- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 7/15/19 at 1:19 pm to Spirit Of Aggieland
quote:
he knows it will get the pitchfork crowd riled up. He likes to incite the angry mob to threaten his critics.
You thinking of ANTIFA?
Posted on 7/15/19 at 1:30 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:
And frankly, the answer to your parroted talking point/gotcha is irrelevant in this discussion. Whether we are discussing AOC or Norma Torres-- You want buy-in or do you want hyphenated Americans?
My point is parroted? I haven't seen many (if any) other pisters with my take. If you disagree with my view...cool. using a falsehood as the basis for dismissal is something I don't get.
As for the hyphenated point, I don't recall me stating anything about the subject. Please post my quote so I can accurately address it.
As for your narrative...professing your guess,as fact converning who Trump was addressing. I concede Queen ISIS. I asked for proof, you delivered nada.
Posted on 7/15/19 at 1:35 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
My point is parroted? I haven't seen many (if any) other pisters with my take.
Yeah. Multiple posters have made this "point." It's so parroted the President himself used it.
quote:
As for the hyphenated point, I don't recall me stating anything about the subject. Please post my quote so I can accurately address it.
It's a rhetorical question. The point is if you want buy-in, distinctions are counter-productive.
quote:
As for your narrative...professing your guess,as fact converning who Trump was addressing. I concede Queen ISIS. I asked for proof, you delivered nada.
Because it's completely irrelevant to my point as I explicitly stated.
This post was edited on 7/15/19 at 1:36 pm
Posted on 7/15/19 at 1:39 pm to 14&Counting
it's a saying i have for loud mouth people. as a child or teenager if someone would have punched them in the mouth when he was being a bully he would have a whole different approach as an adult. He is the biggest fake tough guy i have ever seen and his base eats it up.
Posted on 7/15/19 at 1:56 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:
You've also seemingly changed your standard for determining where someone is from. This morning you seemed to agree that saying Diana DeGette is from Japan just because she was born there is silly.
What standard change? She was born as a US citizen.
Honestly, at this point, I'm not sure that you have a point. It seems as though you are implying that birthplace is irrelevant. DeGette is the exception, not the rule. You dismissimg that is disingenuous.
As for your other "points", they don't apply to what I posted. Your posts are scattered and disconnected imho. It is almost as though you are trying to be vague and cryptic because you know your "point" can't be substantiated in any way, shape, or form.
My view is based on the actual tweet itself, and information concerning the birth place of potential female representatives it could apply to. Yours seems based on the "feels" with no substance to support it. In short, your posts seem like an attempt to discredit through disapproval. Cool, we disagree. I say that if you were born in another country to non-US citizens and later moved to the US and became a citizen, then you are from the country of your birth. I'm sure you will follow up with some jibberish, so...spin away.
Posted on 7/15/19 at 2:12 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
As for your other "points", they don't apply to what I posted. Your posts are scattered and disconnected imho. It is almost as though you are trying to be vague and cryptic because you know your "point" can't be substantiated in any way, shape, or form. My view is based on the actual tweet itself, and information concerning the birth place of potential female representatives it could apply to. Yours seems based on the "feels" with no substance to support it. In short, your posts seem like an attempt to discredit through disapproval. Cool, we disagree. I say that if you were born in another country to non-US citizens and later moved to the US and became a citizen, then you are from the country of your birth. I'm sure you will follow up with some jibberish, so...spin away.
All you've done is start a thread stating that the individuals for whom the tweets were intended is a mystery. I don't think there's any realistic doubt and you are being disingenuous. You'll say otherwise. So be it.
I indulged your silly game and stated that even if he is not referring to any of the US-born reps and if we take racism off the table, there is an implied question of "sourcing" that arises from this tweet. In my opinion, that point has been glossed over for the low hanging fruit of racism. The implication, IMO, is counter-productive to cohesion and getting away from hyphenated labels.
Your "gotcha" is meant to get around the place of birth counter-point folks are using with AOC, Pressley, et al., by casting doubt on the subjects of the tweet. Fine. My observation doesn't require specific identification of the subjects.
This post was edited on 7/15/19 at 2:26 pm
Posted on 7/15/19 at 2:51 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:
observation
A "rhetorical" question is not an observation. Additionally, I'm not sure "rhetorical" is a proper descriptor for your question. Socratic maybe, but not rhetorical. Ironically, my question"
"What names did Trump give" is rhetorical.
quote:
I don't think there's any realistic doubt and you are being disingenuous.
I believe I know one subject of his post, but I don't that for certain. Is it reasonable to assume who is implied, probably. Yet, the reality is that nobody but Trump knows. You assume that you can determine someone elses thoughts and intent, I don't. I'm not auditioning for membership into the "thought police." I have to go by what was said...or, in this case, tweeted.
I gave facts for consideration. I believe the term was "food for thought" on my post. If those facts can tie Trumps tweet to the (either 3 or 4 people according to some posters in this thread), then so be it. If not, then so be it. Ignoring facts is a trait of the obtuse imho. You seem to believe it is okay to be morally presumptuous based on conjecture, so be it. I don't. Carry on.
Posted on 7/15/19 at 2:55 pm to cajunangelle
All this is simply a pathetically predictable reaction from the pathetically weak minded liberals when confronted with the truth. The limp wristed jerks just can't handle it and are pitching a fit.
Posted on 7/15/19 at 3:08 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
You assume that you can determine someone elses thoughts
quote:
You seem to believe it is okay to be morally presumptuous based on conjecture, so be it. I don't. Carry on.
You keep going back to this well. Like I said, my observation isn't dependent on identifying the specific congressional members.
I don't think there is any doubt and I don't think that you really believe there is any doubt but you'll deny it so it's a pointless discussion.
Nonetheless, specific identification wasn't critical to my observation. You haven't actually made any counter points agains that observation but I certainly appreciate the education on the definition of rhetorical.
This post was edited on 7/15/19 at 3:18 pm
Posted on 7/15/19 at 4:46 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
The Dems were trying to distance themselves from the four “progressives,” but now they are forced to embrace them.
Fwiw, I think you can stop wondering now
Posted on 7/15/19 at 8:42 pm to pizzatiger
quote:
pizzatiger
I was right !
Page 10 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News