Do you think maybe he's just senile?

vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
This_person said:
That's not what Pitt was doing, though.
Click to expand...

Don't be ridiculous. That was exactly what he did, and now I'm going to put you on ignore at least for the day because you're picking fights with me just for sport and I'm not interested in that.
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Chris0nllyn said:
Vrai is like the Oprah of the ignore button.
"You go on Ignore!, You go on ignore!..."
Click to expand...

In the immortal words of Jim Rome:

Have a take and don't suck.

It's not different opinions that bore me, it's pointless arguing. And when someone * ahem * digs in and starts making stupid claims rather than even considering that there might be another viewpoint, I lose interest fast. And when that happens, I'd rather not even see the continuation of the pontificating so I'm not tempted to get sucked in.

Some people like to endlessly argue and nitpick; I do not.
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
vraiblonde said:
In the immortal words of Jim Rome:

Have a take and don't suck.

It's not different opinions that bore me, it's pointless arguing. And when someone * ahem * digs in and starts making stupid claims rather than even considering that there might be another viewpoint, I lose interest fast. And when that happens, I'd rather not even see the continuation of the pontificating so I'm not tempted to get sucked in.

Some people like to endlessly argue and nitpick; I do not.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, I do. It can seem like T_P is "endlessly arguing" (I've been there :lol:), but in this case, he's correct.

You don't want what he's saying to be correct, but it is, and you don't want to argue the merits based on that simple fact, you want to stand firm that it's your way or the highway. At least, that's how it seems from a 3rd party view.

Whether it's about Trump lying/misstating or about money in politics (just to name two recent threads).
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Chris0nllyn said:
You don't want what he's saying to be correct, but it is, and you don't want to argue the merits based on that simple fact, you want to stand firm that it's your way or the highway. At least, that's how it seems from a 3rd party view.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read a little more. Vrai is as stubborn as anyone, but she is able to be persuaded.

I know - I've done it. More than once.

And in all my years of discussing and debate, I've yet to meet someone who after believing something strongly,
SUDDENLY has an epiphany in the middle of less than cordial discussion and says "whoa - YOU are right, and I am wrong".

I'd rather discuss with someone stubborn but reasonable than someone wishy-washy or inflexible,
because neither of those actually believe anything. The first one is spineless and the second has chosen an opinion
without regard for anything else. When I was in that cult years ago - there were a LOT of both. Spineless types who
believed one thing one minute, and the opposite the next - because they had no backbone. And the other type who
once they made an opinion could not change it despite all logic and rational thinking.
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
vraiblonde said:
That would be an opinion, not fact.

Check your notifications - I tagged you in a post.
Click to expand...

It's fact. There's literally websites dedicated to his lies. Are they ALL correct? No, but there's plenty of outright evidence that Trump does lie and misstate things pretty consistently.

All he's saying here is to level the playing field, so to speak. Don't point out Biden's gaffs while seemingly ignoring Trump's.

SamSpade said:
Maybe you should read a little more. Vrai is as stubborn as anyone, but she is able to be persuaded.
Click to expand...

Unless, of course, it's something she really believes is true despite empirical data, evidence, or facts of the contrary.

I've seen and participated in many drug threads, pitbull threads, politics threads that back up my sentiment.

Most recently, as I said, was the money in politics thread. The SCOTUS has literally ruled, multiple times (going back decades) that donating money to candidates is, in fact, free speech. But since she doesn't think that should be okay, she will not be persuaded and is dismissive of any opinion of the contrary. I'm certainly not saying the folks in that thread don't have valid points, but I will point out some examples below.


This_person said:
No one controls a voter's vote except the voter.
Click to expand...
vraiblonde said:
Not true.
Click to expand...
This_person said:
McDonald's is the biggest through market share. Like Coke, they bully their way in and control supply. They're so upset about places like Chik fil A because they don't control that market and it robs them of customers.
Click to expand...
vraiblonde said:
That ^^ is where you jump the fridge and just want to argue, even though you know I'm right.
Click to expand...
This_person said:
I understand the argument completely.

I simply agree that is the result. I didn't mistype that, I AGREE that is the result.

My argument is not that some people are stupid, because they are. My argument is not that some people will vote because of what they hear on TV - because they will.

My argument is that it is not the responsibility of the government to protect those people from themselves. It is the responsibility of the government to protect our unalienable rights, endowed to us by our Creator (as the DoI and Constitution present to us in the founding of our nation). It is not within the authority of the government to TAKE those rights from us, but to protect them. It is OUR responsibility to live with our own actions. If we, as a group, elect someone like Obama or Trump, or Hoyer or Lee, we are responsible for that. Trying to hide our stupid people from bad information is not within the government's role. [Edit: not within the government's role if it takes rights from other citizens. It IS within the government's role to protect citizens from libel and slander.]
Click to expand...
This_person said:
The responsibility lies with the voters, not anyone else. It is NOT the government's job to limit your free speech or mine. There is no difference, conceptually speaking, between you writing a check to a PAC and you writing a check to a candidate or you spending that same amount of money to buy your own air time and say your own peace. We talk endlessly on here about Pelosi and McConnell and Schumer and a plethora of others. Anyone from anywhere can come on here, buy a Premo membership, and espouse their views on Steny or our state legislature or anything else they want. No one should have the authority to stop them from doing that but YOU, because it is your site. YOU can not take money from advertisers outside of the district if they want to support Hoyer or Hoyer's opponent, as you desire. But, the government does not have any authority to say that you must or cannot take those advertising dollars.

The first amendment is as clear as the second.
Click to expand...
vraiblonde said:
Nice detour, you must have learned that in politician school, but let's try again:
Click to expand...
stgislander said:
Fortunately or unfortunately, SCOTUS said money is speech. Until they change their mind.
Click to expand...
vraiblonde said:
Well, they're wrong. Buying a politician isn't free speech, in fact it's the opposite because it's rich fatcats taking our elections away from us and the average American can't compete with that....
Click to expand...
https://forums.somd.com/threads/heres-my-idea.345918/
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
SamSpade said:
Maybe you should read a little more. Vrai is as stubborn as anyone, but she is able to be persuaded.

I know - I've done it. More than once.
Click to expand...

But I'll tell you what is NOT going to persuade me:

"Admit that Donald Trump is Hitler and you're a RACIST!!!"

Yep, on ignore they go! :dye:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top