You referred to a post about Bret, but said Eric, I asked you to clarify which brother, and you threw a hissy fit. ;-D
Not sure about a hissy fit. Anyways, if I threw in the wrong first name (I like both brothers TBH) somewhere up there I apologize for the mistake. Anything else?
Also, everyone, see how easy it is to admit when you were wrong? And apologize for it?
edit 5 mins. later: jeez it is 3 on 1 and now who doesn’t want to play ball? 'Cause i was gonna go to the store so if we’re done here…
Keep going I guess, you’re on a roll.
You’d have to give me new material, why not go to 5:55 on that video and you can start by saying how right I was? Or apologize for being wrong and for being too stubborn to look at something that contradicts your preconceived notions.
Or, you can ignore the evidence that doesn’t fit your worldview, in which case there isn’t much point is there? Weinstein isn’t some far right stooge, no matter how hard you try to paint him as one. You were wrong about the toupee, can’t you conceive that you might be wrong about other things too?
Take your time, I’m going to the store.
It’s fine if you don’t want to admit to, or apologize for the personal attack, I won’t report it either, I prefer to let them sit there so one can reflect.
I was right about the prof it seems, part of a group funded by Kochs, it’s a dog and pony show.
Radar working as usual. thanks to @McNulty
Back on track, seems FOX has an issue with AOC being ‘late’ to ask for accountability.
Consistent with their efforts while Trump was denying covid for 2 months? Or Republicans never holding Trump to account, mostly?
I think we all know the answer:
What’s this? I didn’t make a personal attack.
Here’s one from your buddy @McNulty to me, though I see he’s edited the post thankfully I quoted in my response. This is a personal attack. I’m not sure where I’ve attacked you personally, and I think you are jumping to offence when it is just a misunderstanding.
complaining that you don’t have a response within 5 minutes? C’mon now.
As for his comments at 5:55, a timestamp you’ve specifically referred to, he’s making claims that there’s financial trouble at the school due to lack of students since what happened to him (the evergreen protest was in 2017, the testimony 2018) - here’s the schools enrollment by year, which shows the school was already in a multi year, downward trend in enrollment.
i.e. he’s full of it making unsupported claims.
Any other time stamps you want to specifically discuss? Sheesh.
I wouldn’t have mentioned it but someone thought they were clever saying
and I wanted to get some food and beers. Sorry that I like eating?
You’re right, the wrong timestamp, it was the thing he said immediately after that. Should have been closer to 6:00. He starts by saying ‘I do wanna push back a little but though’… Anyways, my point totally stands at the slightly modified time stamp.
Notice how I have acknowledged my mistake and made the correction, rather than dodging. My point stands, with the new time stamp. What is interesting is that when @mups chose to ignore the point he also missed an opportunity to demonstrate that I had made a mistake; kinda like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Doesn’t seem to be year by year, perhaps you have the wrong document (it happens, we all make mistakes). So, this has nothing to do with what he said at my incorrect timestamp, and it certainly doesn’t prove he is full of anything. But we don’t have to focus on this unless you really want to.
Uh, you said you were showing yourself out. That meant… you were going to get a beer and not exiting the conversation? You gotta work on your clarity!
Here’s the correct link; apologies. Yes, he’s full of it.
Good job not dodging (this time ;)) As for the timestamp, see, if you would just actually make a specific comment about specific points in the video, rather than just point to a time stamp with essentially no comment we’d know the context, know what you were talking about, and could have a conversation. As for comments at 6:00… am I mistaken that he’s claiming a problem about broad categorizations based on orthodoxy… by making a broad generalization? I’ll have to chew on that. Ha.
if you think he’s full of it, that’s your 2 cents. my original point was that saying he’s not worth listening to because of a toupee is
- stupid because he’s not wearing a toupee
- stupid because that’s not how we should judge ideas
i’ll discuss this, if you disagree
edit: and if you don’t respond, i’ll assume you either agree or have taken your ball and gone home
I’m just gonna save this here for later…
You seriously clinging to the crumb that was a joke, mostly, funny stuff.
Back on the fox front.
But that’s not the story Fox News personalities are telling. There, hosts have pinned the blame solely or mostly on the frozen wind turbines. They have told viewers that Texans are feeling the sting of green energy policies in a state run for decades by Republicans.
Some of the most widespread and erroneous claims came from Fox News host Tucker Carlson, whose primetime show is among the most-watched cable news programs.
“Unbeknownst to most people, the Green New Deal came to Texas, the power grid in the state became totally reliant on windmills,” Carlson said Feb. 16. “Then it got cold, and the windmills broke, because that’s what happens in the Green New Deal.”
PolitiFact rated the claim Pants on Fire. But Carlson wasn’t alone.
Between Feb. 15 and Feb. 16 alone, windmills or wind turbines were mentioned more than 100 times on Fox News’ and Fox Business Network’s programs, according to TVEyes, a media monitoring service. The Green New Deal was mentioned more than 25 times.
To a lesser extent, the same terms cropped up repeatedly on Newsmax TV and One America News Network, two newer stations competing for the same audience.
> “The idea that wind is responsible for these outages is actually just absurd,” Michael Webber, a mechanical engineering professor at the University of Texas, Austin, told PolitiFact.
wish i could say
but how about your personal attack?
Always good to remember this case. It’s good they brought Weinstein to the fore, he’s awesome. He’s been 100% on the money about where things are going, always worth listening to him.
I’m quite weary of anyone who goes on platitudes with the ‘both sides’ stuff. That kind of phrasing is often part of efforts to draw equivalency for blame, to even the playing field.
Any sane person can look at the US over the last 4 years and see which side of the spectrum is gaslighting and dividing things, no abacus required.
I’ve accused @cake of only being able to hold two ideas at once, and he was very dignified about our interactions; although i don’t follow his posts with interest i have gained a lot of respect otherwise
Sure, I agree with that. Pointing to a specific time stamp where he was being full of shit didn’t really have anything to do with that though, eh (and I’m not sure what either the 555 or 600 time stamp has to do with that - what’s with the diversion?)?
not really. he may have been wrong once* (as mentioned, we all are), and i can otherwise have respect for him and his ideas. what is wrong with that?
*i didn’t bother to check, but yeah let us say you are correct here
Nothing is wrong with that. I was just discussing the timestamp you wanted to talk about - and how it’s shit - with evidence to back up my claim.
ok, well go back to the correct timestamp that i actually wanted to talk about and get back to me. i gave you the kudos on the correction, but now that i’ve corrected you look silly for ignoring that point entirely
Great story there, wasn’t talking to you though, I don’t think?
But it’s not hard to follow.
There’s issues like a fascist GOP supporting insurrection and encouraging domestic terrorists, covid and economy, Russia, China.
Then on the other end of the equivalency scale, we have issues like biased media, and cancel culture.
I guess someone could believe these things are equivalent threats, or problems, or whatever. Those people are entitled to believe that.
I think when you stack them next to each other though, the absurdity of their equivalence becomes painfully obvious.