|
|
| Re: The house of cards is falling (1368326) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 21 of 22 |
||
|
| (1370823) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Wed Jun 1 15:43:22 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by bingbong on Wed Jun 1 15:10:30 2016. Klutz! |
|
|
| (1370826) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Jun 1 15:57:57 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by R2ChinaTown on Wed Jun 1 14:55:23 2016. Oh, I see: I "scrutinize" your posts = "creepy".You scrutinize my posts, no matter whom I'm replying to: A-OK! Thanks for admitting to your creepy double standard. |
|
|
| (1370827) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Wed Jun 1 16:00:15 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by R2ChinaTown on Wed Jun 1 15:34:43 2016. I'm not the one going around Facebook trying to grab information on the people here. I'm not obssessed with where you live (I don't care).You are one step away from a stalker. Stalkers are haters. Doesn't work the other way around. |
|
|
| (1370879) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Thu Jun 2 02:07:37 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by 3-9 on Wed Jun 1 10:26:27 2016. Isn't that the jist of my post? |
|
|
| (1370880) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Thu Jun 2 02:09:38 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by 3-9 on Wed Jun 1 11:30:20 2016. Go back and re-read what I said. |
|
|
| (1370881) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Thu Jun 2 02:15:17 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by 3-9 on Wed Jun 1 10:30:00 2016. We shall see.... |
|
|
| (1370882) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Thu Jun 2 02:16:44 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by bingbong on Wed Jun 1 08:14:38 2016. You were just SHOWN the dictionary definition of a baby! |
|
|
| (1370883) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Jun 2 06:09:42 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by BILLBKLYN on Thu Jun 2 02:16:44 2016. So? Dictionaries aren't official. |
|
|
| (1370904) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Jun 2 11:07:02 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by BILLBKLYN on Thu Jun 2 02:07:37 2016. Why not come rght out and say it them it is a disgrace. Was then, is now. |
|
|
| (1370905) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Jun 2 11:09:59 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Jun 2 06:09:42 2016. And they all differ.I remember a time when it wasn't polite to use the term"pregnant". "She's going to have a baby" was how it was described. Not she already has one. |
|
|
| (1370921) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Thu Jun 2 12:51:10 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Jun 2 06:09:42 2016. But they are currently used in order for participants in a conversation to delineate the meanings of words. If a widely respected dictionary source includes a certain meaning for a certain word, then to advise someone that they are not permitted to use that word for that meaning is a clear attack on that person's freedom of speech and can only be agenda-driven.For other words, there are dictionary definitions that I don't think should be associated with them, but I don't tell people to not use them or that they can't. |
|
|
| (1370928) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Jun 2 13:28:36 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by New Flyer #857 on Thu Jun 2 12:51:10 2016. A dictionary will publish definitions that conform to what is used by a sufficiently large group. That doesn't make that definition valid in any way.How is that an attack on freedom of speech? Is bingbong a government agent acting in her official capacity or using the power granted to her by the government? |
|
|
| (1370929) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Thu Jun 2 13:49:34 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Jun 2 13:28:36 2016. So what do we look to for definitions sufficient for conversation on OTChat and why?We clearly define "freedom" in different ways too so I'm not even going to get into that. |
|
|
| (1370930) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Jun 2 13:51:58 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by New Flyer #857 on Thu Jun 2 13:49:34 2016. It's a worthless semantic argument, so I don't think it's worthy to participate further. Who cares if it's called a baby or not? It doesn't change anything.No, we do not define freedom differently at all. You just don't know how the Bill of Rights work. |
|
|
| (1371034) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Fri Jun 3 07:54:45 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Jun 2 13:51:58 2016. iawtp |
|
|
| (1371037) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jun 3 07:59:44 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Jun 2 13:51:58 2016. No, we do not define freedom differently at all. You just don't know how the Bill of Rights work.You restrict "freedom" to mean lack of governmental restrictions. If a private entity prevents me from speaking as I wish in a venue where I should reasonably expect to speak as I wish (and I'm not claiming that has actually happened), can't that be a restriction of my freedom even though no Constitutional issue is involved? So it seems to me you do define freedom differently. |
|
|
| (1371039) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 3 08:02:06 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by AlM on Fri Jun 3 07:59:44 2016. I interpret "freedom of speech" as that guaranteed by the First Amendment. |
|
|
| (1371041) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jun 3 08:03:49 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 3 08:02:06 2016. And therefore you do have a different definition from New Flyer. His is more expansive and includes the freedom to speak without being prevented from doing so by private parties. |
|
|
| (1371043) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Fri Jun 3 08:17:06 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by AlM on Fri Jun 3 08:03:49 2016. But that's not a freedom. That's a misunderstanding of what freedoms we have. Many people misunderstand that. Nothing new here. |
|
|
| (1371045) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Jun 3 08:32:08 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by TerrApin Station on Fri Jun 3 08:17:06 2016. What is your interpretation of the "freedoms we have", based on your assertion that "many people misunderstand" them? |
|
|
| (1371047) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jun 3 08:36:02 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by TerrApin Station on Fri Jun 3 08:17:06 2016. But that's not a freedom.A matter of definition. Many people say "I'm not free to do x" when talking about something that doesn't involve the government restricting them from doing x. |
|
|
| (1371052) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jun 3 08:58:02 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by AlM on Fri Jun 3 08:36:02 2016. That's different than a "freedom". |
|
|
| (1371053) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jun 3 08:59:02 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Jun 3 08:32:08 2016. What is your interpretation of the "freedoms we have", based on your assertion that "many people misunderstand" them?It's very simple. Americans have certain freedoms. "I interpret "freedom of speech" as that guaranteed by the First Amendment." |
|
|
| (1371057) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jun 3 09:13:09 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jun 3 08:58:02 2016. Not to the people who use the word that way. |
|
|
| (1371072) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 3 10:11:04 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by AlM on Fri Jun 3 08:03:49 2016. That implies that such a freedom exists. It doesn't. He could have claimed that it should exist, but his post was written as if it existed all along. |
|
|
| (1371153) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Jun 3 11:42:16 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by BILLBKLYN on Thu Jun 2 02:07:37 2016. No, the jist of your post is that you don't think highly of Bitburg. My question still stands, do you agree that what Reagan did was disgraceful, then? A simple yes or no will suffice. |
|
|
| (1371155) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Jun 3 11:49:54 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by BILLBKLYN on Thu Jun 2 02:15:17 2016. Yeah, it's not like past experience hasn't taught us anything. |
|
|
| (1371156) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 3 11:53:11 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by 3-9 on Fri Jun 3 11:42:16 2016. I can't speak for Mr. Bklyn, but I don't believe that Bitburg was disgraceful, just misguided. Like Obama bowing to foreign monarchs other than the Pope. |
|
|
| (1371157) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jun 3 11:56:05 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue May 31 18:31:54 2016. that he could even get as much done as Obama has? About all I can see him accomplishing is trashing the economy, sending bonds and currency into the toiletThat's certainly what Obama has done. |
|
|
| (1371158) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 3 12:05:18 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jun 3 11:56:05 2016. LOL! |
|
|
| (1371176) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Jun 3 13:03:41 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by BILLBKLYN on Thu Jun 2 02:09:38 2016. Like I said, it comes from taxpayer dollars, just like the insurance for govt employees. An argument can be made that if govt employees can get it, so should the public. |
|
|
| (1371184) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Fri Jun 3 13:26:47 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jun 3 11:56:05 2016. Lulz. That's exactly what he has not done. |
|
|
| (1371186) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 3 13:29:43 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by 3-9 on Fri Jun 3 13:03:41 2016. Government employees are paid for the services they render to the government. |
|
|
| (1371189) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Jun 3 13:47:49 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 3 11:53:11 2016. I also agree. I don't think any particular malice was intended. |
|
|
| (1371193) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by Chicagomotorman on Fri Jun 3 14:43:53 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by bingbong on Fri Jun 3 13:26:47 2016. Klutz! |
|
|
| (1371209) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Jun 3 15:27:10 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 3 13:29:43 2016. The salary, yes, but the health insurance benefits are not perceived to be as clear cut. |
|
|
| (1371211) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 3 15:33:43 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by 3-9 on Fri Jun 3 15:27:10 2016. The health insurance benefits are in lieu of monetary compensation. |
|
|
| (1375349) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Sun Jun 26 13:08:50 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by bingbong on Fri May 27 10:59:36 2016. Klutz |
|
|
| (1375352) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Sun Jun 26 13:12:50 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by bingbong on Sun May 29 18:50:04 2016. Klutz |
|
|
| (1375355) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Sun Jun 26 13:14:55 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by bingbong on Sat May 28 22:11:03 2016. Klutz. |
|
|
| (1375426) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Sun Jun 26 21:17:31 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by ChicagoMotorman on Sun Jun 26 13:14:55 2016. Why necroposting? |
|
|
| (1380302) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jul 17 23:10:00 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by AlM on Fri Jun 3 09:13:09 2016. That implies that such a freedom exists. It doesn't. He could have claimed that it should exist, but his post was written as if it existed all along. |
|
|
| (1389398) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Tue Aug 23 04:43:22 2016, in response to The house of cards is falling, posted by BILLBKLYN on Mon May 23 10:37:59 2016. Looks like there's some more trouble on the horizon for the Hillderbeast!! Hey Media, quick! Make sure to point out something "mean" that Trump says, SOLELY focus on that, state poll numbers, and whatever you do, DO NOT MENTION THE UPCOMING EMAIL RELEASES AT ALL!! All is well!!! Nothing to see here! |
|
|
| (1400041) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Thu Oct 27 22:41:33 2016, in response to The house of cards is falling, posted by BILLBKLYN on Mon May 23 10:37:59 2016. Time for a necropost! The Clinton campaign is under panic mode! Even with Mr. and Mrs. BHO traveling with her and for her stumping (begging) to the public to vote for Clinton, the polls are getting tighter than the teens that Bill was shtupping on Orgy Island! It's gonna be an interesting week and a half! |
|
|
| (1400073) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Oct 28 09:01:11 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by BILLBKLYN on Thu Oct 27 22:41:33 2016. Yes, the race is tightening. I'd still bet on Clinton though.And I see that sexual malfeasance by the spouse of the Democratic candidate strikes you as a negative while similar malfeasance by the Republican candidate himself (not his spouse) doesn't seem to bother you. |
|
|
| (1400074) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Oct 28 09:05:09 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by AlM on Fri Oct 28 09:01:11 2016. Are they really tightening?Some are. Some are moving in the other direction... |
|
|
| (1400078) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Oct 28 09:12:03 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by R30A on Fri Oct 28 09:05:09 2016. Are they really tightening?Yes. See the graph of the margin between Clinton and Trump. You can also change it to show popular or electoral vote margin rather than probability. |
|
|
| (1400091) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Oct 28 09:40:34 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by AlM on Fri Oct 28 09:12:03 2016. The graph showing popular vote margin is remarkably steady over the past couple weeks. |
|
|
| (1400094) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Oct 28 09:55:48 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by R30A on Fri Oct 28 09:40:34 2016. It's dropped from 7.1% to 5.7%. |
|
|
| (1400097) | |
Re: The house of cards is falling |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Oct 28 10:08:10 2016, in response to Re: The house of cards is falling, posted by AlM on Fri Oct 28 09:55:48 2016. That is pretty steady. Both candidates have remained with a set range barely wider than 1% since the 2nd debate. |
|
|
|
Page 21 of 22 |
||