2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

This characterization of my comments is juvenile and you know it (I hope, for your sake). Laughable, sir. Seriously, put down the shovel.

These statements are not in conflict with each other. Perhaps read them again. Moreover, your paraphrase of my remarks was incorrect at best, outright lying (more probable) at worst. This is not FoxNews, you are not Hannity, and I am not you. Twisting my words is not going to win you any points.

Assertions were made. Period. Were they not?

Next.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

Third time laughable. One more and I call bingo! (Bigot is the free space). And why do you keep saying Hannity? Total episodes ever watched of Hannity; zero. Ingraham, zero. The news is never on my TV here. We're sports, Seinfeld and Disney Jr. almost exclusively (and the Bachelorette or some awful CW show when I lose control of the house).

I'm not twisting your words. You said very clearly that results are unknown and then said we've instituted policy because we believe the results will show effectiveness in the policy. Those statements are absolutely at war with each other. You can really hope things work, but you will not know.

And as it relates to your interjection; drunk driving lowers inhibitions. This is fact. It lowers reaction time. This too is fact. And it tends to make you terribly drowsy which can cause you to fall asleep. Fact #3. These are undisputed and so driving while drunk is a no no. There is direct causation to exponentially higher risks in fatality, accidents, property damage etc.

To my knowledge, no such risk exists when leaving your home in the COVID era. I have yet to see that study, or that science but if it can be quantified in a way that makes the risks to people as clear as drinking and driving, then that will go a long way in getting people on board w/ lockdown restrictions. If no such science exists, then pshaw I say.

[thenwhatjk]

Sick press conference!

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Third time laughable. One more and I call bingo! (Bigot is the free space). And why do you keep saying Hannity? Total episodes ever watched of Hannity; zero. Ingraham, zero. The news is never on my TV here. We're sports, Seinfeld and Disney Jr. almost exclusively (and the Bachelorette or some awful CW show when I lose control of the house).

I'm not twisting your words. [V] You said very clearly that results are unknown and then said we've instituted policy because we believe the results will show effectiveness in the policy. Those statements are absolutely at war with each other. [/B]You can really hope things work, but you will not know.

And as it relates to your interjection; drunk driving lowers inhibitions. This is fact. It lowers reaction time. This too is fact. And it tends to make you terribly drowsy which can cause you to fall asleep. Fact #3. These are undisputed and so driving while drunk is a no no. There is direct causation to exponentially higher risks in fatality, accidents, property damage etc.

To my knowledge, no such risk exists when leaving your home in the COVID era. I have yet to see that study, or that science but if it can be quantified in a way that makes the risks to people as clear as drinking and driving, then that will go a long way in getting people on board w/ lockdown restrictions. If no such science exists, then pshaw I say.

I'm not sure why you think these are contradictory statements. Even as you incorrectly paraphrased them, they make perfect sense to me. We cannot know for certain the exact outcomes of policies, but we can make educated guesses and adopt policy based on them.

I wasnt sure what was going to happen when LeBron decided to leave Cleveland for Miami, but we all knew he was among the best and his presence in Miami was going to be a good thing.

We can't be sure exactly how effective these policies are going to be, but we can make them based on what we know about similar diseases.

There is no conflict there. Moreover, that's not even what I said in the first place. So, to sum up, it seems you incorrectly interpreted my statements and then incorrectly assumed things about those incorrect statements.

Perhaps more importantly, all you were doing in the first place is wasting our time with an attack on a person rather than discussing actual political matters. But hey, it's a free country. You're allowed.

Was it fun at least?

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

I wasnt sure what was going to happen when LeBron decided to leave Cleveland for Miami, but we all knew he was among the best and his presence in Miami was going to be a good thing.

No, we all didn't know that. It certainly was possible and even probable but ultimately the flaw with your logic here is that he won championships. We knew it worked after the fact. Again, we have no idea about COVID policy and it's effectiveness. There's no championship to be won.

Originally Posted by JustRachel

Perhaps more importantly, all you were doing in the first place is wasting our time with an attack on a person rather than discussing actual political matters. But hey, it's a free country. You're allowed.

Was it fun at least?

An attack? Because I suggested drunk driving and leaving your house are not the same thing?

[rcmb3220]

Originally Posted by Chris Lyle

So we should shutdown then to limit the contact for people? Or should we continue to only limit the contact in certain situations?

No and no. You all have me confused with someone else. I advocate people take precautions on their own volition. I rail against people who think personal responsibility is a license to be stupid. Other things I don’t like in no particular order:

Mainstream news, non-mainstream news, Trump, Biden, conspiracy theorists (but not theories), people who think the election had issues or was stolen, almost all of the BLM platform, everything about antifa, liberal academia, pro-Trump evangelicals, Arby’s, Sheila Ford Hamp, Bernie Bros, the squad, any republican who has supported Trump’s antics since the election and the opening music to All Things Considered.

ETA: this is the short version.

[coachnip13]

[QUOTE=NeedChapmans;16676447]No, we all didn't know that. It certainly was possible and even probable but ultimately the flaw with your logic here is that he won championships. We knew it worked after the fact. Again, we have no idea about COVID policy and it's effectiveness. There's no championship to be won.

Originally Posted by JustRachel

Perhaps more importantly, all you were doing in the first place is wasting our time with an attack on a person rather than discussing actual political matters. But hey, it's a free country. You're allowed.

Was it fun at least?/QUOTE]

An attack? Because I suggested drunk driving and leaving your house are not the same thing?

She’s obviously projecting, because I’ve never seen you attack anyone in this thread. She insults someone in every other post, so it’s odd that she would get upset about an “attack” which was really just a response to her post.

[Boo]

Originally Posted by rcmb3220

No and no. You all have me confused with someone else. I advocate people take precautions on their own volition. I rail against people who think personal responsibility is a license to be stupid. Other things I don’t like in no particular order:

Mainstream news, non-mainstream news, Trump, Biden, conspiracy theorists (but not theories), people who think the election had issues or was stolen, almost all of the BLM platform, everything about antifa, liberal academia, pro-Trump evangelicals, Arby’s, Sheila Ford Hamp, Bernie Bros, the squad, any republican who has supported Trump’s antics since the election and the opening music to All Things Considered.

ETA: this is the short version.

Not a Hope Solo fan, huh?

[rcmb3220]

Originally Posted by Boo

Not a Hope Solo fan, huh?

I don’t know who that is. Did I misspell something?

[cnewby]

Originally Posted by Boo

Not a Hope Solo fan, huh?

That Jerramy Stevens is a baaaad man!

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

An attack? Because I suggested drunk driving and leaving your house are not the same thing?

This is what I was referencing. Doesn't matter anyway. It was too silly to matter then and it's lost ground since.

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

You just blow wherever the wind takes you huh? Five days ago, you said we had no way of knowing the effect of policy (with which I agree), but today, you are confident that the results are in, and they're good!

You'll twist every which way when you hold no real position.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by rcmb3220

No and no. You all have me confused with someone else. I advocate people take precautions on their own volition. I rail against people who think personal responsibility is a license to be stupid. Other things I don’t like in no particular order:

Mainstream news, non-mainstream news, Trump, Biden, conspiracy theorists (but not theories), people who think the election had issues or was stolen, almost all of the BLM platform, everything about antifa, liberal academia, pro-Trump evangelicals, Arby’s, Sheila Ford Hamp, Bernie Bros, the squad, any republican who has supported Trump’s antics since the election and the opening music to All Things Considered.

ETA: this is the short version.

I suspect you and I might get along better than I previously thought.

What's your take on crunchy peanut butter? I'm a thumbs down.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[coachnip13]

A criticism of someone’s posts isn’t an attack.

But, apparently, the stance against attacks goes away when she is addressing a Trump supporter.

[Chris Lyle]

Originally Posted by rcmb3220

No and no. You all have me confused with someone else. I advocate people take precautions on their own volition. I rail against people who think personal responsibility is a license to be stupid. Other things I don’t like in no particular order:

Mainstream news, non-mainstream news, Trump, Biden, conspiracy theorists (but not theories), people who think the election had issues or was stolen, almost all of the BLM platform, everything about antifa, liberal academia, pro-Trump evangelicals, Arby’s, Sheila Ford Hamp, Bernie Bros, the squad, any republican who has supported Trump’s antics since the election and the opening music to All Things Considered.

ETA: this is the short version.

I dont have you confused with anyone. Nor was I saying what you advocate or not. I was simply asking a question because the "science" gets confusing. I fit into at least one category that you dont like so that explains some things

[cnewby]

wow some people are charmin soft today.

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by coachnip13

A criticism of someone’s posts isn’t an attack.

But, apparently, the stance against attacks goes away when she is addressing a Trump supporter.

Wow, I need to turn it down a notch or three I guess. I must've really did a number on you, eh? Hopefully everyone will be okay.

Have you seen that "Calm" app? I heard it's pretty useful for some people.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

This is what I was referencing. Doesn't matter anyway. It was too silly to matter then and it's lost ground since.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

An attack.

Words continue to lose their meaning.

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by cnewby

wow some people are charmin soft today.

I often wonder how weird this thread would've looked before spell check came along.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

Wow, I need to turn it down a notch or three I guess. I must've really did a number on you, eh? Hopefully everyone will be okay.

Have you seen that "Calm" app? I heard it's pretty useful for some people.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

Lame. What happened to talking politics? That narrative seems to change depending on who you were attacking or getting attacked by.

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

An attack.



Words continue to lose their meaning.

Clearly. Yep.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by coachnip13

Lame. What happened to talking politics? That narrative seems to change depending on who you were attacking or getting attacked by.

Was there something you wished to discuss?

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[coachnip13]

Her go to comment seems to be the calm down, everything will be OK line. After about 250 times it starts to get old.

[cnewby]

Originally Posted by coachnip13

Her go to comment seems to be the calm down, everything will be OK line. After about 250 times it starts to get old.

You forgot the random "take a deep breathe"

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

Was there something you wished to discuss?

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

Yes, but when someone wants to discuss something, and it points out one of your contradictions, you turn it into “oh my I’m getting attacked.” Literally, no one can disagree with you without you running from the topic and telling them to calm down, everything will be OK. That is your coping mechanism for avoiding confrontation.

[rcmb3220]

Originally Posted by Chris Lyle

I dont have you confused with anyone. Nor was I saying what you advocate or not. I was simply asking a question because the "science" gets confusing. I fit into at least one category that you dont like so that explains some things

Your questions were disingenuous. You thought you knew my stance and you were looking for an argument.

[rcmb3220]

Originally Posted by cnewby

wow some people are charmin soft today.

Leave Don Brown out of this thread please.