Jump to content

The Bills Blog

Community Member
  • Posts

    814
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by The Bills Blog

  1. 3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

     

    Calling you ignorant is not name calling. Calling you stupid would be. Ignorance implies you can learn and better yourself. 

     

     

    I'm not tweaked. I'm a motivated, informed patriot who cares deeply about my country and the people in it. You included. 

     

    When one of my fellow countrymen expresses ignorance (worse than that, programmed ignorance) I call it out not because I'm tweaked but because I'm pushing you to be better. To learn more about the subject you're opining on. 

     

    We were founded on the right to disagree. And the views you've espoused here I deeply disagree with. 

     

     

    I'm nothing if I'm not flexible and willing to change my opinion. I've proven that over and over on here with my history. 

     

    What I won't abide is someone sharing falsehoods without the evidence or reasoning to support it. Which is what you have done and continue to do. You offer nothing to back up your claims, you run from any push back against it -- that's the sign of a weak argument/position. 

     

    Get better information. Get a better argument. And maybe I'll change my mind -- which I often do when presented with new and compelling information. 

     

     

    It's not. 

     

    No serious polling backs it up.

     

    You've been lied to -- repeatedly based on your comments on Russia -- by people who think you're too lazy to fact check their nonsense. 

     

     

    The only one putting a time limit on this conversation is you. 

     

    Another sign that you have a weak argument and know it. 

     

     

    I have no problem with change. 

     

    I have a big problem with violent revolution -- which is what you're unknowingly (or is it knowingly?) advocating for. 

    I might PM you at some point to clarify a number of these points and discuss further. I do have material to present and I do think a discussion could be beneficial. I appreciate your openness.

  2. 2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

    My deal is that, in all seriousness, you have already shown yourself to be a dim-witted person, and I see no reason to do anything other than insult you.

    Lol. These are direct personal insults that are not allowed (supposedly) on this forum, but I'm starting to detect that this place is corrupt and may not be worth trying to change. God bless you.

     

    I know you'll have something smart, condescending, or insulting to say regardless of what I say here (classic cyberbullying), but no one has ever accused me of being dim-witted or lacking intelligence. Quite the contrary.

     

    Typically, only weak people feel the need to belittle others.

  3. 58 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

    It's called "fresh meat" but this one might have been left out in the sun a little too long.

    Wow. I'm just going to stand for decency and not stoop to the level of cyberbullying that seems to be cool around here.

    2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

     

     

    Told you, @Azalin.

     

    Note: it wasn't clear from the thread.  It was clear from the fact that you're a numbskull.  THE PEOPLE DON'T CHOOSE THE PRESIDENT.

    Isn't it frowned upon to call people idiots and numbskulls, or are you exempt because you've been here a long time?

     

    For anyone who needs official clarification, I was referring to the popular vote, and obviously I know that the popular vote does not currently choose the president. The point is that the people have voted a certain way all but once over the past 30 years.

    • Haha (+1) 1
  4. I'm sorry, but I won't engage in a discussion with someone who resorts to insults and name-calling. I'm not ignorant, I'm not a radical, and you are clearly very tweaked by all of this.

     

    You are definitely not someone whose opinion will be changing. Quickly on the polling regarding popular vote/electoral college though, come on -- what I said is true and has been supported by polling for decades.

     

    But, between you and me, I have a busy job. I work over 50 hours a week, and I don't have time for forums during work hours. I have a daughter to care for and friends and family. I don't have time to make a high priority of online arguments with locked-in idealogues. I'm already behind from wasting this time.

     

    You can have your little space here most of the time if it makes you feel better. Defend your dirt, dude.

    The country is changing whether you like it or not.

    • Thank you (+1) 1
  5. 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

    What you're advocating for is a complete transformation of our government. 

     

    Because you're a radical. 

    If I'm a radical, then so are the majority of Americans. I literally don't have time to get into all of your points (and, no, that doesn't mean I am conceding them to you or wouldn't relish the discussion), but if weighting the vote of an Idaho farmer the same as that of a black single mother in the city is radical, then yes; I will proudly concede that I am a radical, as are the majority of my fellow Americans. All of these "But that's not how we were founded!" points that conservatives/libertarians/etc. often make are tired and are usually just a convenient way of protecting political power. The president should be elected by the vote of the people, period, and no American voice matters less or more than the next. There is too much unilateral power at stake.

    • Like (+1) 1
  6. There's actually one thing in there that might be worthy of a response. Are you saying that everyone's vote counting the same equates to mob rule? Curious how you would feel if the electoral college hadn't singlehandedly gotten Trump elected.

    1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

     

    Yup. You'll be uttering that quite a bit come election night 2020 ;) 

    I concede that Trump may win again in 2020; I didn't suggest that he would be a one-term president. But, if he does win, that will undoubtedly be the last Republican hurrah for the foreseeable future. The country has changed and is changing too much for a Republican to win after 2020. They might be able to squeak out one more in 2020, but the fear, disinformation, racism, "rights" talk, and conspiracy theories will not be enough moving forward.

  7. 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

     

    Used to be a conservative

    (check)

     

     

    Is an ageist

    (check)

     

     

    Did you by chance react the same way to the coup attempted by the DNC/Obama intelligence services when they lost the 16 election? Or was that not scary to you?

     

     

    Will never happen without war. Legit war. 

     

    But why would an independent former republican ever want to fundamentally change our form of government from a republic to mob rule? 

     

    2020 is going to be a rough time for you. I hope you don't lose what's left of your senses in the aftermath. :beer: 

     

    Oh dear...

  8. Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

     

    What's your chosen partisan ideology?

    I think I'm a Democrat at the moment. I'd have to check my registration card. I've flipped between Democrat and Independent for the majority of my adult life. This was after I escaped an alt-right upbringing riddled with conspiracy theories, doomsday prep, FOX News, etc.

     

    My experience has been that it is pretty much impossible to change the thinking of baby boomer+ Republicans. I'm legitimately scared to see what actions they will take as the country slips out of their grasp in the coming decades, whether that is through long-overdue abolishment of the electoral college or simply through the demographics of this country becoming such that a Republican simply cannot win the college.

     

    Trump's presidency is probably the "last ride" for these folks. But their online tirades, bullying, and fake news propaganda will only grow stronger.

    • Like (+1) 1
  9. On the Tasker point -- another cringeworthy moment from Steve. He was clearly trying to refer to J. Johnson because he said "the safety," but that was stupid in itself because Cosell had already listed the players he observed and J. Johnson was not one of them. So, Cosell probably knew that Steve didn't mean to say Joseph, but he answered about him a second time to both appear courteous and avoid talking about a player (J. Johnson) he didn't watch.

     

    You hope that Tasker realized his mistake or that during the break it was brought to his attention by Murph or the producers, but you kind of get the feeling that probably didn't happen. Otherwise, how does he keep making embarrassing mistakes like this?

    • Like (+1) 1
  10. 3 hours ago, 4BillsintheBurgh said:

    I don't think I'm worried about what the communications team thinks.

    The coaching staff puts this together. It's just labeled as the communications team so the staff has a way to avoid questions about it at this point.

    People talking about Zay being in trouble is hilarious. It never ends. It's not gonna happen, folks.

×
×
  • Create New...