
sheeeit
-
Posts
761 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by sheeeit
-
-
1 hour ago, immamac said:
That's not at all what I'm saying. B_T can speak for himself. I'm saying it's absolutely okay to feel a certain way and for me not to judge that way of thinking. I don't want to force anyone to do anything or listen or be a part of anything. I'm saying that an open dialogue where I can recognize how it makes you feel and hold a different opinion is absolutely acceptable and doesn't make one a racist or make me the person pushing that ideology on a person. I'm saying I accept that and want to work around it, although your personal beliefs and mine don't align.
Saying the N word in private is the same as saying it to someone's face who finds it offensive and neither is acceptable, but in an academic use the word it's not something anyone can say is offensive or projecting offense from either party.
Same as the song.
I agree pretty much with everything you posted here and should apologize for lumping you in with the BTs and similar. The issue we are facing though, is what happens when your personal beliefs and another person's personal beliefs, are the subject of change from existing norms. When those beliefs have an actual impact on your life. I think most would agree that the song is not a "life or death" issue but, again, where do you draw the line. The song may not mean much to you personally, but, sooner or later, something that does mean a lot to you is going to face the same situation. If the answer to that is to never offend anyone, then literally every thing we do is subject to being cancelled. Where do you draw the line? Some segment of society is always going to perceive some sort of offensiveness in everything.
This is why these types of discussions are valuable and important and not easy to resolve. If the muslim students say they are deeply offended by hotdog sales at games, should we stop selling hotdogs? If the strong baptists are offended by people drinking beer at the stadium, should we stop it? I just do not think telling that muslim or baptist person that I really truly understand how you are offended by this but I am just not going to stop doing it helps in any way.
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:
I have no idea what "moved past its origins" means. I don't think the song itself was racist in the past so what was there for it to even move past in the first place?
You want me to have the same personal emotional causes that Song Karen does and I just don't. I have sung and will sing the song among Longhorns who appreciate it. I won't perform it among those who don't. The song isn't dead to me personally at all, but as an Alma Mater it isn't doing the job.
I believe the job of the Alma Mater is unity. The Eyes fails that test right now.
Your use of the word "appease" tells the story here. Unlike you, I respect the black Longhorns who don't approve of our Alma Mater. I also respect the black Longhorns who approve of our Alma Mater. I'm not going to pick a black person that agrees with me and say, "SEE!! THIS MEANS IT IS OK/NOT OK!!!!" in an act of desperate tokenism.
When a black Longhorn has a problem with The Eyes due to its history I don't see them as a force to "appease".
I have black friends who sing The Eyes and have for decades. I have zero black friends who have a problem with it (I'm old). Like me, they grew up with it without knowing its history and their hearts are set (like mine). I'm not going to tell them they should be offended or start pretending I am offended on their behalf.
It makes no "sense for me". Learn to read.
I don't feel what they feel, but I can understand why they feel it. This isn't complicated.
You just made this part up. I don't care who you criticize as long as you do it in a non-toxic, unoffensive way. I don't think people here should be blasting Longhorn athletes in nasty, personal ways where the whole world can see.
Intelligently criticizing arguments? Go for it. Have a great time.
What you're trying to do with the bolded strawman is make this like any other tired political argument about right to speech or whatever. Boring. Go to the CR with that.
Position #3 is this: They do not personally believe the song itself is racist but understand why black people would find it offensive because of its history
If everyone around is fine with The Eyes, we will sing it. If someone is not, we won't. This is just normal human decency so I can see why it confuses you guys.
You're making things up in your mind to get mad at. It's pathetic. You're a grown man. You should feel embarrassed.
Your inconsistency and hypocrisy are on full display.
"You want me to have the same personal emotional causes that Song Karen does and I just don't. I have sung and will sing the song among Longhorns who appreciate it. I won't perform it among those who don't."
"If everyone around is fine with The Eyes, we will sing it. If someone is not, we won't. This is just normal human decency so I can see why it confuses you guys."
So even though a large contingent (99% of the athletic department apparently) feels the song is racist and offensive, you will just sing it in the dark. As long as no one hears you sing it then it isn't offensive or racist. Very principled stance.
"I don't think The Eyes is a racist song in itself (lyrically). It was played at my wedding. It will be played at my funeral. I will sing it again and again and again until that time. I will most likely be singing it at a birthday celebration this weekend."
Interesting that you already know that no one at the upcoming birthday party is offended by the song. Maybe there was a question in the invitation? And your funeral. Its interesting (and maybe telling) that you have zero friends, acquaintances or colleagues that might want to pay respects to you that find the song offensive. You realize you dont put the guest list together for your funeral right. But, fuck it, you will dead so lets just play the song that I have admitted is offensive to many black people because I will be dead and who gives a fuck if they find out I really did not care at all what their feelings were about the song.
"I am not going to games this year, but if I could go out there knowing the athletes in front of me had a free choice to be there, I'd sing it myself like I have on hundreds of other occasions."
This is a perfect example of my point. You have said that 99% of the football players have a problem with the eyes. Yet, you fully admit that you would sing the song as long as the athletes had a choice to be there. Just classic example of what I have been saying. You are admitting openly that you would sing the song at the games even though you think it will offend 99% of the team as long as they get to go to the locker room first. So the school comes out and says no one has to remain for the song. Some leave and some stay. You sing knowing that each player that left the field is going to be offended.
"I've got great news for you. You can sing it whenever you want and I'm 99.99999% certain you will never hear anyone call you racist for doing so!"
So the athletes that think the song is racist and offensive will not be offended or think someone is racist if they sing the song that the athletes say is offensive and racist.
"The pianist at my wedding played The Eyes and we all sang along. I've heard it at funerals. I've sung it at games and reunions and gatherings dozens and dozens and dozens of times. I'll sing it dozens more if Satan doesn't take my soul."
Exactly. As I mentioned over and over, you have no issue singing a song that you fully admit lots of people find offensive and racist. You supposedly validate their feelings that the song is racist and offensive but do not really believe them because you will keep singing the song. Again, very principled.
"You can be OK with it, and I can be OK with it, but if a black person isn't OK with it I have no standing to contradict them or "WELL ACTUALLY!" the situation."
So according to BT logic, people are free to "criticize as long as you do it in a non-toxic, unoffensive way" or free to "Intelligently criticizing arguments" as long as they never "contradict" them or "well actually" the situation. That is going to be quite a trick to argue with someone over a subjective point and not be able to contradict them or "well actually" point out additional facts that they may not be aware of.
-
1
-
-
On 10/12/2020 at 5:03 PM, immamac said:
Vehemently disagreeing with it and defending your position is absolutely something that should be done.
Saying the guy doesn't possess critical thinking skills or is otherwise incapable of understanding why it isn't racist is crossing a line.
Saying you don't think the eyes is racist is a fine argument. Saying others need to share that sentiment because they feel racial oppressions from it is crossing a line.
Defending whether or not this site is racist is absolutely on me, but I wouldn't ever say it wasn't because the people of color that post here think it isn't. That's bogus. I can talk about the sites mission and what we want to accomplish, and whoever thinks it's racist can bring that up or not come here. See how that works?
Well that is a much more nuance Props to you.
However, I think this creates a very tough position for you and some others on this thread (BT etc) that perhaps you do not realize.
At this point there are 3 camps of what people believe:
1) The song is not racist and those that think it is are manufacturing their outrage
2) The song is racist and it should not be sung anymore and should not be a song affiliated with UT
3) They do not personally believe the song is racist but understand why black people could think that it is and that no one should criticize them for having that opinion
You and BT etc have posted that you fall pretty squarely in camp 3. I personally think this is a total cop out position and incredibly offensive to the people that you want to support. Your words are completely empty when your actions are the opposite of what you say.
All of you make claims that you personally do not think the song is racist and that you fully intend to keep singing the song and have no problem with anyone else continuing to sing the song. BT said it will be played at his funeral. So what you are guys are doing is saying with your words that you acknowledge that black people can find the song racist and you can validate their feelings about it, but you don't really care what they say or what they feel about it because you are going to keep singing it and playing it. This is just classic coddling and patronizing and belittling.
This is not arguing purely subjective things like who has the best football program or something similar. This is a group of human beings saying they are offended by a song that they think is racist and you saying that you understand them and then inviting them over for dinner to play the song. When people throw around words like racist and racism, there should not be any middle ground.
Lets say you went to a friend or colleague or even a stranger and told them flatly that some act they were doing was incredibly offensive to you personally. And then that person said something to the effect of "I understand where you are coming from. I do not believe what you believe but I have no right to question how you feel because I do not have the same life experiences that you do" You would rightfully think that was a good answer. But if the next 10 times you were with that person they continued unabated doing the exact same thing you told them was personally offensive to you, I think you would rightfully think they were total assholes that actually did not care one bit that you were offended.
This is exactly what you guys are doing now. Paying lip service to someone's feelings to their face and then continuing on with the practice. You guys have made it abundantly clear that people that think the song is racist are not dumb or do not lack critical thinking skills or are misguided. You have clearly said that you completely understand how that song can make them feel and then, in the same instance, say that you personally are going to just keep on singing and enjoying the song.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:
Yeah, that 53K at 4pm in 2016 really proved your point.
lulz. What point did you imagine in your mind that I was trying to make? I was laughing at one of the idiot Jimmys.
"Actually it’s Dotard hating. You think any people lined up at 5:00 am in 2016 because they wanted attention? Those people didn’t exist. "
-
1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:
Actually it’s Dotard hating. You think any people lined up at 5:00 am in 2016 because they wanted attention? Those people didn’t exist.
Everyone is tired of his bullshit and wants to get back to their regular lives before this insane narcissist invaded every day of our lives with his constant idiocy.
Thats worth getting in line at 5:00 am for and is not some “look at me” stunt.
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/10/24/some-texas-counties-long-lines-complicate-early-vo/
-
15 hours ago, immamac said:
but definitely not the "what you are allowed to think is racist or not" one...that one is definitely a no go for white folks
I am fascinated by this comment. I think I understand it but I have no idea where the line, if there actually is one, gets crossed. And I am not trying to call anyone out. I'm genuinely curious about your answer based on your posts in this thread.
The above is an article written by a black professor from NYU. He basically tries to argue that advancements in technology have been used by white people to discriminate against black people. It is his opinion and he is entitled to it.
So if a black member of this site said that your avatar of Steve Jobs shows that you are racist because Jobs was one of the most famous and influential people in creating and advancing technology that is being used to and was specifically designed to systematically discriminate against black people and that unless you change your avatar you are a true racist and that person will accuse this site of racism (since you are a moderator) and post it all over social media. Do you get to respond? Defend yourself? Change your avatar?
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, David Dennison said:
And if you could think critically you would realize they aren't refraining because they think the song is racist.
Changes regarding the whole black community at UT
- The replacement of the Eyes of Texas with a new song without racist undertones
Critical thinking on full display.
-
3 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:
You choose a dishonest form of persuasion that diminishes whatever strength your argument has by distorting things. The Atlantic erred in not researching the essay (akin to an opinion piece, but it should still be factual). Then you go on to write this:
The whole narrative was a lie. No one cared. The Atlantic did not do even a basic amount of fact checking. They didn't do any. And then members of their senior staff forwarded it out on their own. All under the banner of the supposedly righteous Atlantic.
From your Federalist link:
The garish headline and sub-head prove your statements are untrue. Atlantic did follow up. Did correct. Did admit fault.
Some people point to the NYT, WaPo, or CNN and cite examples of when they were wrong. They all certainly have been. An eye should be kept on any source we rely on for facts. The thing is, the people pointing are usually doing so to discredit those outlets in defense of shit outlets like FOX or Breitbart or American Spectator who actively distort and lie and never bring themselves to account. They hire people like convicted liar Oliver North and produce liars like the current press secretary.
Broad condemnation on narrow evidence, as I wrote above, is a dishonest style of argument to defend dishonesty. Add a pinch of both sides and a disingenuous claim of impartiality on the part of the person decrying credible news outlets, and you give the Russians their victory over the West. And for what?
Seriously, for what?
I won't pretend to know your motives or heart or conscience, but ask yourself that question. Why did you write what you wrote? Why did you choose to push the fact of the Atlantic's dereliction in one case to suggest all media are equally bad? I'd be interested to see what you have to say.
What I quote from your link to the Federalist is black and white (and garish red) proof that the Atlantic, like the NYT, Washington Post, and CNN and others, does indeed care about accuracy.
Would that other outlets and people were more like them.
Huh? I think you missed the entire point. I said that the Atlantic did not do any fact checking on the article BEFORE it was published. That is the whole point. Multiple people on this thread have said they believe the story because it was in the Atlantic and the Atlantic has this supposed reputation for "fanatical" fact checking. I simply went to one recent article (the first one that came up when I searched) where it was completely obvious that the Atlantic did not do any fact checking. A story in July of 2020 about a supposed policeman that shot an unarmed kid over not signing into gym registry before playing basketball? That is about as incendiary as an article can be in today's environment. The Atlantic knows that. They counted on that to help drive the story. You think it might be importnat to make sure a story like that is actually true before printing it. And it apparently wasn't too hard to fact check as some other journalist were able to do it.
I can't believe an actual intelligent person would type with a straight face that a publication that fails to fact check an article before it is printed and shared on hundreds of sites and other sources actually does care about facts because they then print a correction when they are shamed into having to admit that they printed a false article. It is bizarro world. It is further proof that you and others have completely lost all your ability to think.
Yes it was somewhat akin to an opinion piece (which are subject to the same fact checking requirements) which is why I specifically included the fact that an Atlantic editor tweeted the article out under the Atlantic banner.
-
9 minutes ago, CowboyFred said:
the bolded is literally a link to mcenany's statement. There is no mention of the actual witnesses just that 8 have "debunked the story". She supposedly brings up 2 new "witnesses". The first, Derek Lyons a staff secretary, straight up says I was with the president the day after. The second new witness, Dan Walsh, confirms the bad weather call and the helicopters weren't able to fly but thats about it. Other than that they just gave personal opinions (lol) as to why they don't believe he'd say such a thing.
I've seen Huckabeef come out and deny it but if you want to call her credible when she has straight up lied or told half-truths during her press conferences while press sec, that is a strange one to take at face value. I do know Bolton only said he didn't hear it but could see him saying it (this one probably hurts more than it helps). Trump even slipped up (lol again) and said he even called Melania that morning back at the White House when she was there with him.
This is not a personal attack as I don't typically do those here (swam is gone so we good now) but man this is reaching. I agree with you on the fact that news reporting (even the Atlantic) has their fuck ups (probably too many than should be happening) and its beyond shitty when the correction doesn't get nearly as much traction as the original. Also in complete agreement that there is shitty journalism on both sides and journalists should in fact be arbiters of the truth. Keep the opinion pieces in the opinion section.
On the Trump story being debunked, I cannot agree with you on that.
Fair analysis. And if you read what I have actually typed versus what people have accused me of typing, you would easily see that I never claimed the story to be debunked. I even said it was quite possible it was true. I wasn't defending trump nor was I trying to debunk the story. I was calling out shitty journalism for printing a story based on anonymous quotes when there were plenty of people in the room at the time of the story (if you read the Atlantic story it is very specific on when the alleged quotes by trump were made) that were quite willing to go on the record with what they heard and they were ignored but the anonymous ones were not. Honest journalism would have included the anonymous quotes and also added that the Atlantic reached out to Bolton, who recently released a book that is extremely critical Trump and Bolton said he never heard anything like that in the meeting, and we reached out to the Ambassador who was in the meeting and she said it never happened and we reached out to the chief of staff for Gen Kelly who was also in the room and he confirmed that the the secret service and Gen Kelly made the call to cancel the flight and that Trump never made any disparaging comments about the soldiers. That would be good journalism.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Nivek said:
Nice attempt of a deflection, but considering I used small words and used your own thesis against you, it makes sense you did not see how it failed and how hypocritical you are. Shit was that too big of a word?
I think you might be retarded. Honestly. Your analogies are completely worthless. Sandusky and Hitler? I very clearly said that taking the word of Trump or Melania or one of his closest allies was not relevant because they will always defend him. I am saying there were many people in the room during the supposed comments, including people that have been extremely critical of Trump. Why weren't they interviewed for the article? They should have been if the Atlantic had any integrity.
An appropriate analogy would be if Biden was meeting with 10 senators on something and Fox or Breitbart or even the Atlantic published an article that said four people at the meeting anonymously told a reporter that Biden said that black people who dont vote for him were uncle toms. Hundreds of outlets then repeated the claim. Then someone from Bidens camp denies it. Then Lindsay Graham (no fan of Biden) comes out and says he was one of the senators in the meeting and Biden never said any such thing. And then 6 other people that were at the meeting said the same thing on the record- that Biden never said such a thing. Who are you going to believe? I mean Biden did have the "you aint black comment" and he did author the crime bill that devastated the black community and he did say that if we use busing for school integration that his own children would "grow up in a racial jungle" and his own VP accused him of being racist in a national debate and he did co author legislation with Jesse Helms to combat school integration and he did ask a black reporter if he was a "junkie" and he did say the black community was not diverse (with notable exceptions) and so on. Every one of those examples is true. They could be taken out of context, but they are all true. So if i said well because Biden said and did all of those things I believe the story- then I would be a hypocrite. But I would never say that. I would say Fox/Brietbart/Atlantic did a horrible job of journalism with the story because they purposefully ignored on record denials of the story by people at the meeting that were not sympathetic to Biden. Journalism would be using both the anonymous quotes and the on the record quotes and letting the reader decide.
As for Michelle Obama, I have never posted anything about her that I can recall and certainly not something about her trip costs. Your delusional.
-
10 hours ago, Bullneck said:
Yes, that's what I want you to post. You made the comment, now back it up.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/how-i-became-police-abolitionist/613540/
The reason i suggested you google the articles yourself is to get the scope of the issue. The Atlantic story by Derecka Purnell was shared by hundreds of other outlets. The whole narrative was a lie. No one cared. The Atlantic did not do even a basic amount of fact checking. They didn't do any. And then members of their senior staff forwarded it out on their own. All under the banner of the supposedly righteous Atlantic.
Same with the Matt Gaetz story. Atlantic reporter tweets a story about Gaetz and a supposed conversation with Trump. Hundreds of outlets run with the story. It wasnt true at all. Gaetz was talking to Ron Desantis not Trump. No retraction from the Atlantic or the guy who made the tweet. No reprimand.
I am not naive that this only occurs by one side of journalism. I am sure it happens by most of them. Trump lies. All politicians lie. From 100 years ago until today. We need journalists to be the arbiter of the truth. They are not. This is not a Trump issue. There will be Dems in the white house again and when it happens to them it will be just as big of an issue.
-
12 minutes ago, Nivek said:
Based on your logic, if Jerry Sandusky declines and interview then the article is dead and should never be written. Oh wait that is easy. If Adolph Hitler denies the gas chambers then that article should never be written. Shit, Godwin’s law. So, if Trump denies the kids in cages story it shouldn’t be written? Oh, that was true? What about Snowden’s claims? True as well? Watergate? Fuck that was true? Wait, I understand now, if it is something negative against your team, then we need to exceed the preponderance criteria, past reasonable doubt, and move to the criteria somewhere between beyond all doubt and scientific theory?
Speaking of misinformation and not checking sources, I seem to recall you posting fictitious costs for Michele Obama’s travel, because no one could be bothered to check the source or actually perform unit conversions, yet you readily repeat this famed propaganda networks spin on here.
I seem to recall your propaganda and bullshit network lying over and over and no one really caring on the left, because well, we know the fable of the scorpion and the frog. And that’s ‘just the editorial’ side of the program.That is the biggest bunch of nonsense I have ever read. Congrats.
Michelle Obama? What are you talking about? -
25 minutes ago, Bullneck said:
Would you care to cite your sources? It would help to reinforce your argument that Trump is trustworthy and the Fake News Media isn't.
Well I certainly never said Trump is in anyway trustworthy and I never even remotely made that argument. I think he is an immoral and abhorrent person and I wish someone else was potus. I would really rather that person not be Biden but he is going to be the choice.
What exactly do you want me to cite? The July Atlantic article that was lies? Just google “Atlantic Derecka Purnell”. It’s an easy find. Same with the 21 folks on record that deny the Atlantic story. Google is pretty easy to use. There are many sources.
While you are at it, google “Atlantic Gaetz tweet dozere “. Another great example of the Atlantic doing a bang up job of fact checking. Atlantic reporter tweets a supposed scoop. It gets picked up by dozens of media outlets. It is later determined to not be true. No one cares and the Atlantic never corrected the issue.
Look, believe whatever you want. if you want me to agree with you that I wish the president was more truthful and less of an ass then I am happy to agree. My post was about the media. How many examples of lying and misreporting by the media do you need to agree that there is very little integrity left.
As a person or an organization you are either principled or not. Trump is most definitely not. Allowing yourself to lose your own principles because someone else is not principled is your fault not theirs.
-
1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:
So you can't read very well. I asked if Biden was saying that yesterday because the Trump team's statements were current news. You respond with "WHY INDEED YES CHECK OUT THIS STORY FROM TWO YEARS AGO." Whiff.
Interesting. So since, you claim, Biden only said it 2 years ago (which is already stupid because the quote I used is from July 2019 which is 14 months ago but you knew your response was going to be so fucking lame that you had to exaggerate it) then it doesn't matter if he meant it or not? High bar but typical. What exactly is your point? You were curious if Biden said it "yesterday" as if that would be different from him saying it throughout the campaign? I am pretty sure Trump said he would get out of the wars during his first campaign and he obviously didn't. How is it any different? The guys that immediately preceded Trump said the same thing and vowed to do the same thing and didn't either. That was the point.
Plus, that was just the quote I found in a 30 second search. It is pretty hard to get current quotes from Biden since he rarely talks and even more rarely responds to questions. But the platform he pledged to uphold at the DNC a mere 3 weeks ago said he would end the current wars. Is 3 weeks current enough?
-
On 9/6/2020 at 12:56 PM, Celery Man said:
The Atlantic is known for being fanatical about fact checking,
This is the main reason I wanted to post on this topic. This current story is a microcosm of what is wrong with political journalism today. This is NOT a defense of Trump. He very well may have said what the Atlantic accuses him of. My personal guess is that there is a kernel of truth in the reporting but that the anonymous quotes were put into a context to be seen in the worst possible light and the author is conflating comments Trump may have said about VOLUNTEERS in the Vietnam war and war veterans from WWI and WWII.
But this is the issue with political journalism. First, the Atlantic certainly may have been fanatical about fact checking in the past but times change, and viewership changes, and subscriptions change, and money changes, and competition increases and the chase to be first is heightened and, as a result, the values that we attributed to a magazine like the Atlantic previously may not exist now. Case in point, the Atlantic published an article from a woman in July of 2020 about her experience with a police shooting that, she claimed, caused her to become a police "abolitionist". She claimed she was at a public park gym with her sister and that a cop burst in and shot a black "boy" for not signing into the gym register book. She also claimed that the cop suffered no consequences. In fact, the "boy" who was shot was over 18 (was the shooters cousin and the dispute had nothing at all to do with registering in the gym book) and the "cop" was actually an independent park security guard and the security guard was arrested. So every main point in her story (child shot for no reason, cop did shooting, no repercussions to cop) were outright lies. The Atlantic did not "fact check" anything. And to make matters worse, an editor for the Atlantic tweeted the story under the Atlantic banner.
The only reason I found this story was I googled the Atlantic and any recent retractions/corrections because I was curious. And I do not think this is specific to the Atlantic. It seems to be in all forms of political journalism from both the right and left. Hell, the head of the FBI (Comey) said in open congressional hearings that a recent story at the time from the NYT was a lie. That story, shockingly, was also a hit piece on Trump that relied entirely on anonymous sources. Again, not meant as a defense of Trump but as an indictment on political journalism.
Now I do not think that Goldberg simply made up the quotes/sources he used in the report. But this is the problem with journalism. If we stipulate that Goldberg did in fact have sources who told him a variation of the story he wrote, then what is the role of the Atlantic as a "fact checker". I do understand the need for anonymous sources but, the reporter has to try and corroborate the source. And when no one is willing to go on record, then all you have to go on is the anonymous sources. However, in this particular story, there were multiple people present when the supposed quotes by Trump were made and plenty of those folks were willing to go on the record and they were neither contacted by Goldberg nor used in the story. Some sources, like Melania, would make no sense to even ask because they would never go against the potus but Bolton was there and said it didnt happen (no fan of trump) and Kelly's aid was there and said it didn't happen and said Kelly would have never let it stand if he did hear it (I actually applaud Kelly for taking a principled stand to not comment on a sitting president, for or against, and will say that it is highly, highly unlikely that Kelly's aid would tell a different story than Kelly). In fact, 21 different people that were present have gone on the record publicly that the quotes never happened. The Atlantic absolutely had a journalistic duty to talk to the other people present. IMO, the only way the Atlantic can be considered non-biased and have any journalistic integrity, they should have presented both sides, one group willing to go on the record and one not willing to, and let the reader decide. That is the true role of political journalism.
-
2
-
2
-
-
15 hours ago, Huckleberry said:
Is Biden's team publicly chastising military leadership for endless wars today or are you just being silly again?
Trump and Associates: "Endless Wars! Why won't somebody do something?!?"
People with Brains: "He's the Commander in Chief, he's the one who can do something."
Anastasis: "But Obama! But Biden!"
Do you genuinely not see the logical failure in that response?
Hilarious that this post received so many likes.
Biden on the campaign trail right now "Acknowledging those forces, Biden promised to “end the forever wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East” and terminate U.S. involvement in the Yemen civil war. "
So, yes, Biden is saying exactly that.
Further, Biden/Obama in 2010 or so said that all troops would be out of Afghanistan by 2014. Biden was incensed that anyone would suggest it would not happen. "We're starting it in July of 2011, and we're going to be totally out of there, come hell or high water, by 2014," Biden said on NBC in December 2010."
Obama had at least 3 different "end the war in Afghanistan" promises during his tenure and we are still there. Obama spent $866B on "war related initiatives" during his tenure (compared to $816B under Bush) even though he pledged every chance he could that he would end the high cost of war that was crippling americans.
Trump is, indeed, an idiot. I don't believe him and I didn't believe Obama when he said it and I don't believe Biden when he says it.
-
5
-
-
17 hours ago, Fastbreak said:
Wait! Defense contractors send our troops to war? Maybe I mis-read the constitution.
Nope. But the defense contractors collectively donate $100s of millions annually to the people that do.
-
-
1 hour ago, Newdoc said:
I get your sentiment but the zipper merge appears to be best. I’ve adapted by slowing my speed in the lane I’m merging from, turn on signal well ahead of time and ease in as the lane markers narrow. That way you don’t look like an ahole zooming to the front and forcing your way into the continuation lane.
50 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:Oy vey zipper merging is what you're supposed to be doing. People going to the front of the line are doing it right. Traffic flows much smoother when people don't act like assholes, and block folks from merging the correct way. Congratulation on being one of the assholes slowing up traffic.
Lulz. Zipper merging. This may work fine in theory or if people start it early but not in the situations I’m talking about. There are state laws about late merging. If the right lane is at a standstill and you blow by 50 cars to get to the front of the line then you are an asshole. You going by me to try and merge late when no one is moving just fucks things up worse.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I may have posted this previously but it doesn’t matter because he bothers me so much but, Howie Mandel ?
regarding traffic, it boils me when people don’t merge when they should and race down a long line of cars and wedge their way in at the front. My wife is convinced that I’m going to get shot someday but I always pull over into the open lane and then keep my pace exactly even with the car on my right so that I block anyone from racing up to the front of the line. It is hilarious, at least to me, how furious people get when I do this.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, thepop said:
I guess I didn’t pay attention to battleground state polls in 2016. I didn’t know they were all that close.
I was fooled by the national polls.
Not really. That tweet is pretty misleading. The are comparing Biden% on 8/10 ish with Clinton% on 11/16.
While I still think Biden will win, I do not think it is a slam dunk as so many here do. Consider the following that shows poll averages for Trump and Clinton on this date (8/11 ish) in 2016:
Ohio C +2, Final T +8
Florida C+2, Final T +1.2
Penn C +9, Final T +.7
Wisc C +9.4, Final T +.7
Texas C +2, Final T +9
NC C +2. Final T +4
Michigan C +8, Final T +.3
Surely, Biden will not make the same mistakes Hillary did but you just never know in these things. Lots of time left. Polls are really fairly meaningless at this point. Amazing how much they moved though in 2016 in some of these states. Also still amazing how close it was in the end in Mich, Penn and Wisc. Interestingly, in the RCP average poll, Trump never closed the gap in Michigan and Wisconsin literally until election day. Clinton was up 6% the last week of polls in both states. Crazy.
It seems doubtful Trump hits all these again.
-
1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:
I think I have to agree. The picture was published and most ran with the way it appeared rather than what actually happened. It's the job of journalists to provide the actual story.
The picture suggests a smug, entitled white boy confronting and dismissing the history of Native America
I agree with a lot of your post and think it actually is representative of what politics, in general, and this board (cloak room), in particular, have devolved into. Even in your criticism of the media you still make a point to say that the picture of the boy suggests he is "entitled". How? Based on what? The fact he is white? Maga hat? We have been told, repeatedly, that maga folks are dumb white trash. He is wearing a $10 down jacket and has a bad haircut. What, at all, suggests he is entitled by his picture?
And it is not just you but many on here:
On 7/27/2020 at 10:16 AM, wildcat09 said:It's not a "stretch," it's just a general frustration that the rich and powerful keep becoming richer and more powerful, and even when so many regular people are facing so much real pain we've still got entitled little shitsons of the most privileged finding ways to enrich themselves off of meaningless culture war bullshit that is dredged up to distract everyone from anything that matters.
On 7/27/2020 at 11:12 AM, lemonlime said:Because he's a spoiled, rich, privileged white guy
On 7/27/2020 at 1:52 PM, lemonlime said:Rich, entitled white guy who’s a prick to other people.
On 7/27/2020 at 3:53 PM, Bama Chick said:This snot nosed entitled shitshrub is just another Trump Era grifter.
These are, presumably, grown people that are lashing out at a 16 or so year old kid with absolutely no basis in fact. I would say shame on them but these people have no shame. I certainly get it that 95% of the people on here are against this kids political leanings (as much as an 16 year old has actual informed political beliefs). But he was just a random kid that did nothing wrong and nothing that is not absolute common behavior for teen boys. If anything, he was pretty darn restrained. But why "entitled, spoiled and rich"?
I was curious so I did a little googling. Ted Sandmann, father, is a sales manager at a specialty truck body manufacturing plant. Not exactly a hedge fund manager. The median household income for the country is about $62,000. Median household income for his community in Park Hills, Kentucky is $53,000. He attends a private catholic school (which no one knew based on his picture) which has low tuition and provides scholarships and tuition assistance to any catholic kid in the area.
2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:After the photo is published and misinterpreted, would I have listened to lawyers telling me there was money to be made? Likely so. I must be honest; easy money always has its appeal and the Washington Post won't miss it. I'm no parago
Of course you would as would almost everyone on here. You would do it for he money and for the damage done. As everyone here knows, anytime you apply for college or for a job or almost anything, the people looking are going to search your name. The things being said about this kid were horrible. There should be zero question that his future would have been harmed considerably if the attacks against him went unchallenged.
2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:Would I self-hero-ize and snuggle up to MAGA? I can't see that. I'm vain, but not that vain. Even as a teenager, I think I would have avoided the indelible slime of Trump Jr. or the insanity of Q. I don't tweet now and doubt that I would have been moved to do so as Sandmann does.
Of course you, personally, would not snuggle up to maga. But that is just because of your beliefs. If FOX or OAN would have been the ones that were sued and AOC or Biden or Michelle Obama reached out to you, especially at 16, I have no doubt that you would have easily been swept up in the hype. Anyone would. Thats just human nature.
2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:I guess the whole thing is sort of depressing in what it says about everyone involved. The kids look shitty, the Indian looks shitty, the black guys look shitty, and a great newspaper comes out shitty looking.
Lastly, I really do not see how the kids look shitty. They look exactly like kids have looked since forever. And as for the "great " newspaper, I might say a formerly great newspaper. The number of corrections and retractions have increased exponentially in the last 10 years. And not just the Post. All media.
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:
Sure.
I suppose I am easily amused because I laughed again.
-
8 minutes ago, Captainant said:
Sheeeeeit, I am talking specifically about the man who was abducted by the unmarked van. He was at a protest and was detained because someone next to him pulled out a laser pointer and shined it in the eyes of a federal agent. He was detained by federal agents for being adjacent to a person of interest at a protest.
He is not the only case of this occurring, as DHS has "not arrested" dozens of people along the same lines and have charged fewer than a dozen with actual criminal charges, while releasing the rest due to lack of probable cause or chargeable offenses.
I am using the dude in the van example because it has a clearly defined fact pattern, and even the a deputy DHS head admitted they did not have probable cause or reason to hold van man.
You are being purposely obtuse and gish-galloping, and I am reminded why I ignored you. Have fun sheeeeeeeitposting.
Perhaps it was just a misunderstanding. You say you were just talking about the van guy. Fair enough. I was confused by the following:
"Unidentified federal agents deployed into cities against their will to arrest people without probable cause, criminal charges, or a record of their detention is definitely on the that spectrum, jokes aside."
"BUT, people have been getting arrested just for standing NEAR someone else who did that."
"The feds are arresting people to interrogate them for info about the person they were standing next to."
"People have been getting illegally arrested for the act of being outside,"
"Look, I'm not saying that the protesters are uniformly peaceful. I am saying that the feds are using the actions of a few people to justify collective punishment against that group"
"Extrajudicial arrests by unmarked irregular military forces is a fucking notable current event, "
"Guys, collective punishment is TOTALLY in alignment with the values of a democratic republic, GAWRSH! If you don't want to get brutalized by the police, just don't go exercise your right to free speech and assembly, and they won't arrest you in violation of the 4th amendment"
I thought "people", "group", "arrests" and "collective punishment" were plural terms. My bad.
I pledge to post more pictures of this STEAK
in Food and Travel
Posted
Rare night alone in 2020. Weed then beer then prep then beer then start cooking then weed then finish cooking then weed then red wine.
love the cooking techniques from here. I went basic, oven for 20, seer on grill 3 a side. Spectacular. The salt for 30 pre cooking is genius and vastly underrated. Filet plus old school mac and cheese because I’m old and the combo is glorious.
I am a young firm Asian masseuse away from my greatest night of 2020.