So you choose to attack the player, rather than the comment. That's an admission of defeat, you realise?
The second half of the quote is a copy and past from something I said elsewhere a few months ago. It wasn't about you and is more about the fact that there is no shame in walking away from a pointless discussion. Here's another one I wrote recently and I find that trying to live by them makes life a little bit better:
Getting the last word in a circular discussion is a Pyrrhic victory and there is no dishonor in quitting an exchange that no longer edifies.
It's nothing new to me and I gave it all the attention it was due.
Quote:
Ah, but they're not my theories. I linked you to a site created by pilots, engineers, PHD researchers, et al. You chose to ignore it.
Exactly.
0 Replies
Builder
1
Wed 10 Feb, 2016 10:47 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I love banana.
I prefer Lady Finger bananas to Cavendish, myself.
0 Replies
Builder
1
Wed 10 Feb, 2016 11:20 pm
Hearing that despite Sanders again giving Dillary a sound thrashing, she's been given a victory by the MSM.
There's an undelying "theme" that this defeat was expected, but it's a minor setback only, snood.
Here's a snippet from the Guardian, which is usually a fairly moderate indicator;
Quote:
Immediately before the election, Sanders was a clear frontrunner in pundits’ estimation, with an average lead in recent polls of 13 percentage points. His chances of success were put at greater than 99% by forecasting website FiveThirtyEight and he had been up to 26 points ahead in one poll released on Monday.
But Sanders – the first Jewish American to win a presidential primary in US history – started the race more than 40 points behind his better known rival and briefly lost the polling lead again in November after her strong performance before a congressional inquiry into the Benghazi terror attack.
Clinton had also sought to manage expectations by briefly leaving the state to campaign before a national stage in Flint, Michigan, on Sunday. On the day of the primary, her team sent an email to supporters beginning “whatever happens tonight …”
The first state to hold primary elections, New Hampshire is rarely a perfect predictor of eventual success. In 1992, Bill Clinton was beaten in the state by Paul Tsongas, who was obscure even then.
Though sometimes displaying libertarian leanings in general elections, New Hampshire’s Democratic voters are notably whiter and more liberal than the national coalition that propelled Barack Obama to victory.
Nevertheless, Sanders appears to have won substantial backing from New Hampshire’s independent voters, who are allowed to take part in either party’s primaries, according to state rules.
Senior Sanders staff see this decisive win in New Hampshire as their ticket to the genuine national campaign momentum that has so far proved difficult to achieve.
That seems to me like a pretty even-handed account of what actually happened. Certainly more even handed than the narrative you create of "giving Dillary a sound thrashing", anyway. Bernie's margin of victory was historic in NH, and that's noteworthy. But it seems to me that saying Bernie was expected to win in NH, and that NH is hardly a sure predictor of future primary victories - well, those things have the advantage of simply being true.
I hadn't read it before my last post, but now I have - in its entirety. And Builder, that is one of the most even-handed articles about this campaign that I have read. It gives plenty of credit to Sanders' campaign for outdoing all predictions, and for shaking up the Clinton camp. I don't see the "hints" anywhere that the NH win meant nothing. I think you might be reading through a Bernie-tinted filter.
Whether I've followed your posts through these threads carefully or not, whether I generally know your views shouldn't factor into my reading an article you say expresses a hint of bias against Bernie, and simply disagreeing with you. And having disagreed with you and found the article to be without any such hint, it seems to me not an unreasonable idea that some of the bias was in the reader, and not the article.
Also, I see your statement about the system being controlled by an oligarchy and the election being Kabuki Theater, while true, is a bit of a non sequitur in the context of this narrow disagreement. I was simply commenting that I don't see the hint that the NH victory means nothing in this article. I don't think that's in there, so it must be between your ears.
No need to thank me for my input. It's my forum and my opinion.
....I don't see the hint that the NH victory means nothing in this article. I don't think that's in there, so it must be between your ears.
It is. I read and comprehend just fine.
Quote:
“It’s a marathon, not a sprint, and I think she’s going to deliver in the end. I really do,” said Dawn Harkness of New London, Connecticut.
The former secretary of state’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, said the campaigns were “splitting the first two contests” after her extremely narrow victory in Iowa, calling Sanders’ victory in New Hampshire “an outcome we’ve long anticipated”.
You missed this?
Quote:
“The nomination will very likely be won in March, not February, and we believe that Hillary Clinton is well positioned to build a strong – potentially insurmountable – delegate lead next month,” he wrote in a memo to reporters which focused in large part on Clinton’s strength among African American and Hispanic voters. “They know her, trust her and are excited about her candidacy.”
And this??
Can lead a horse to water, etc....
The following is from NBC News, by Carrie Dann Feb 10 2016, 4:13 pm ET
Quote:
After the New Hampshire contest, NBC News allocated 15 delegates to Sanders. But NBC also allocated 14 delegates to Hillary Clinton, who lost the primary by an almost historic margin.
Why are those two numbers so close even though Sanders walloped her in the state?
The answer has to do with a quirk unique to the Democratic Party called superdelegates. They are delegates to the party convention -- usually members of the DNC and other state and federal elected officials -- who are allowed to endorse their own pick regardless of how their home state votes.
And this cycle, at least at the moment, they are overwhelmingly behind Clinton's White House bid.
At the end of the New Hampshire tally Tuesday night, Sanders had amassed enough support from voters to earn 15 delegates, while Clinton grabbed just eight based on the ballot box.
But New Hampshire also has eight superdelegates. Six of them have endorsed Clinton, while two aren't committed to either candidate. That means that Clinton tacked an extra six delegates on to the end.
Super delegates? If you think this is democracy, explain why.
As for NATO, they're not the world's police. They aren't even recognised by the BRICS nations as being legitimate any more. Not since invading Libya, and leaving that nation to rack and ruin.
Are the BRICS clowns foolish enough to try to challenge NATO to a fight?
If not, perhaps they should pipe down a bit. They remind me of little chihuahuas yipping at the heals of their betters.
0 Replies
oralloy
-1
Thu 11 Feb, 2016 04:09 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
Your absolutism in these statements is a poor bedfellow with the extremism of the positions you advocated. You are much more reasonable when you moderate your absolutism.
The overwhelming majority of liberals obviously do not sympathize with the 9/11 attackers. Liberals are not motivated by "hatred of American freedom" they just want a different set of freedoms than you do (e.g. the freedom to live in a gun-free society vs your desire for the freedom to carry arms). Liberals do not "always try to justify the murder of innocent civilians".
These statements are absurd on their face and do your more reasonable side absolutely no favors.
Referring to living in a gun-free society as a form of freedom is like saying mandatory Catholicism is a form of freedom (giving Catholics the freedom to live in a society where everyone else is also Catholic).
I don't know exactly how many liberals sympathize with the 9/11 attackers, but some of them do. And usually when I get into a discussion like that, the only potent arguments are the "bumper-sticker slogan" type where there is no room for nuance.
I have the same problem when I defend Israel from unfair accusations. When I want to point out that Israel has done absolutely nothing wrong, by the time I boil it down to a "bumper-sticker slogan" it sounds like I am accusing all Muslims of being terrorists.
We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena. These are people who have sat out for a long time because the Democrats became a corporatist, center-right party and the Republicans became radically right (and, of course, just plain nuts in many ways).
Nonsense see McGovern run for president in 1972 and his negative income tax plan.
0 Replies
parados
2
Thu 11 Feb, 2016 08:58 am
@Builder,
Your argument is ridiculous. It is like saying the plane didn't crash in Pennsylvania because the NIST didn't have anything in the WTC report. Because they didn't include WTC7 in the report on the towers isn't evidence of a conspiracy. Making the claim it is evidence of such a conspiracy is evidence of idiocy on your part.
I have read the report. Have you? Would you care to actually discuss the findings? Let's talk about engineering and strength of steel. Frankly I wouldn't trust an airline pilot when it comes to who is an authority on such matters.
I don't agree with you but am going to vote you back up to 1.
oralloy wrote:
Referring to living in a gun-free society as a form of freedom is like saying mandatory Catholicism is a form of freedom (giving Catholics the freedom to live in a society where everyone else is also Catholic).
All freedoms come at the cost of a freedom. It may sound contrived and some freedoms are obviously not worth the same as that of others but that is really what my point is. You can't just say "freedom" and be right, there are plenty of "freedoms" you don't agree with (e.g. the freedom of expression of pedophiles).
Freedom of speech comes at the cost of the freedom of not being offended etc. The freedom to have roving pit bulls eliminates some freedoms of others. Freedom of expression conflicts with the freedom to peacefully coexist. So freedom of expression is moderated where it begins to infringe on the rights of others to do so.
Saying things like "liberals are against freedom" is really just a pointless throwaway statement. It almost rises to the level of caricature:
Quote:
I don't know exactly how many liberals sympathize with the 9/11 attackers, but some of them do.
Some liberals do and some conservatives do. On both sides they are a completely insignificant marginal fringe.
Quote:
I have the same problem when I defend Israel from unfair accusations. When I want to point out that Israel has done absolutely nothing wrong, by the time I boil it down to a "bumper-sticker slogan" it sounds like I am accusing all Muslims of being terrorists.
Your problem is absolutism pretty much everywhere really, if you can moderate your absolutism all your statements make a lot more sense. Israel has, even by their own definitions, done things wrong.
Even (American) Jews have supported the idea that Israel has done wrong.
0 Replies
oralloy
-1
Thu 11 Feb, 2016 01:57 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
Freedom of speech comes at the cost of the freedom of not being offended etc. The freedom to have roving pit bulls eliminates some freedoms of others. Freedom of expression conflicts with the freedom to peacefully coexist. So freedom of expression is moderated where it begins to infringe on the rights of others to do so.
There is no freedom to not be offended, or freedom to have roving pit bulls.
The right to have guns on the other hand is a pillar of our society.
I see no conflict between freedom of expression and peaceful coexistence.
Robert Gentel wrote:
Your problem is absolutism pretty much everywhere really, if you can moderate your absolutism all your statements make a lot more sense.
Sometimes facts are absolute.
Robert Gentel wrote:
Israel has, even by their own definitions, done things wrong.
All allegations of Israeli wrongdoing that I'm aware of have been outrageous false accusations.
I guess I'm aware of one case where Israeli soldiers violated internal Israeli policies that were much stricter than international law.
