nuckin_futz Posted Tuesday at 07:16 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 07:16 PM 1 minute ago, DSVII said: As per Brandolini's Law: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. You see the firehouse of disinformation at work from the far right youtubers. 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the destroyer of worlds Posted Tuesday at 07:19 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 07:19 PM 3 minutes ago, DSVII said: As per Brandolini's Law: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. You see the firehouse of disinformation at work from the far right youtubers. I like this: A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. There are many versions of that saying. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted Tuesday at 07:21 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 07:21 PM 8 minutes ago, DSVII said: Frick @Elias Pettersson there's your freudian slip right there for the next assassination conspiracy Vance can literally predict the future…. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilgore Posted Tuesday at 07:23 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 07:23 PM (edited) 13 hours ago, Gator said: No, unlike the left I don't try to create a false rhetoric at every turn.. What I'm pointing out is the "FACT" that she did support defunding the police (no matter how you decorate her stance it's fact she was for it), denied it, and wasn't fact checked about it. It is that black and white. Dance around the fact all you want. The way that debate was handled was borderline criminal Is it just too damn complicated for you? I think one of the biggest tragedies of the MAGA movement is that, like all cults, it strips its cult members from all common sense. I just spent some minutes searching for any time when Kamala said she supported "defund the police". She was asked about it when she ran in 2020, and responded in much the same way. "we have to re-imagine how we are creating safety". So its not a lie to say she never advocated for defunding the police. https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/politics/kfile-kamala-harris-praised-defund-the-police-movement-in-june-2020/index.html That is how she interprets what is meant by "defund the police" when asked about the term that others have used. Let her at least define what it may mean for herself for gawds sake. This state of being devoid of all common sense is baffling and a little frightening. You are stuck on conflated semantics. In order to "win" an argument. And its not even that because Kamala has never used the term. You go one step further, and put it into her mouth, then use just the phrase, not her interpretation of it, to bastardize her responses. The Cult tells you not to think too deeply. You even admit, all you can do is see it as "black and white". I feel sorry that you are so limited in that way. Cults can do that. The tragedy of this lack of cognitive function on cultists is that they are stripped of the ability to look past their own manufactured ignorance to have any further opinion on any topic. Its stops with one cherry picked MAGA meme. But heck, I'll try...... Do you think there is any merit in "re-imagining how we do public safety in America" which are her exact words in your video? Any merit in her idea that there are other ways to reduce crime other than simply hiring more and more cops? Or equipping them with more and more deadly military assault weaponry? Maybe redirecting some of that funding to programs that help lift poor communities out of poverty for instance, so a few more don't turn to crime? With more education possibilities so more will be educated and get a good job?. More programs meant to create positive ties to local police to reduce tensions. etc. Does this have some validity to you at all? And isn't that the whole point? What is MEANT by a concept, and if its a good thing? and not dismissing the whole idea just because you heard someone somewhere give it a title that was not deemed politically correct enough for you? Edited Tuesday at 07:27 PM by kilgore 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted Tuesday at 07:30 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 07:30 PM Ran across this article when I was reading a Chinese EV article. Keep in mind that unlike a certain number of people here, I am for tariffs because I want to see as much manufacturing to return to the US as possible. The Biden administration is raising tariffs on Chinese goods and raw materials like steel, aluminum, and medical equipment. On Chinese EV's, he's raising tariffs over 100%. Harris will keep this policy if elected. So will Trump if re-elected, but he'll of course take credit for the entire policy after tweaking 1 or 2 minor things. Then maybe someone will explain to him what tariffs actually are (fingers crossed). Both parties now embrace large and sudden tariffs as a trade tool, even if it raises inflation further. It's not just Republicans. https://apnews.com/article/biden-china-tariffs-electric-vehicles-evs-solar-2024ba735c47e04a50898a88425c5e2c Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator Posted Tuesday at 07:30 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 07:30 PM 4 minutes ago, kilgore said: Is it just too damn complicated for you? I think one of the biggest tragedies of the MAGA movement is that, like all cults, it strips its cult members from all common sense. I just spent some minutes searching for any time when Kamala said she supported "defund the police". She was asked about it when she ran in 2020, and responded in much the same way. "we have to re-imagine how we are creating safety". So its not a lie to say she never advocated for defunding the police. https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/politics/kfile-kamala-harris-praised-defund-the-police-movement-in-june-2020/index.html That is how she interprets what is meant by "defund the police" when asked about the term that others have used. Let her at least define what it may mean for herself for gawds sake. This being devoid of all common sense that is baffling and a little frightening. You are stuck on conflated semantics. In order to "win" an argument. And its not even that because Kamala has never used the term. You go one step further, and put it into her mouth, then use just the phrase, not her interpretaion of it, to bastardize her responses. The Cult tells you not to think too deeply. You even admit, to you all you can do is see it as "black and white" only. I feel sorry that you are so limited in that way. Cults can do that. The tragedy of this lack of cognitive function on cultists is that they are stripped of the ability to look past their own manufactured ignorance to have any further opinion on any topic. Its stops with one cherry picked MAGA meme. But heck, I'll try...... Do you think there is any merit in "re-imagining how we do public safety in America" which are her exact words in your video? Any merit in her idea that there are other ways to reduce crime other than simply hiring more and more cops? Or equipping them with more and more deadly military assault weaponry? Maybe redirecting some of that funding to programs that help lift poor communities out of poverty for instance, so a few more don't turn to crime? With more education possibilities so more will be educated and get a good job?. More programs meant to create positive ties to local police to reduce tensions. etc. Does this have some validity to you at all? And isn't that the whole point? What is MEANT by a concept, and if its a good thing? and not dismissing the whole idea just because you heard someone somewhere give it a title that was not deemed politically correct enough for you? Like I said you can sugar coat the word she used when asked in favor of defunding the police all you want.. End of day she was for it when asked about it (doctor it up however you want) and wasn't fact checked. This wasn't taking out of context. What you're doing is trying to take what she said out of context to try and fit the narrative that she didn't lie during the debate and wasn't fact checked on said lie. I showed video proof of the exact interview that you pulled the quote from that you are trying to twist into not before for it lol. I mean... Is it just too damn complicated for you?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewbieCanuckFan Posted Tuesday at 07:31 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 07:31 PM 6 minutes ago, kilgore said: Is it just too damn complicated for you? I think one of the biggest tragedies of the MAGA movement is that, like all cults, it strips its cult members from all common sense. I just spent some minutes searching for any time when Kamala said she supported "defund the police". She was asked about it when she ran in 2020, and responded in much the same way. "we have to re-imagine how we are creating safety". So its not a lie to say she never advocated for defunding the police. https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/politics/kfile-kamala-harris-praised-defund-the-police-movement-in-june-2020/index.html That is how she interprets what is meant by "defund the police" when asked about the term that others have used. Let her at least define what it may mean for herself for gawds sake. This state of being devoid of all common sense is baffling and a little frightening. You are stuck on conflated semantics. In order to "win" an argument. And its not even that because Kamala has never used the term. You go one step further, and put it into her mouth, then use just the phrase, not her interpretation of it, to bastardize her responses. The Cult tells you not to think too deeply. You even admit, all you can do is see it as "black and white". I feel sorry that you are so limited in that way. Cults can do that. The tragedy of this lack of cognitive function on cultists is that they are stripped of the ability to look past their own manufactured ignorance to have any further opinion on any topic. Its stops with one cherry picked MAGA meme. But heck, I'll try...... Do you think there is any merit in "re-imagining how we do public safety in America" which are her exact words in your video? Any merit in her idea that there are other ways to reduce crime other than simply hiring more and more cops? Or equipping them with more and more deadly military assault weaponry? Maybe redirecting some of that funding to programs that help lift poor communities out of poverty for instance, so a few more don't turn to crime? With more education possibilities so more will be educated and get a good job?. More programs meant to create positive ties to local police to reduce tensions. etc. Does this have some validity to you at all? And isn't that the whole point? What is MEANT by a concept, and if its a good thing? and not dismissing the whole idea just because you heard someone somewhere give it a title that was not deemed politically correct enough for you? No different how Ronny Ray-gun enacted gun control legislation in California with the full support of the NRA (and of course the Dems). Doesn't mean the GOP are for gun control (or the NRA). Only for certain of "people" not to have guns (which technically is the same thing). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewbieCanuckFan Posted Tuesday at 07:33 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 07:33 PM 1 minute ago, Sabrefan1 said: Ran across this article when I was reading a Chinese EV article. Keep in mind that unlike a certain number of people here, I am for tariffs because I want to see as much manufacturing to return to the US as possible. The Biden administration is raising tariffs on Chinese goods and raw materials like steel, aluminum, and medical equipment. On Chinese EV's, he's raising tariffs over 100%. Harris will keep this policy if elected. So will Trump if re-elected, but he'll of course take credit for the entire policy after tweaking 1 or 2 minor things. Then maybe someone will explain to him what tariffs actually are (fingers crossed). Both parties now embrace large and sudden tariffs as a trade tool, even if it raises inflation further. It's not just Republicans. https://apnews.com/article/biden-china-tariffs-electric-vehicles-evs-solar-2024ba735c47e04a50898a88425c5e2c Are they REALLY Chinese EC's though? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted Tuesday at 07:39 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 07:39 PM 1 hour ago, Duodenum said: More Than Half of Trump Voters Believe Haitians Are Eating Pets: Poll https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-republicans-haitian-migrants-eating-pets-poll-1954875 Shows you why they make up these stories. There are a lot of people willing to get angry and believe fake news. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted Tuesday at 07:39 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 07:39 PM 4 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said: Are they REALLY Chinese EC's though? Even with the over-acting and stupid-humour, that show still makes me laugh and grin like a hyena. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted Tuesday at 07:43 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 07:43 PM Okay....I just heard the best nickname for JD Vance..... Vladimir Futon..... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator Posted Tuesday at 07:44 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 07:44 PM 4 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: The left tyring to see the point being made... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted Tuesday at 07:46 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 07:46 PM Just now, Gator said: The left tyring to see the point being made... I calls 'em as I sees 'em.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted Tuesday at 07:46 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 07:46 PM Just now, Gator said: Like I said you can sugar coat the word she used when asked in favor of defunding the police all you want.. End of day she was for it when asked about it (doctor it up however you want) and wasn't fact checked. This wasn't taking out of context. What you're doing is trying to take what she said out of context to try and fit the narrative that she didn't lie during the debate and wasn't fact checked on said lie. I showed video proof of the exact interview that you pulled the quote from that you are trying to twist into not before for it lol. I mean... Is it just too damn complicated for you?! Odd how you began by talking about migrants eating pets but no longer do. If that was an outright lie made during the debate is it not possible other lies were spoken? Odd how you get so fired up over the thought that Trump's bloodbath comments were taken out of context, spun, and twisted, yet you can't consider the thought that the ex-governor/doctors comments were or that Kamala's comments also were. (I thought I recently saw you admit that both sides were guilty of hyperbole.) Are you this much of a homer concerning the Canucks? Can they do no wrong? If one of our guys makes a dangerous and dirty hit this year that enrages the hockey world are you going to stand by him to the end? And no, it's not complicated. All you have to do is listen to the words ACTUALLY SPOKEN by the politicians in the videos you keep posting. Don't spin, don't twist, just listen. BTW - have you been keeping track of the fallout of the pet eating comments? All the bomb threats and school closures? The apology of the Facebook poster who started it all? Or are you too busy talking about the left's dangerous rhetoric? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuckin_futz Posted Tuesday at 07:48 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 07:48 PM (edited) 18 minutes ago, Sabrefan1 said: Both parties now embrace large and sudden tariffs as a trade tool, even if it raises inflation further. It's not just Republicans. https://apnews.com/article/biden-china-tariffs-electric-vehicles-evs-solar-2024ba735c47e04a50898a88425c5e2c The difference is one party is pushing targeted tariffs while the other is pushing massive and heavy tariffs on everything. Edited Tuesday at 07:49 PM by nuckin_futz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted Tuesday at 07:50 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 07:50 PM Just now, nuckin_futz said: The difference one party is pushing targeted tariffs while the other is pushing massive and heavy tariffs on everything. They are both targeting the same country. Tariffs on steel and aluminum will raise the price on nearly every product. It won't stop there either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilgore Posted Tuesday at 07:52 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 07:52 PM 2 minutes ago, Gator said: Like I said you can sugar coat the word she used when asked in favor of defunding the police all you want.. End of day she was for it when asked about it (doctor it up however you want) and wasn't fact checked. This wasn't taking out of context. What you're doing is trying to take what she said out of context to try and fit the narrative that she didn't lie during the debate and wasn't fact checked on said lie. I showed video proof of the exact interview that you pulled the quote from that you are trying to twist into not before for it lol. I mean... Is it just too damn complicated for you?! "Sugar coat the word she used" What word? "End of day she was for it " For what .... exactly? "This wasn't taking out of context." What wasn't taken out of context? She never said she was in favour of "defund the police" So again, even if you want to just stick with "technically", .... no she did not lie. You are simply wrong. Or produce proof to show where she advocated for exactly that. You are still stuck on some invented tagline and not on what is most important, the interpretation of the actual concept. Can you really not think past that? Can you try? I asked you if you think Kamala's ideas about "re-imagining how we do public safety in America" has any merit to you as a concept ??? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuckin_futz Posted Tuesday at 07:52 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 07:52 PM 1 minute ago, Sabrefan1 said: They are both targeting the same country. Tariffs on steel and aluminum will raise the price on nearly every product. It won't stop there either. It's not the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted Tuesday at 07:52 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 07:52 PM 7 minutes ago, Gator said: The left tyring to see the point being made... The only point you've made is that you've been successfully brainwashed by Nazi propaganda and don't understand the difference between facts and opinions. You've made that point very clearly. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted Tuesday at 07:54 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 07:54 PM Just now, nuckin_futz said: It's not the same thing. Raising tariffs on raw materials is protectionism because it affects a wide swath of products. I'm personally all for it, but yes, it's the same thing in a different wrapping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted Tuesday at 07:57 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 07:57 PM 4 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said: It's not the same thing. Unless you're talking about the idiotic blanket 10% Trump tariffs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuckin_futz Posted Tuesday at 07:57 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 07:57 PM 1 minute ago, Sabrefan1 said: Raising tariffs on raw materials is protectionism because it affects a wide swath of products. I'm personally all for it, but yes, it's the same thing in a different wrapping. But not EVERY product. Hence, not the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuckin_futz Posted Tuesday at 07:59 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 07:59 PM Just now, Sabrefan1 said: Unless you're talking about the idiotic blanket 10% Trump tariffs... Of course that is what I am talking about. Trump's blanket tariff is for 20% on everything and 60-100 on select things. President Donald Trump doubled down on his plan to install a blanket tariff of up to 20% on all imports, with additional tariffs of 60% to 100% on goods brought in from China. Trump characterized the plan as a way to extract money from rival nations. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/13/what-trump-tariff-proposals-would-mean-for-your-money.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted Tuesday at 08:00 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 08:00 PM 2 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said: But not EVERY product. Hence, not the same thing. I only just realized that you were talking "Trump". I'm talking about Republicans as a whole. Trump won't get anywhere with a 10% blanket tariff. Both parties will stop it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted Tuesday at 08:01 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 08:01 PM 1 minute ago, nuckin_futz said: Of course that is what I am talking about. Trump's blanket tariff is for 20% on everything and 60-100 on select things. President Donald Trump doubled down on his plan to install a blanket tariff of up to 20% on all imports, with additional tariffs of 60% to 100% on goods brought in from China. Trump characterized the plan as a way to extract money from rival nations. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/13/what-trump-tariff-proposals-would-mean-for-your-money.html Trump barely knows what a tariff is. It won't go anywhere. Neither party would allow it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.