Let's make America Grate Again.

[Chuck Naill]

Do you need another drink?

[724Seney]

Do you need another drink?

This is about as lame as it gets, folks.
Chuck is into the terminal phase of his triggering disorder.

[kazoolaw]

Chuck, I knew that you couldn’t identify such a post, even after bringing it up a second time.
I am persistent in pursuing an answer, and recognize a dodge, as you agree. See, Definition of a Christian, posts 929-932

See Seny's post #536 and follow the exchange forward. I assume you were following the conversation. Was I mistaken. Were you familiar with Seny's posts just before your post #542?

I asked, "Do you approve of 724Seny's recent posts targeting Ted? I don't need an explanation, just yes or no."

Then you said you prefer not to have to search after saying you preferred not to answer. Looks like you're trying your best suggest you are unaware of Seny's posts on the page previous to this one. He does it all the time. You seemed to be able to recall my previous posts as you tried to reconstruct a narrative on your post #542.

I'll try to respond to the original question, and the changes you've made to the original question.

The original question was "Do you approve of 724Seny's recent posts targeting Ted?" Your question refers to multiple posts. You have only identified one, Post 536. Responding to this question directly, no, I don't think 724Seney's post addressing TS directly is improper. It's a regular occurrence on the board. Both you and I do the same thing. Like in this exchange.

You then changed the question to "You prefer not to take a stand on posts which only purpose in to denigrate another member?" with posts (plural) following 536. I don't see 724Seney posting between 536 and 557. If I've overlooked something I'm sure you'll point it out.

You've chosen to focus on a single post: 536. I don't see that its sole purpose is to denigrate TSherbs.

536 contains a response to a TS post, including the post responded to. TS likes to use "Maga Mike," calling Michael Johnson a "puppet," and describing as having a rotting legacy. Certainly belittling language.

536 refers to TS admitting to launching ad hominem attacks while condemning others for allegedly doing so. To call that out seems within bounds.

TS has a very partisan way of handling citations/links to off-board sources. Again, substituting "biblical republic" for the actual term "constitutional republic." There was a second Johnson quote referred to by TS. When I asked TS if he'd found the source of the alleged quote, because Snopes hadn't, the reference disappeared. It has been noted that TS supplies links and mischaracterizes their content. I pointed out the difference between what the book author said about hit pieces and TS attributing the quote to Johnson.
You agreed that you didn't think TS' posts were incomplete or incorrect. I've had many exchanges with TS, and prefer to allow the readers to draw their own conclusions.

"Haters?" Let's just say some of TS' posts demonstrate animosity. TS seems to belittle Speaker Johnson ("Mikey and "whining baby" and "repressed creepiness) and religious believers. ("crazy talk" and "nonexistant (sic) god") It's within a range.

"Losers?" Not a term I remember using. Probably not a term I'd choose. Belittling, sure. No more severe than I've seen you say since Post 536: "troll" and "Do you need another drink?" in Post 561. You must realize by now that those comments only reflect badly on you.

As we've noted in other threads, the top of the page says "Not for the faint of heart. ...You have been warned." Was Post 536 addressed directly to TS, yes. Solely for the purpose of denigrating him, no.

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck, I knew that you couldn’t identify such a post, even after bringing it up a second time.
I am persistent in pursuing an answer, and recognize a dodge, as you agree. See, Definition of a Christian, posts 929-932

See Seny's post #536 and follow the exchange forward. I assume you were following the conversation. Was I mistaken. Were you familiar with Seny's posts just before your post #542?

I asked, "Do you approve of 724Seny's recent posts targeting Ted? I don't need an explanation, just yes or no."

Then you said you prefer not to have to search after saying you preferred not to answer. Looks like you're trying your best suggest you are unaware of Seny's posts on the page previous to this one. He does it all the time. You seemed to be able to recall my previous posts as you tried to reconstruct a narrative on your post #542.

I'll try to respond to the original question, and the changes you've made to the original question.

The original question was "Do you approve of 724Seny's recent posts targeting Ted?" Your question refers to multiple posts. You have only identified one, Post 536. Responding to this question directly, no, I don't think 724Seney's post addressing TS directly is improper. It's a regular occurrence on the board. Both you and I do the same thing. Like in this exchange.

You then changed the question to "You prefer not to take a stand on posts which only purpose in to denigrate another member?" with posts (plural) following 536. I don't see 724Seney posting between 536 and 557. If I've overlooked something I'm sure you'll point it out.

You've chosen to focus on a single post: 536. I don't see that its sole purpose is to denigrate TSherbs.

536 contains a response to a TS post, including the post responded to. TS likes to use "Maga Mike," calling Michael Johnson a "puppet," and describing as having a rotting legacy. Certainly belittling language.

536 refers to TS admitting to launching ad hominem attacks while condemning others for allegedly doing so. To call that out seems within bounds.

TS has a very partisan way of handling citations/links to off-board sources. Again, substituting "biblical republic" for the actual term "constitutional republic." There was a second Johnson quote referred to by TS. When I asked TS if he'd found the source of the alleged quote, because Snopes hadn't, the reference disappeared. It has been noted that TS supplies links and mischaracterizes their content. I pointed out the difference between what the book author said about hit pieces and TS attributing the quote to Johnson.
You agreed that you didn't think TS' posts were incomplete or incorrect. I've had many exchanges with TS, and prefer to allow the readers to draw their own conclusions.

"Haters?" Let's just say some of TS' posts demonstrate animosity. TS seems to belittle Speaker Johnson ("Mikey and "whining baby" and "repressed creepiness) and religious believers. ("crazy talk" and "nonexistant (sic) god") It's within a range.

"Losers?" Not a term I remember using. Probably not a term I'd choose. Belittling, sure. No more severe than I've seen you say since Post 536: "troll" and "Do you need another drink?" in Post 561. You must realize by now that those comments only reflect badly on you.

As we've noted in other threads, the top of the page says "Not for the faint of heart. ...You have been warned." Was Post 536 addressed directly to TS, yes. Solely for the purpose of denigrating him, no.

All of this for you being unable to respond?

I didn't change the question. The question was always and remains, are you okay with Seny's negative posts regarding another member. You could have easily said, yes or no, but you didn't. You said you preferred not to respond. However, you badger others for not answering your questions whether they are understood, clearly asked, or attempted honestly.

This post is a CYA, pure and simple, for which I understand. You need other's support. Notice that I do not treat you as I and Ted are treated. So, pick your side dude and live with it.

[kazoolaw]

Looks like the pot calling the kettle black. It’s okay, Kaz. I’ll still try to answer your questions regardless of whether you answer mine.

Did you want to start a count down clock?

Tick-tick-tick-tick- BRINNGG!
Times up.
You got a two-fer: still haven’t answered the question. Still haven’t identified a denigrating post.

[kazoolaw]

Chuck, I knew that you couldn’t identify such a post, even after bringing it up a second time.
I am persistent in pursuing an answer, and recognize a dodge, as you agree. See, Definition of a Christian, posts 929-932

See Seny's post #536 and follow the exchange forward. I assume you were following the conversation. Was I mistaken. Were you familiar with Seny's posts just before your post #542?

I asked, "Do you approve of 724Seny's recent posts targeting Ted? I don't need an explanation, just yes or no."

Then you said you prefer not to have to search after saying you preferred not to answer. Looks like you're trying your best suggest you are unaware of Seny's posts on the page previous to this one. He does it all the time. You seemed to be able to recall my previous posts as you tried to reconstruct a narrative on your post #542.

I'll try to respond to the original question, and the changes you've made to the original question.

The original question was "Do you approve of 724Seny's recent posts targeting Ted?" Your question refers to multiple posts. You have only identified one, Post 536. Responding to this question directly, no, I don't think 724Seney's post addressing TS directly is improper. It's a regular occurrence on the board. Both you and I do the same thing. Like in this exchange.

You then changed the question to "You prefer not to take a stand on posts which only purpose in to denigrate another member?" with posts (plural) following 536. I don't see 724Seney posting between 536 and 557. If I've overlooked something I'm sure you'll point it out.

You've chosen to focus on a single post: 536. I don't see that its sole purpose is to denigrate TSherbs.

536 contains a response to a TS post, including the post responded to. TS likes to use "Maga Mike," calling Michael Johnson a "puppet," and describing as having a rotting legacy. Certainly belittling language.

536 refers to TS admitting to launching ad hominem attacks while condemning others for allegedly doing so. To call that out seems within bounds.

TS has a very partisan way of handling citations/links to off-board sources. Again, substituting "biblical republic" for the actual term "constitutional republic." There was a second Johnson quote referred to by TS. When I asked TS if he'd found the source of the alleged quote, because Snopes hadn't, the reference disappeared. It has been noted that TS supplies links and mischaracterizes their content. I pointed out the difference between what the book author said about hit pieces and TS attributing the quote to Johnson.
You agreed that you didn't think TS' posts were incomplete or incorrect. I've had many exchanges with TS, and prefer to allow the readers to draw their own conclusions.

"Haters?" Let's just say some of TS' posts demonstrate animosity. TS seems to belittle Speaker Johnson ("Mikey and "whining baby" and "repressed creepiness) and religious believers. ("crazy talk" and "nonexistant (sic) god") It's within a range.

"Losers?" Not a term I remember using. Probably not a term I'd choose. Belittling, sure. No more severe than I've seen you say since Post 536: "troll" and "Do you need another drink?" in Post 561. You must realize by now that those comments only reflect badly on you.

As we've noted in other threads, the top of the page says "Not for the faint of heart. ...You have been warned." Was Post 536 addressed directly to TS, yes. Solely for the purpose of denigrating him, no.

All of this for you being unable to respond?

I didn't change the question. The question was always and remains, are you okay with Seny's negative posts regarding another member. You could have easily said, yes or no, but you didn't. You said you preferred not to respond. However, you badger others for not answering your questions whether they are understood, clearly asked, or attempted honestly.

This post is a CYA, pure and simple, for which I understand. You need other's support. Notice that I do not treat you as I and Ted are treated. So, pick your side dude and live with it.

You started with a false premise: 536 was not denigrating. That post was your choice. You’d have come closer choosing 561.

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck, I knew that you couldn’t identify such a post, even after bringing it up a second time.
I am persistent in pursuing an answer, and recognize a dodge, as you agree. See, Definition of a Christian, posts 929-932

See Seny's post #536 and follow the exchange forward. I assume you were following the conversation. Was I mistaken. Were you familiar with Seny's posts just before your post #542?

I asked, "Do you approve of 724Seny's recent posts targeting Ted? I don't need an explanation, just yes or no."

Then you said you prefer not to have to search after saying you preferred not to answer. Looks like you're trying your best suggest you are unaware of Seny's posts on the page previous to this one. He does it all the time. You seemed to be able to recall my previous posts as you tried to reconstruct a narrative on your post #542.

I'll try to respond to the original question, and the changes you've made to the original question.

The original question was "Do you approve of 724Seny's recent posts targeting Ted?" Your question refers to multiple posts. You have only identified one, Post 536. Responding to this question directly, no, I don't think 724Seney's post addressing TS directly is improper. It's a regular occurrence on the board. Both you and I do the same thing. Like in this exchange.

You then changed the question to "You prefer not to take a stand on posts which only purpose in to denigrate another member?" with posts (plural) following 536. I don't see 724Seney posting between 536 and 557. If I've overlooked something I'm sure you'll point it out.

You've chosen to focus on a single post: 536. I don't see that its sole purpose is to denigrate TSherbs.

536 contains a response to a TS post, including the post responded to. TS likes to use "Maga Mike," calling Michael Johnson a "puppet," and describing as having a rotting legacy. Certainly belittling language.

536 refers to TS admitting to launching ad hominem attacks while condemning others for allegedly doing so. To call that out seems within bounds.

TS has a very partisan way of handling citations/links to off-board sources. Again, substituting "biblical republic" for the actual term "constitutional republic." There was a second Johnson quote referred to by TS. When I asked TS if he'd found the source of the alleged quote, because Snopes hadn't, the reference disappeared. It has been noted that TS supplies links and mischaracterizes their content. I pointed out the difference between what the book author said about hit pieces and TS attributing the quote to Johnson.
You agreed that you didn't think TS' posts were incomplete or incorrect. I've had many exchanges with TS, and prefer to allow the readers to draw their own conclusions.

"Haters?" Let's just say some of TS' posts demonstrate animosity. TS seems to belittle Speaker Johnson ("Mikey and "whining baby" and "repressed creepiness) and religious believers. ("crazy talk" and "nonexistant (sic) god") It's within a range.

"Losers?" Not a term I remember using. Probably not a term I'd choose. Belittling, sure. No more severe than I've seen you say since Post 536: "troll" and "Do you need another drink?" in Post 561. You must realize by now that those comments only reflect badly on you.

As we've noted in other threads, the top of the page says "Not for the faint of heart. ...You have been warned." Was Post 536 addressed directly to TS, yes. Solely for the purpose of denigrating him, no.

All of this for you being unable to respond?

I didn't change the question. The question was always and remains, are you okay with Seny's negative posts regarding another member. You could have easily said, yes or no, but you didn't. You said you preferred not to respond. However, you badger others for not answering your questions whether they are understood, clearly asked, or attempted honestly.

This post is a CYA, pure and simple, for which I understand. You need other's support. Notice that I do not treat you as I and Ted are treated. So, pick your side dude and live with it.

You started with a false premise: 536 was not denigrating. That post was your choice. You’d have come closer choosing 561.

I asked you if you supported another member's denigration of another member. Do you or not?

[kazoolaw]

And I said, as I've consistently said, show me the specific language.
You picked one which isn't denigrating, for the reasons I outlined.
Want more? You shouldn't accuse me of being a drunk. See, Post 561.

[TSherbs]

Latest poll shows dropping support for Biden impeachment, in all groups. The drop in support among independents is most significant for future elections.

Careful, Mikey.

[724Seney]

Latest poll shows dropping support for Biden impeachment, in all groups. The drop in support among independents is most significant for future elections.

Careful, Mikey.

Who gives a crap?
Let's talk about multiple, more significant polls which show his support for reelection from ALL groups is plummeting!
Oh, wait, I must have lost my head for a minute. You don't believe any of those polls because they do not fit into your insufferably biased narrative.

[kazoolaw]

Latest poll shows dropping support for Biden impeachment, in all groups. The drop in support among independents is most significant for future elections.

Careful, Mikey.

Notice this in the polls?
"Americans by 58-32% said the inquiry reflects Biden is being held accountable under the law like any president, rather than being unfairly victimized politically."

[TSherbs]

Jury awards $148 million in compensation and and other damages from Giuliani to the Georgia election workers for defamation. Damn! $75 million in punitive damages alone!

That's a lot of zeros in the spelling of "consequences."

[Chuck Naill]

I am very happy he has to pay for what he did. Thing is, how can this happen to America's Mayor and the one who sent him not!

[Chuck Naill]

Nice to see a non partisan approach to saving the nation from Trump.
https://www.kaine.senate.gov/press-r...nal%20security

[TSherbs]

Ouch, from Kinzinger:


ADAM KINZINGER
DEC 16, 2023

This weekend while doing some light perusing of twitter, it hit me like a ton of bricks. I really, honestly, have never had an epiphany so sudden and profound that I have decided to write about it shortly after. But I did this time.

The whining, weak, brittle, fragile, delicate, feeble, puny, victim mentality of the MAGA movement is one of the most transparently sad, snowflakey, and pitiful movements really in American history. The incessant whining followed by the usual deflection of some harsh attack that reasonable adults would eschew has really reached a boiling point in my tolerance of typical and normal political dialogue.

I was attracted to the Republican party for many reasons, but chief among them was my belief that a man could set his own destiny, defend his own family, live his own life, and leave others alone to live theirs. I was always taught that bad circumstances happen, as does loss and failure, and those are parts of life we need to learn from and learn to manage. Sometimes you lose your whole corn crop, that’s life. Sometimes you lose elections, oh well. YOU, and you alone, are responsible for your mindset and path.

The MAGA movement has become an infectious disease of helplessness and victimhood unlike any I can remember. Donald Trump himself is a master victim, suing everyone, everything, yelling loudly about how he is a poor victim of the “deep state,” Rinos, DOJ, FBI, China, Germany, Mars, the sun, and any other possible force of nature. But his victim mentality has spread to the GOP at large, and its the most annoying and destructive force in the nation. Seriously. This infection has destroyed the GOP.

The victims are everywhere. They believe their man to be the strongest alive, who has the courage to push back against dark forces coming to destroy America. Nevermind that many evangelicals specifically have been preaching this message for decades, THIS TIME it’s real. Their heroes of the Bible are not the Apostles, or even Jesus himself. No they are old testament kings who in one case, slept with his neighbors wife and had her husband killed. King David is supposed to be a story of redemption, and instead he’s become a model citizen, PRIOR to his repentance, because after all, that is Trump.

The Jesus I follow, as a believer, teaches us to not put our faith in this world, to be citizens of heaven, kind and just, and to FEAR NOT. He is in control, and he’s got this. He hasn’t lost an ounce of calm because of tax rates, Disney, or wokeism.

MAGAs strong hero is only doing one of two things. If what he says is true, that he is the most investigated and attacked man in history, how in the world could he be strong at all, given that while he actually was the most powerful man in the world, he couldn’t stop these forces or do anything about them. I’d have to believe that given the levers of power and his amazing strength inherent to his DNA, he should have crushed the evil forces already.

Or maybe, he’s just a whining, weak, brittle crybaby who absolutely cannot operate without a group of people who likewise feel helpless, giving their power to him. This broken weak man, Donald Trump, leads an absolute movement of sheep who believe that in collectively complaining and belly-aching about everything out of their control, they somehow are strong. They are not.

Strength comes from a sense of self, purpose, and a love for justice. Not justice in the sense of the sword, but in the righteous use of the law and fairness to give everyone a chance. Strength comes from having the courage to stand for the weak and voiceless, loving even your enemy, and shedding tears at the plight of the homeless, or the poor migrant trying desperately to provide for his family. That is strength.

Strength doesn’t come from large rallies of people at the sunset of their life feeding on the drug of helplessness. Waving abnoxious signs or putting large Trump flags on their truck and driving around the neighborhood. Strength is not making expert memes and trolling people on the internet. Strong people don’t fear Disney or books. They don’t lose sleep over the outrage of the day, and they certainly don’t like Putin. Strong people defend those who need defended, like Ukraine.

Strong and healthy people don’t willfully ignore truth. Weak victims do, because accepting lies is required for belonging, and belonging makes you feel better and safer.

MAGA, is weakness.

The GOP has had control of the House, the courts, and at one point every legislative and executive component of government, but still, MAGA believes their are helpless victims that only survive with Trump. Well, either he is completely incompetent to still be on the receiving end of every injustice, or maybe, just maybe, he’s a fraud.

I’m going to recommit myself and my movement to reminding people that in this great country you can chart your own path and set your destiny. Strength is beautiful, and strength is kind, and loving, and charitable. Strength is the opposite of Donald and his victim parade.

I’m so over it. The weakness of MAGA is un-American. Perpetual victimhood is un-American, and my kid will be taught the opposite of everything they claim to believe, because he will be strong.

America will come through this time. We will come out so much stronger in fact, because I truly believe we will vomit out the putrid infection of weakness and cultism. Doing this will require a few things, but mostly, pointing out the victim mentality constantly and consistently. They will wither under the truth, and come back to an understanding that in this nation, they can be strong, and they don’t need an insecure narcissist to help.

[dneal]

Somebody seems really, really butt-hurt about losing their congressional seat.

[724Seney]

Ouch, from Kinzinger:


ADAM KINZINGER
DEC 16, 2023

This weekend while doing some light perusing of twitter, it hit me like a ton of bricks. I really, honestly, have never had an epiphany so sudden and profound that I have decided to write about it shortly after. But I did this time.

The whining, weak, brittle, fragile, delicate, feeble, puny, victim mentality of the MAGA movement is one of the most transparently sad, snowflakey, and pitiful movements really in American history. The incessant whining followed by the usual deflection of some harsh attack that reasonable adults would eschew has really reached a boiling point in my tolerance of typical and normal political dialogue.

I was attracted to the Republican party for many reasons, but chief among them was my belief that a man could set his own destiny, defend his own family, live his own life, and leave others alone to live theirs. I was always taught that bad circumstances happen, as does loss and failure, and those are parts of life we need to learn from and learn to manage. Sometimes you lose your whole corn crop, that’s life. Sometimes you lose elections, oh well. YOU, and you alone, are responsible for your mindset and path.

The MAGA movement has become an infectious disease of helplessness and victimhood unlike any I can remember. Donald Trump himself is a master victim, suing everyone, everything, yelling loudly about how he is a poor victim of the “deep state,” Rinos, DOJ, FBI, China, Germany, Mars, the sun, and any other possible force of nature. But his victim mentality has spread to the GOP at large, and its the most annoying and destructive force in the nation. Seriously. This infection has destroyed the GOP.

The victims are everywhere. They believe their man to be the strongest alive, who has the courage to push back against dark forces coming to destroy America. Nevermind that many evangelicals specifically have been preaching this message for decades, THIS TIME it’s real. Their heroes of the Bible are not the Apostles, or even Jesus himself. No they are old testament kings who in one case, slept with his neighbors wife and had her husband killed. King David is supposed to be a story of redemption, and instead he’s become a model citizen, PRIOR to his repentance, because after all, that is Trump.

The Jesus I follow, as a believer, teaches us to not put our faith in this world, to be citizens of heaven, kind and just, and to FEAR NOT. He is in control, and he’s got this. He hasn’t lost an ounce of calm because of tax rates, Disney, or wokeism.

MAGAs strong hero is only doing one of two things. If what he says is true, that he is the most investigated and attacked man in history, how in the world could he be strong at all, given that while he actually was the most powerful man in the world, he couldn’t stop these forces or do anything about them. I’d have to believe that given the levers of power and his amazing strength inherent to his DNA, he should have crushed the evil forces already.

Or maybe, he’s just a whining, weak, brittle crybaby who absolutely cannot operate without a group of people who likewise feel helpless, giving their power to him. This broken weak man, Donald Trump, leads an absolute movement of sheep who believe that in collectively complaining and belly-aching about everything out of their control, they somehow are strong. They are not.

Strength comes from a sense of self, purpose, and a love for justice. Not justice in the sense of the sword, but in the righteous use of the law and fairness to give everyone a chance. Strength comes from having the courage to stand for the weak and voiceless, loving even your enemy, and shedding tears at the plight of the homeless, or the poor migrant trying desperately to provide for his family. That is strength.

Strength doesn’t come from large rallies of people at the sunset of their life feeding on the drug of helplessness. Waving abnoxious signs or putting large Trump flags on their truck and driving around the neighborhood. Strength is not making expert memes and trolling people on the internet. Strong people don’t fear Disney or books. They don’t lose sleep over the outrage of the day, and they certainly don’t like Putin. Strong people defend those who need defended, like Ukraine.

Strong and healthy people don’t willfully ignore truth. Weak victims do, because accepting lies is required for belonging, and belonging makes you feel better and safer.

MAGA, is weakness.

The GOP has had control of the House, the courts, and at one point every legislative and executive component of government, but still, MAGA believes their are helpless victims that only survive with Trump. Well, either he is completely incompetent to still be on the receiving end of every injustice, or maybe, just maybe, he’s a fraud.

I’m going to recommit myself and my movement to reminding people that in this great country you can chart your own path and set your destiny. Strength is beautiful, and strength is kind, and loving, and charitable. Strength is the opposite of Donald and his victim parade.

I’m so over it. The weakness of MAGA is un-American. Perpetual victimhood is un-American, and my kid will be taught the opposite of everything they claim to believe, because he will be strong.

America will come through this time. We will come out so much stronger in fact, because I truly believe we will vomit out the putrid infection of weakness and cultism. Doing this will require a few things, but mostly, pointing out the victim mentality constantly and consistently. They will wither under the truth, and come back to an understanding that in this nation, they can be strong, and they don’t need an insecure narcissist to help.

It makes perfect sense that you would put up this nonsense.
After all, you and he have so much in common.
You are both:

• Whiners
• Losers
• Hypocrites

Veritable "birds of a feather!"

[dneal]

It makes perfect sense that you would put up this nonsense.
After all, you and he have so much in common.
You are both:
Whiners
Losers
Hypocrites

He doesn't want to be here, isn't interested in discussion, but can't stop his self-admitted compulsion to visit and post here.

I get a big tickle out of it.

[Chuck Naill]

It makes perfect sense that you would put up this nonsense.
After all, you and he have so much in common.
You are both:
Whiners
Losers
Hypocrites

He doesn't want to be here, isn't interested in discussion, but can't stop his self-admitted compulsion to visit and post here.

I get a big tickle out of it.

Sure he does. He has learned that with you, discussion is impossible. He doesn't have two sycophants chiming in as a show of support for the irrational posts either.

[dneal]

Who does he have discussion with?