LeJackal posted:

Stick to what they have claimed and nail them to the wall with it. Don't give them additional rhetorical room to maneuver.

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

I disagree with you all the time, but this here is a great point. If you're in an argument and they make a terrible point, poke your nail into the hole and hammer it home. Don't let them gish gallop away. Say stuff like "Hey, we can address that point, I want to talk about it, but let's get back to what you said here..."

Donowitz posted:

Jurgan posted:

The only thing that really gets me mad is how he puts "poor" in sarcasm quotes. Anyway, here's the conclusion of the discussion:

OT posted:

Oy talk about redirection. The argument wasn't about "laws" it was specifically about the validity of voter ID laws. But you know, misdirection is exactly the type of tactic liberals like to use. But let me say this, I am for protecting the integrity of the voting process, which you obviously are not for. You decry my evidence as sketchy and my assertions as mythical based on your limited, biased investigations and preconceived notions. I decry your "tons" of evidence as fluff seeking to diminish legitimate concerns.
You yourself would say that fraud is almost non existent while in the same in the same breath defending everyone's right to vote. Well I will give you a quote from the article that to declined to read :
" ... it basically dilutes the voice of the lawful voter" "What it does is every single vote that’s cast by a dead voter actually cancels out a vote of a lawful voter cause if they voted for one candidate and you voted let’s say for another, your vote got canceled out."
If voters rights really matter to you, if every vote is truly supposed to matter, then you should be fighting to close every possible avenue to voter voting fraud, not saying "it's almost non- existent" and brushing it off if it's nothing, because every instance of fraud is a vote denied. If thinking that the process needs to be protected makes me a bad person then so be it.

Jurgan posted:

There's so much irony here it's hard to fathom. You accuse me of using biased sources but link to Powerline blog, a conservative blog whose head writer is promoting Dinesh D'Souza's racist movie. You admit that some people will be denied the vote but brush it off because they're old people or homeless people (remember, you said "short of homelessness" everyone can afford ID), and then say I don't care about protecting the voting process. Yes, I understand the theory of why voter fraud is bad; I'm not that stupid. I understand why bears roaming the streets is bad, but unless it's actually happen I wouldn't want the city to spend money on a Bear Patrol.

I read every one of your articles. I doubt you even opened the Brennan Center study I linked- you probably just said it was biased and ignored it. Yes, I had the preconceived notion that they were wrong, because I've read about this subject before, but I tried to at least see where the argument was coming from. There's a funny scene in Citizen Kane where Kane realizes he's going to lose the governor's race, and his newspaper has already prepared an article titled "Fraud at the Polls." That's what this reminds me of. I read one article that was nothing but sneering about "liberals" and two from diehard Sanders supporters claiming the primary was rigged. Nope, no bias there! These were clearly sore losers who couldn't admit they had been beaten, so they had to blame fraud.

Basically, all of these articles say "it's suspicious, isn't it? Must be fraud!" But suspicion does not equal proof. People in this country are innocent until proven guilty, yet you've convicted thousands of people of felonies in absentia based solely on "suspicion." And when I suggested other alternatives, you simply jammed your fingers in your ears and didn't listen. You're probably thinking I did the same thing; maybe, but just recently I had to admit to another conservative friend that I was wrong about one of my beliefs. I also had to call out some of my Democratic friends for repeating the old "I can see Russia from my house!" joke about Sarah Palin as though it were real. I try my best to be open-minded, though I don't always succeed.

Believe it or not, I was approaching this as a friend. While I was harsh because I don't like falsehoods being spread, I saw it as you having been deceived by a calculated campaign to disenfranchise legitimate voters. So I thought that maybe if I presented the facts, you'd be relieved to see it wasn't true, or at the very least reconsider the evidence. But here's where it all falls apart: " I am for protecting the integrity of the voting process, which you obviously are not for." How incredibly smug. Does it feel good to know you're better than liberals? Because that's what this is all about, isn't it: feeling superior. At this point, you are choosing to ignore any contrary evidence because you're tied up in believing that you're more compassionate than I. Does that mean you're a bad person? No, but it could make you a bad person. It seems to me like it would be awful to constantly suspect there's a massive criminal conspiracy going on around you, and yet you choose to believe in it based on biased suspicions and ignore facts. When anyone calls you out, you accuse them of bias, which is conservatives' "get out of thinking free" card (I don't care if you call yourself conservative, right now you're indistinguishable from the most right-wing Republican). And if you keep on insisting that everyone around you is up to something, it's going to make you miserable and unpleasant to be around. Why would you choose to be unhappy? Just to keep feeling you're better than everyone else? It sounds like a bad bargain to me. I know you're rolling your eyes and laughing about this. No one likes to be pitied. But I do think you're on a sad road that will make you a worse person. That's something you'll have to deal with, though.

So, with that, I'm afraid I have to unfriend you. I hope you don't think it's childish that I insisted on getting the last word in, but my brain wouldn't let me leave it alone. It's really not personal, it's just that I'm the type of person to obsess over these sorts of arguments. Hence why I got up at 5:00 A.M. to write this: my brain wouldn't let me go back to sleep until I did. For my own mental health, we need to stop having these conversations. But I'm really not mad at you, believe it or not. It's just not something I can handle. Take care, OT, and if you have the chance, read the little parable I'm attaching. See ya 'round.

There's so much irony here it's hard to fathom. You accuse me of using biased sources but link to Powerline blog, a conservative blog whose head writer is promoting Dinesh D'Souza's racist movie. You admit that some people will be denied the vote but brush it off because they're old people or homeless people (remember, you said "short of homelessness" everyone can afford ID), and then say I don't care about protecting the voting process. Yes, I understand the theory of why voter fraud is bad; I'm not that stupid. I understand why bears roaming the streets is bad, but unless it's actually happen I wouldn't want the city to spend money on a Bear Patrol.

I read every one of your articles. I doubt you even opened the Brennan Center study I linked- you probably just said it was biased and ignored it. Yes, I had the preconceived notion that they were wrong, because I've read about this subject before, but I tried to at least see where the argument was coming from. There's a funny scene in Citizen Kane where Kane realizes he's going to lose the governor's race, and his newspaper has already prepared an article titled "Fraud at the Polls." That's what this reminds me of. I read one article that was nothing but sneering about "liberals" and two from diehard Sanders supporters claiming the primary was rigged. Nope, no bias there! These were clearly sore losers who couldn't admit they had been beaten, so they had to blame fraud.

Basically, all of these articles say "it's suspicious, isn't it? Must be fraud!" But suspicion does not equal proof. People in this country are innocent until proven guilty, yet you've convicted thousands of people of felonies in absentia based solely on "suspicion." And when I suggested other alternatives, you simply jammed your fingers in your ears and didn't listen. You're probably thinking I did the same thing; maybe, but just recently I had to admit to another conservative friend that I was wrong about one of my beliefs. I also had to call out some of my Democratic friends for repeating the old "I can see Russia from my house!" joke about Sarah Palin as though it were real. I try my best to be open-minded, though I don't always succeed.

Believe it or not, I was approaching this as a friend. While I was harsh because I don't like falsehoods being spread, I saw it as you having been deceived by a calculated campaign to disenfranchise legitimate voters. So I thought that maybe if I presented the facts, you'd be relieved to see it wasn't true, or at the very least reconsider the evidence. But here's where it all falls apart: " I am for protecting the integrity of the voting process, which you obviously are not for." How incredibly smug. Does it feel good to know you're better than liberals? Because that's what this is all about, isn't it: feeling superior. At this point, you are choosing to ignore any contrary evidence because you're tied up in believing that you're more compassionate than I. Does that mean you're a bad person? No, but it could make you a bad person. It seems to me like it would be awful to constantly suspect there's a massive criminal conspiracy going on around you, and yet you choose to believe in it based on biased suspicions and ignore facts. When anyone calls you out, you accuse them of bias, which is conservatives' "get out of thinking free" card (I don't care if you call yourself conservative, right now you're indistinguishable from the most right-wing Republican). And if you keep on insisting that everyone around you is up to something, it's going to make you miserable and unpleasant to be around. Why would you choose to be unhappy? Just to keep feeling you're better than everyone else? It sounds like a bad bargain to me. I know you're rolling your eyes and laughing about this. No one likes to be pitied. But I do think you're on a sad road that will make you a worse person. That's something you'll have to deal with, though.

So, with that, I'm afraid I have to unfriend you. I hope you don't think it's childish that I insisted on getting the last word in, but my brain wouldn't let me leave it alone. It's really not personal, it's just that I'm the type of person to obsess over these sorts of arguments. Hence why I got up at 5:00 A.M. to write this: my brain wouldn't let me go back to sleep until I did. For my own mental health, we need to stop having these conversations. But I'm really not mad at you, believe it or not. It's just not something I can handle. Take care, OT, and if you have the chance, read the little parable I'm attaching. See ya 'round.

http://www.patheos.com/.../09/19/jackie-at-the-crossroads/

Dr. Faustus posted:

I guess we'll never know.

LeJackal posted:

Defenestration posted:

Who What Now posted:

You very clearly weren't joking, so I don't quite understand why you're pretending you were.

Defenestration posted:

so close...

quote:

as we learned previously, to the EPORW all mosques have terrorist ties by definition

Twelve by Pies posted:

Wait I thought EPORW still hated Trump...or am I confusing them with LL101?

Twelve by Pies posted:

FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS ARE HEROES WHO SACRIFICE THEMSELVES EVERY DAY

"Cool could you pay us more money then?"

loving GOVERNMENT LEECHES WHY DON'T YOU BUMS GET REAL JOBS INSTEAD OF BEING PARASITES LIVING ON THE TAXPAYERS' DIME

Hobo Clown posted:

"Curt"

This was shared by the same aunt who last week posted the Snopes article debunking that Trump "If I run it'd be as a Republican because they dumb as hell" meme because she was sick of misinformation being spread.

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

I'm just gonna assume the sentence is:
Mr. Khan, I grieve for the loss of your son, but I'm a war criminal.

Who What Now posted:

You very clearly weren't joking, so I don't quite understand why you're pretending you were.

Twelve by Pies posted:

FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS ARE HEROES WHO SACRIFICE THEMSELVES EVERY DAY

"Cool could you pay us more money then?"

loving GOVERNMENT LEECHES WHY DON'T YOU BUMS GET REAL JOBS INSTEAD OF BEING PARASITES LIVING ON THE TAXPAYERS' DIME

Radish posted:

The only real ethos to right wing conservatism is being a greedy poo poo who wants to not pay for anything. Abortion, religious fundamentalism, gay rights, terrorism, whatever. MAH TAXAS tops all those things.

I Before E posted:

ALLEN WEST: Skip I want to ADDRESS this issue.
[BAYLESS nods]
You KNOW I am sensitive to this man's dead son
BAYLESS: Absolutely
ALLEN WEST: BUT!

Rick_Hunter posted:

I'd say that their pearl clutching is as bad or worse. If it's not them accusing 'the blacks' of making racism worse, it's marginalizing every non-white population with cries of 'You're not X, you're (White) American!'

moist turtleneck posted:

Hm a guy that says thug to describe black people a lot liked a thing


let's see what the article is


hahahaha

FoxStrats posted:

For people who really dislike race politics, far-right conservatives really like to chalk the racial boundaries.

It's behavior like this that forces me to add the "BUT IM SOCIALLY LIBERAL" to any mention of my conservative leaning.

Rick_Hunter posted:

In a way, yes, they like to define all the differences between races but when it comes to nationalism they like to use the umbrella term 'American' and still sneer that non-whites don't conform to their idea of what's American. American being white of course.

Ron Jeremy posted:

That Khan guy is no angel...

the_steve posted:

The only ones that qualify as heroes are the ones who die, or bravely shoot down black people and see that as reward enough.

Fulchrum posted:

So the best case scenario for these people is that nothing they do matters. That they can proudly say "I was not a part of history".

Ytlaya posted:

No; increasing the number of people voting for a third party at least has the potential to increase the perceived influence of that party (and as a result potentially the funding, etc as well) proportionally more than a vote for either of the two major parties. So if you live in a non-swing state and your goal is to make your specific vote have a bigger impact - ignoring whether that impact is actually good - voting third party might actually do more than voting D or R (though both are ultimately pretty insignificant). And to reiterate, I say this as someone who is not voting third party.

It's not like who they vote for (if they vote at all) makes them any less a "part of history." It may not be the part of a history you agree with, but it's absurd to claim that it's somehow a non-action. If by "part of history" you're referring to getting a woman elected, then that also isn't true if you live in a non-swing red state.

Regardless, my whole point is that people who argue "if you don't vote Democrat you're going to help Trump win!" are full of poo poo most of the time. That sentiment is only true for a minority of the population, but, ironically, it's usually made with a condescending tone towards the other person for not being pragmatic. If you think the Democratic candidate is better, by all means feel free to explain why. But if you're going to talk down to others you better by damned sure you're not saying something that's just flat-out wrong.

(By the way this is the exact sort of ironic condescension I was talking about.)

Ron Jeremy posted:

That Khan guy is no angel...

Defenestration posted:

considering there are thousands and thousands of gun deaths in this country every year, I doubt this one guy is the entire problem

quote:

According to the meme, Mills' plea bargain was negotiated by the Department of Justice (or in some iterations, the Obama administration or President Obama himself). However, the choice of giving Mills probation rather than jail time was not the result of instructions from the Justice Department (or higher) but rather the personal discretion of Judge Rudolph Randa (who was appointed as a federal district judge by President George H.W. Bush and has a history of making controversial decisions), based on his view of Mills' contrition and likelihood of re-offending: