't be surprised if Fredrick and the disgruntleds continue bitching about the Obamas' vacations and personal styles even after they leave the White House.

In case anyone missed it...

That was pretty funny.

I think Daryl Hammond did a good Donald Trump impersonation.

I'm not a big Alec Baldwin fan but gotta admit, he's even better than Hammond.

(10-02-2016, 10:24 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I'm not a big Alec Baldwin fan but gotta admit, he's even better than Hammond.

Agreed. Until my Dad told me that was Baldwin, I thought it was the real Donald Trump.