- 32,836
- 81,409
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2013
He's never had sex with Bill Clinton.....I thinkIn what ways?what's wrong with Chuck? He's better than Hillary.
Please be as detailed as possible
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
He's never had sex with Bill Clinton.....I thinkIn what ways?what's wrong with Chuck? He's better than Hillary.
Please be as detailed as possible
He's gonna make Michelle jealous with all this attentionOf course@benpauker: EXCLUSIVE: Trump planning retaliation for leaks -- “ludicrous” revenge plan targeting Obama administration. https://t.co/1X3jbK41Fl
If you are worried about Wall Street ties, no he is not
Hillary is way more liberal than Schumer
what's wrong with Chuck? He's better than Hillary.
In what ways?
Please be as detailed as possible
He's never had sex with Bill Clinton.....I think
He's gonna make Michelle jealous with all this attentionOf course [QUOTE url="[URL]https://t.co/1X3jbK41Fl[/URL]"]
@benpauker: EXCLUSIVE: Trump planning retaliation for leaks -- “ludicrous” revenge plan targeting Obama administration. https://t.co/1X3jbK41Fl
If you are worried about Wall Street ties, no he is not
Hillary is way more liberal than Schumer
Thoughts on Kamala Harris running for president?
He's gonna make Michelle jealous with all this attentionOf course [QUOTE url="[URL]https://t.co/1X3jbK41Fl[/URL]"]
@benpauker: EXCLUSIVE: Trump planning retaliation for leaks -- “ludicrous” revenge plan targeting Obama administration. https://t.co/1X3jbK41Fl
And I have absolutely no issue with differing opinions. I take issue with your pomposity.
I don't know much about her for me to pass judgment. The little I do know is that she is progressive, which I like.
I have heard a couple interviews with her, she gives too many no answers imo, she needs to improve on that.
One thing she will have to deal with is that she won't be the only woman in the race. I can see 3-4 women running.
The US Federal Communications Commission voted 2-1 today to start the process of eliminating net neutrality rules and the classification of home and mobile Internet service providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes eliminating the Title II classification and seeks comment on what, if anything, should replace the current net neutrality rules. But Chairman Ajit Pai is making no promises about reinstating the two-year-old net neutrality rules that forbid ISPs from blocking or throttling lawful Internet content or prioritizing content in exchange for payment. Pai's proposal argues that throttling websites and applications might somehow help Internet users.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...n-flames-as-fcc-votes-to-kill-title-ii-rules/
The US Federal Communications Commission voted 2-1 today to start the process of eliminating net neutrality rules and the classification of home and mobile Internet service providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes eliminating the Title II classification and seeks comment on what, if anything, should replace the current net neutrality rules. But Chairman Ajit Pai is making no promises about reinstating the two-year-old net neutrality rules that forbid ISPs from blocking or throttling lawful Internet content or prioritizing content in exchange for payment. Pai's proposal argues that throttling websites and applications might somehow help Internet users.
I'm sure Rusty will be "rustled" by this news:
trump is going to nominate Joe Lieberman to head the FBI.
:eyeroll
What you've described is a great reason not to engage - but not a great reason to censor.Appreciate the response, and completely respect the perspective.
My issue with ninjahood is he has shown he is unwilling and incapable of having a mature discussion where ideas are exchanged. He's more interested in protecting his beliefs than he is honestly engaging.
He's regularly provoked members, reported those members for their reactions, then came back and boasted about it.
I'd have absolutely no problem discussing politics with the guy if he didn't regularly come off as pompous and engaged in a way that isn't completely dismissive of any thoughts that are not his own.
I suppose he is an accurate representation of the fervent Trump supporter who still won't acknowledge what all of us are actively watching. So if diversity is the goal, mission accomplished. In that, I think you may be overlooking some things, though. I've yet to see any real proof of him engaging in a fashion that isn't dismissive of others. Doesn't break the rules, but it definitely doesn't contribute to a mature and productive discussion about a topic that is extremely serious.
What you've described is a great reason not to engage - but not a great reason to censor.
For example, would it serve the thread well if I sit here and try, over the next five pages, to "convince" ninjahood that the root word for "intelligentsia" is Latin (intelligentia, to be precise), or that, as a literary technique, the use of dialect involves spelling words in a way that conveys how the would sound when spoken by the character, and, thus, even as an excuse for selectively misspelled words, "intelligentsia" still makes more sense than "intelligencia?"
What is the point of that argument? To embarrass someone who's just trying to save face in front of a group of people who already know better? Who cares? I saw that a misspelling was becoming contagious, I commented on it. Dictionaries exist. That's the end of it. I don't need to sit there and pin somebody down and make them scream "uncle" before I can leave it alone.
Typically, what happens is that you'll try several different lines of argument to "seal the deal," and, rather than back them into a corner, the discussion will just continue to branch, leading you further and further astray with each subsequent response.
You're not going to get clear closure in an online argument, particularly if your standard is "you're wrong - now admit it." Even if you beat someone in a debate or in a sporting event, the loser can still cling to some notion that "it was rigged," "I would've won, but," "I didn't care anyway," etc.
Chasing somebody to the ends of the Earth to force them to admit defeat only wastes your time and makes you look petty. I've been down that road myself. The goal, in politics, is to move the middle, mold consensus, and reach those who are reachable. Present your position as best you can and let that speak for itself. Once the egos get involved, it's time to call it a day. Sustained argument produces diminishing returns.
The only caveat I'd add, with respect to the rules, is that if someone isn't interested in discussion and only seeks to antagonize - THAT is trolling. And that's where the "credibility" issue I referenced in my previous post comes in. If you're clearly talking nonsense just to upset people, that's textbook trolling - and can't be confused with a "confident" assertion or defense of one's sincere personal beliefs.
*The word is 'intelligentsia.' If you've only heard a word spoken, look it up. You obviously have access to the Internet.
its borrowed from Spanish, da S is English localization pronunciation, im using subtitle Spanglish... [emoji]128516[/emoji]