Politics and world news

[Bartimaeus]

1 hour ago, TrueNeutral said:

This must be how Gfted1 feels. I get it now. 

(If anyone is reading this, send help). 

Gromnir is great when people are attempting to partake in serious discussions - he's a seasoned lawyer, so he's able to consistently follow everything everyone says in ways that the rest of us simply are not trained and do not have the experience to do, which can be awesome when it's directed at people who are selling obvious bullcrap. Especially because it seems like he has the infinite time to pursue and pontificate that rest of us do not. On the other hand, he is the most "beat the dead horse until not a single proton or electron remains bonded at the atomic level" for silly discussions that began with a single off-the-cuff remark/sentence...for which the explanation is the same as the previous: he's a lawyer. You just gotta learn to ignore a post(er), man. Don't want to get in an argument with Gromnir over a silly witty remark you thought up in 30 seconds? Don't reply. If he argues with me over something I said in THIS post, you know what *I'm* going to do, . In that, you did indeed make the same mistake Gfted repeatedly has.

(e): discretion better part of valor and all

Edited January 17, 2020 by Bartimaeus

[Blarghagh]

On 1/15/2020 at 4:23 PM, TrueNeutral said:

That CNN debate. 

Mr. Sanders, do you enjoy the taste of babies? Mrs. Warren, what do you think about Mr. Sanders eating babies? 

 

On 1/15/2020 at 8:10 PM, Gromnir said:

like it or not, can you imagine the ridicule cnn woulda' suffered if nobody asked bernie 'bout the gender issue? ignore the elephant in the room?  "you would have asked the question if it was donald on stage and not bernie." etc.

after bernie claims elizabeth were wrong 'bout her recollection, cnn shoulda' ignored obvious follow-up question?

in this single case, cnn were damned no matter what they chose to do, but am thinking they had to ask the question.

HA! Good Fun!

" 'course were all a ruse, even when you were making such posts before Gromnir posted regarding the debate? were all made up nonsense? " 

Direct quotes featuring my original joke and only comment about the CNN hosted democratic debate and your direct response to it. Follow the quotes and you will find that though others responded to my post, I did not respond to them and specifically engaged with you and you alone on this topic.

A perfect demonstration: you invent something your opponent supposedly said or did and debate those projected constructs instead. There's that epiphany you were seeking. 

I'm surprised you don't believe me, since much more important people than me have gone to much greater lengths.

 

Thanks for the advice, Barti, but thanks to baby colic and paternity leave I can match the time for once. 

Edited January 17, 2020 by TrueNeutral

[Bartimaeus]

 

1 minute ago, TrueNeutral said:

that image is too small homey

[Blarghagh]

Doesn't need to be bigger, Gromnir knows what it is. 

[Gromnir]

31 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

stuff

am gonna give special consideration @Guard Dog 'cause he is the one person we frequent disagree with who will actual drop an issue before we do. find his reserve admirable, but don't tell him we said so. regardless, rare is Gromnir the last guy posting in a disagreement, even though may not seem that way if you has been on receiving end once or twice. am likely to get folks riled to point where they refuse to quit... even after they insist they has quit. 

but again, to stay on-topic...

am genuine curious 'bout impeachment witnesses. is not a particular compelling reason to forgo witnesses, but as we said already, this is a political trial and issues o' probative value and relevance and every other standard gets thrown into the chipper shredder.  

has anybody seen any fox news polls regarding whether republican voters are interested in seeing witnesses? am suspecting such will be the tea leaves worth reading as to likelihood o' witnesses. if the core republicans want witnesses, then we get 'em. republican senators got no political reason motivation to call witnesses if core republicans do not want such.

@Bartimaeus

the image is an attempt at irony? so many misfires from tn such as failing to recognize how his ruse started before Gromnir were even involved in the cnn debate discussion.

the character from tob named after Gromnir appears to be a paranoid who makes wild accusations. however, it turns out that the tob Gromnir character were correct and the only game character to recognize melissan for what she actually were.

*shrug*

based on the image and game context, we would say this were tn's attempt at an apology... if we weren't certain o' the opposite. so it goes.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited January 17, 2020 by Gromnir

[Blarghagh]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

 @Guard Dog rare is Gromnir the last guy posting in a disagreement,

but again, to stay on-topic...

@Bartimaeus

 so many misfires from tn such as failing to recognize how his ruse started before Gromnir were even involved in the cnn debate discussion.

 

Since you brought it back up after saying you'll stay on topic... 

(Side note, Gromnir Il-Khan was right that something was wrong but was completely oblivious as to how and responded to his hunch with malice and idiocy.) 

I will remind you that I just provided direct, indisputable evidence in the form of post-numbered quotes in a previous post that the CNN debate discussion was entirely and solely limited to you and me. I made the baby eating joke, you responded to it directly and I spoke to no other member about the topic.

Your statement that my "ruse" started before you got involved with the discussion is a demonstrable lie. The facts are that your response to my joke was the point of origin of the discussion and this fictional "before Gromnir were even involved" does not exist.

Everyone including yourself can peer review the evidence of this on the previous pages. Since demonstrable evidence shows that you are a liar, there is no reason for me to continue repeating that in implicit arguments and I consider this matter fulfilled.

Of course, as I admitted I am a liar too. I don't deny it, my posts are suspect by default from now on. I'll take that hit to prove you a a liar beyond doubt. 

Edited January 17, 2020 by TrueNeutral
BG reference

[Chilloutman]

8 hours ago, TrueNeutral said:

Eh, I'm a hardcore leftie and I skim and dismiss your posts at best and skip over entirely at worst. Maybe consider it's not them. 

And here I was, thinking you were true neutral...

[Blarghagh]

That was always meant to be ironic. 

[Chilloutman]

now I feel stupid, thanks!

[Blarghagh]

It's fine. Baldur's Gate made people believe TrueNeutral people are always vicious jerks like me r, so I get the confusion. 

[Gromnir]

so while the reddit coop post came first, you didn't really start the ruse until afterwards? is getting difficult to keep track o' all o' what you is admitting now to be lies. lie now or lie then kinda question, particular coming from an admitted hardcore lefty, eh? such stuff would follow from a hardcore lefty, but not this time eh?

*eye-roll*

however, your image link is helpful. the bioware developers were having fun with Gromnir when they put a namesake in tob, but is not coincidence they made his character able to identify melissan as mendacious.  were a job skill. so post a link o' the tob Gromnir calling out the game villain for her deceit? is perhaps an unintended bit o' honesty you would link such... or were that mistake somehow part o' the ruse too? every Gromnir claim 'bout melissan were true. saradush (sp?) were indeed melissan's trap for surviving bhaalspawn and she was using the tob main character to kill the one person who had exposed her efforts. life imitates art, eh? though tn is no melissan. 

*chuckle*

and what were the ruse again? make multiple pages o' bad and unsupportable arguments to see if we would keep picking 'em apart? that was your plan? 

HA!

and where are we not staying on-topic? pretty much all our posts have politics and world news content.  definite all since we pointed out the need to stay on-topic or risk censor and censure. you can't even keep that point straight, eh? have additional content in a post is not violating board rules. have a cnn debate coverage post and then reference favorite restaurants in iowa? would not get post censored 'cause o' the  gastronomical side-content, eh? we can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. not difficult.

tn, on the other hand, has abandoned all pretext.  'course he claims he had abandoned legit on-topic discusion o' the bernie debate pages past... though am not certain anymore if we count the reddit joke or not. regardless, wouldn't be shocked if one o' the other mods did step in eventual.

once again, to keep our post on-topic, 

66% of Americans want John Bolton to testify

have seen as high as 70% for witnesses, but am not certain is enough. need core republican voters to get on board with the notion. collins is in a mostly blue state and is up for reelection, so she might vote for witnesses even if core republicans do not want such. 

HA! Good Fun!

response to tn late edit: am seeing you did indeed try and reimagine your image link mistake as somehow intentional or laudable. thanks for being predictable. however, much as with the other mod who can't stop himself from a Gromnir argument, am gonna need end this since tn can't seem to control his self. you have the field. enjoy it.

 

Edited January 17, 2020 by Gromnir
ps

[Guard Dog]

3 hours ago, TrueNeutral said:

Since you brought it back up after saying you'll stay on topic... 

(Side note, Gromnir Il-Khan was right that something was wrong but was completely oblivious as to how and responded to his hunch with malice and idiocy.) 

I

You have to remember Gromnir was Gromnir before Gromnir was Gromnir. The man predates the game character. 

[Guard Dog]

10 hours ago, Gromnir said:

 

@Guard Dog

am knowing breitbart and the washington examiner are having fun with the kyle jurek story, but as we have pointed out in the past, with multiple links, whatever criticisms you might have o' bernie, you cannot accuse him o' actual or tacit approval o' any group, red, blue or otherwise, which uses violence to promote their message. bernie has been consistent and vocal in criticizing violence even when it comes from those who would support him. yeah, trump offers tacit approval o' white supremacists while aoc pays for bail of antifa members, and the multitude o' politicians stay silent when their core followers is involved in violence, but bernie has always been consistent and vocal anti-violence.

Oh no argument there. That's why I said sometimes his supporters are his worst enemies. Bernie has never suggested violence of any sort. Quite the opposite. And although he has certainly been a supporter of and apologist for the worst misdeeds of communists everywhere he has also been adamant that our Constitution protects us from such should we ever decide to take socialism for a test drive. And he is not responsible for the rantings of a crackpot in Iowa except..... that crackpot is employed by his campaign. And, despite all that has happened (Jurek has been arrested since for DUI & Possession) he still is as of this morning at least. Kind of a misstep if you ask me. If you fire him the whole thing goes away. Keeping him makes him campaign ad fodder. And an effective one too.

You know the old saying about riding the tiger. Trump has certainly been willing. Maybe Bernie is too. 

Edited January 17, 2020 by Guard Dog

[Volourn]

Bernie supports violence.  All politicians do.

 

[Malcador]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/preclearance-act-federal-government-u-s-border-1.5429662

Quote

The big concern is that American preclearance officers could now further interrogate Canadians who withdraw their application to enter the U.S., perhaps because they feel uncomfortable during a customs inspection.

Previously, law-abiding travellers could simply leave and return home, because they were still on Canadian soil. 

Now they could be detained — even handed over to Canadian authorities to face charges — for refusing to answer questions about why they're withdrawing.

Would rather have inconvenient and slow travel than deal with this. 

Edited January 17, 2020 by Malcador

[Volourn]

No suprise from a country that reelected mr. blackface.

[HoonDing]

There's nothing wrong with blackface.

 

[Gfted1]

Whaaa? I really am indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesnt affect me or mine. I find the crocodile qq from our residents of clown alley to be strange and disingenuous. Someone across the world gets chunked?  Next we can delve into my liking of money and the wetness of water.

[Gromnir]

4 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

You have to remember Gromnir was Gromnir before Gromnir was Gromnir. The man predates the game character. 

were weird and fun for us to get to kill tob Gromnir, but it bothered us how our player character in the game had to be the idjit getting used by melissan while our namesake were the one who were successful thwarting melisasan and uncovering her plot until we show up in saradush. due to limits o' bg2-style dialogue choices, we must needs treat the Gromnir npc like cassandra. as such we had a moment o' remorse (brief) before we got to the killing and l007ing o' npc Gromnir.

@Malcador

shouldn't cause much practical trouble... unless you look dangerous (i.e. dark complected) and/or are traveling from wrong country?

terrible part is how even if trump isn't reelected, this policy is improbable to be changed back to pre-trump norms. is so much easier to take freedoms and liberties from persons than it is to grant 'em. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps a certain mod forgets... again. he were offended at our suggestion o' his indifference o' reporter murder. 'course then we show his older (and apparent forgotten) post making just such a claim and only then do we get his sudden admission o' blanket indifference to murder. were so funny we immortalized in signature... and yet the mod still persists with the assault on facts and decency.

good show.

 

Edited January 17, 2020 by Gromnir

[Gfted1]

I dont remember being offended either.   Again, for those of you in the dain bramaged seat, if you arent of my blood or love, all I can muster is "bummer".  Putting it in your signature just further immortalizes your disfunction and creep.

[Gromnir]

can't imagine how funny it is being criticized for disfunction and creep when is coming from the guy who proclaims indifference to murder.  situation is so out of touch with normal it boggles the mind.

ontopic... 'cause somebody needs be:

Kenneth Starr, Alan Dershowitz to join Trump’s legal team

HA! Good Fun!

[redneckdevil]

Lol a lawyer criticizing someone on morality.  Ahh that’s a good laugh
 

good day today, just found out late that maga hat boy won against CNN’s slander.  Was wondering why no news are really talking about it and realized several propaganda stations reported the slander as fact as well.  Hopefully maga hat breaks their banks as well.

Edited January 17, 2020 by redneckdevil

[Gromnir]

38 minutes ago, redneckdevil said:

 

good day today, just found out late that maga hat boy won against CNN’s slander.  Was wondering why no news are really talking about it and realized several propaganda stations reported the slander as fact as well.  Hopefully maga hat breaks their banks as well.

our understanding is the case were settled. do you have additional info? considering how the similar case against wapo were initially dismissed, is more than a mere possibility that whatever the "maga hat boy" team were given could have been little more than enough to recoup costs. 

tough to count this as much o' a win w/o more info.

speaking o' washington post, and to avoid the double

‘You’re a bunch of dopes and babies’: Inside Trump’s stunning tirade against generals

we can post a few quotes for those blocked, but might be pointless. at this stage in the administration, the revelations is not shocking while at same time being a gut punch for any but true believers.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited January 17, 2020 by Gromnir

[Blarghagh]

1 hour ago, HoonDing said:

There's nothing wrong with blackface.

 

Black Pete is actually at the center of much controversy so many people here disagree. As a Dutch person I feel like I should respond. Personally, I don't think Black Pete is completely racist but the design has enough roots in racist caricature (Saint Nicholas' Moorish servants can certainly be recognized) for me to understand the criticism, especially considering my country's sordid history.

Blackface doesn't carry the same taboo here. Blackface taboo stems mostly from other country's history of racism such as minstrel shows and the racist connotations are brought over from there - unlike those, Black Pete isn't actually considered a black person but someone whose skin has turned black from soot due to delivering presents through chimneys. He's closer to the German Krampus than a minstrel show. 

Still, I think there's enough racism in its history and in modern world context that I don't oppose the proposal to modernize the holiday and replace the blackface with colors or soot smudges. I've been told this makes me a traitor to my country's customs, but I always think tradition is just peer pressure from dead people.

I must admit I'm horribly biased about it though - Black Pete triggers in me the same instinctive hatred as clowns. Screaming eyes and mouths showing from underneath a layer of makeup hiding whatever is really under there. I've always hated Black Pete and even as a kid I wanted nothing more than for them to be banned forever and every December I don't see any children enjoying the tradition and instead cowering away from these horrific shadow creatures. 

[HoonDing]

I remember getting put in Black Pete's bag once when I was in kindergarten.