• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
Status
Not open for further replies.
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/pEwbvo5.jpg[/qimg]

There's two things here. The first is that there is an entirely different take.

The second is that if that picture is truly how Republicans see Mueller (and that's certainly the audience Garrison plays to), then it seems like a stupid tactical error to spend as much time as they did shouting at and berating him. Definitely bad optics.
 
The problem is many people assume people who are against illegal immigration are automatically racist. If someone hates black and brown people immigrant or not because they are black and brown they are racist.
That’s because the policies presented as dealing with illegal immigration are often aimed at any immigration, especially concerning the southern border where most of the brown people come from. Trump isn’t making a big deal about our other border, is he?

I know many people who are against illegal immigration but like black and brown people as much as any other color(Heaven forbid). Some of them are what you would refer to as black and brown people.
Humans are complex and weird creatures that are very good at compartmentalizing contradictory emotions.
 
There's two things here. The first is that there is an entirely different take.

The second is that if that picture is truly how Republicans see Mueller (and that's certainly the audience Garrison plays to), then it seems like a stupid tactical error to spend as much time as they did shouting at and berating him. Definitely bad optics.

I actually agree with the article. I stayed up late (early?) and watched the first half live, then watched the second half delayed.

What I got from it was a man who was very carefully choosing his words, which lead to what seemed a little stumbling at times as he thought his way through how to answer the question. Occasionally he asked for a repeat of the question, which would use up time, and allow him to consider the question further, and often ended up simply deflecting it after having wasted the questioner's time.

The only two things I think he did struggle a little with was picking out who was speaking and hearing a few of them when they didn't speak directly into their mics, and since he does have a hearing issue at 74, this isn't entirely surprising.
 
It's hard to participate here and also express a conservative view. It is automatically equated with a red hat with orange skin. I would suspect I am not the only lurker who has stopped commenting on anything remotely connected to politics.To many members here, a conservative Democrat is the equivalent of a snipe.


440px-Common_snipe_fencepost.jpg


:confused:

True story. My first year at the local summer camp, deep in the woods in West Virginia, I was invited on a "snipe hunt".

The plot was the same as usual; Take some innocent, clueless, city kids out into the surrounding forest in the dark. Place them on a path holding a bag, and leave them there after promising to herd some snipes up the path to run into the bags. Then retire somewhere out of sight to watch and laugh. Rustling bushes and making occasional spooky noises, of course

Only thing was ... well, two things. One, my grandmother was born and raised in New England, a naturalist as a hobby, as well as a painter of the realism school. I still have an oil painting of a Massachusetts marsh scene she did, complete with snipes. She used to talk with me about growing up in New England, and about the subjects of her paintings.

The other was that, even though it was my first year at this camp, I knew the surrounding area intimately, being a big fan of hiking, rough camping, and and compass coursing thanks to my dad, the geographer. Something of a budding naturalist myself, even at the tender age of twelve.

So I knew there were such things as snipes, but I also knew that there weren't any where we were. And I didn't need anyone to help me find my way back to our tents.

I figured what was up, and after waiting a little bit I just went back to my tent and bunked out. Not wanting to be the butt of a joke.

Big mistake. All the camp counselors, Camp superintendent, and all of the older campers ... including the ones who had led us out there to begin with ... spent the entire night searching the woods for me. The "lost" camper.

When they finally came in and found me in bed, for reasons I have yet to understand, I was the one who got in trouble. :(

Moral of story?

There are such things as snipes, but if you want to find them you have to know their habits and habitat.

Fun Trivia Bonus: The term "sniper" comes from the truth that snipe were notoriously hard to hunt. Not because they don't exist, though. (They are actually rather common. In the right places, at least. :p) They are solitary, skittish, fast on the ground, and when they take flight they jink and jag in evasive action which makes them very difficult to shoot down.

Any hunter who could regularly bag snipe was a very good shot indeed. A "sniper", in fact.
 
Last edited:
[pedandtic] Y'all is plural you, not singular. It's a contraction of you all. Also, a good southerner would say, speaking to a group: Y'all gonna love this. [/pedantic]

Sorry, I can't parse that because the opening and closing tags don't match!

And that, my friend, is how you do pedantry. :)
 
[pedandtic] Y'all is plural you, not singular. It's a contraction of you all. Also, a good southerner would say, speaking to a group: Y'all gonna love this. [/pedantic]

Y’all is also singular. There is a plural variant that all y’all should know about, too.
 
[pedandtic] Y'all is plural you, not singular. It's a contraction of you all. Also, a good southerner would say, speaking to a group: Y'all gonna love this. [/pedantic]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y'all

"Y'all is a contraction of you and all. It is usually used as a plural second-person pronoun, but the usage of y'all as an exclusively plural pronoun is a perennial subject of discussion".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y'all#Singular_usage

There is long-standing disagreement among both laymen and grammarians about whether y'all has primarily or exclusively plural reference. The debate itself extends to the late nineteenth century, and has often been repeated since. While many Southerners hold that y'all is only properly used as a plural pronoun, strong counter evidence suggests that the word is also used with a singular reference, particularly amongst non-Southerners.

H. L. Mencken recognized that y'all or you-all will usually have a plural reference, but acknowledged singular reference use has been observed.
 
Last edited:
There's two things here. The first is that there is an entirely different take.

The second is that if that picture is truly how Republicans see Mueller (and that's certainly the audience Garrison plays to), then it seems like a stupid tactical error to spend as much time as they did shouting at and berating him. Definitely bad optics.

One other take: it's a bad idea to trust the judgement of a guy who recently drew a blatantly anti-semitic cartoon at the behest of a well-known scammer, conspiracy theory peddler, and blackmailer.
 
In some cases, maybe most cases, you're right. But not all of them.

They don't notice illegal white immigrants.

In some communities rural white people who had occasion to work alongside Latino laborers got over some of their fear. Was that fear race-based? Probably. Yet I don't condemn them. I can remember holding stereotyped views of Mexicans, back when I didn't know any.

I think there's also atavistic fear of people who speak languages other than English. How many times have I heard people say that immigrants refuse to learn English? That's ignorance ... which doesn't necessarily mean evil.


In the WV town where I grew up we had a neighborhood where, as recently as the late 50s and early 60s, it was common to hear Welsh spoken on the street and in the corner shops.

It didn't seem to inspire any atavistic fear.

Of course the name of the town was Morgantown, but I expect that meant little to most of the residents.


(On the other hand, the Italian neighborhoods might have generated a certain amount of undue caution.)
 
Why is that particular word, racist, overused when it comes to Trump. He displays his racism every single day.

That's why it's overused, maybe. :)


If it's being used appropriately, and in Trump's case it obviously is, then I don't think it is quite correct to say that it is being "overused".

Trump is just overly racist. The application of the correct usage of the term is, perhaps, inevitable.
 
The whole "bUt UR ovERusinG Da wORD!" argument sounds a lot like "I'm so racist so much I'm tired of hearing about how racist I am."
 
To all those Trump supporting forum members who insist that Russia interfering with the 2016 didn't happen and its all just a hoax:

If you won't believe those of us who have been paying attention, then pay attention to the members of your own Senate Intelligence Committee. This report was released on a bi-partisan basis, with the full support of Republican members of that committee....

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/25/7453...-on-russian-interference-in-the-2016-election


Fake Republicans.

Duh.
 
But I am most definitely partisan, no bones, in so far that I'm as anti-liberal, anti-socialist, anti-SJW as it's possible for anyone to be.

Thanks for admitting your prejudice. Personally, I try not to be partisan, much as I very much am firmly opposed to brazen lies and deception.

I utterly despise the posturing, the hypocrisy, the lying and the underlying venality that really motivates "liberalism", whether it's in privileged middle-class poseurs or entitled, stupid ne're-do-wells who think the world owes them a living.

Mmm. Fallen for the picture painted by the wannabe oligarchs who have been hating the fact that government has been restricting their ability to treat their workers like slaves and been quietly twisting the conversation more and more for more than the last half century, eh? Calhoun and Koch would be happy to read what you just posted. Here's a small reminder of what liberalism actually means, though.

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism (free markets), democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

What parts of that, specifically, do you oppose?


The first three, probably. The last seven, almost certainly.

Serious question: Do we have any conservative posters left here who don’t peddle conspiracy theories?

I suspect that RedBaronFarms is a possibility?


Listen to him go on about the evils of government and the impetus behind "regulatory capture" and then ask yourself that question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom