Lindsey Graham - The Evolution of a Trump Cultist (But mostly continued Bob Obsession)

[Bob in Mich]

16 hours ago, Rob's House said:

 

The older I get the less I care for snow, but I would like a white Christmas.

 

Rob, I don't know your past position on this but I wanted to reply to the tactic being used here and your post gave me an opening.

 

It seems ironic that the crowd that complained about college campus liberals preventing free speech (conservative speakers), calling them snowflakes, is doing the on-line equivalent now on PPP.  If not calling for opposition posters to be outright banned, these posters are essentially now shouting over their posts. 

 

Intellectual challenges are not only not welcomed, not just ignored, but are now not to be tolerated on PPP? 

 

So is this 'shout over' tactic now OK against conservative speech on campuses too?   Those campus libs will be glad to hear they were right all along.

[RochesterRob]

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Rob, I don't know your past position on this but I wanted to reply to the tactic being used here and your post gave me an opening.

 

It seems ironic that the crowd that complained about college campus liberals preventing free speech (conservative speakers), calling them snowflakes, is doing the on-line equivalent now on PPP.  If not calling for opposition posters to be outright banned, these posters are essentially now shouting over their posts. 

 

Intellectual challenges are not only not welcomed, not just ignored, but are now not to be tolerated on PPP? 

 

So is this 'shout over' tactic now OK against conservative speech on campuses too?   Those campus libs will be glad to hear they were right all along.

  The Intellectually dishonest award of the year goes to...............Bob in Mich!

[Bob in Mich]

Just now, RochesterRob said:

  The Intellectually dishonest award of the year goes to...............Bob in Mich!

Care to explain that?  You may not like my positions but where are my posts dishonest?  Please, point some out so perhaps I can see where to improve my posting skills

 

And ignoring the substance of my post may be called dishonest.  You participated in the 'shout over'.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Bob in Mich said:

Care to explain that?  You may not like my positions but where are my posts dishonest?  Please, point some out so perhaps I can see where to improve my posting skills

 

And ignoring the substance of my post may be called dishonest.  You participated in the 'shout over'.

 

You mean like when you ignore the people who answer your posts and rather than respond you keep repeating the same (debunked) point while asking asinine questions? 

 

Or when you call people liars for simply having better facts and different analysis of events? 
 

Or when you lie for months about not having a position on Trump/Russia while spouting long debunked talking points?
 

Bob, that entire post was nothing but hypocrisy and projection... that you can’t see that only proves you’re an unmitigated asshat. 

 

 

If you weren’t an asshat, you’d realize the response to GarBear has nothing to do with not wanting to talk about the subject he posted — but about ignoring a poster who offers nothing down here and hasn’t for years. 
 

He’s a waste of carbon — and is rightfully ignored as such. It has nothing to do w conservatives or politics and everything to do w Gar’s track record as a troll. 

...Quick, ask about the surveillance tapes again. Or call someone a Russian bot. Those stupid questions laced with 2017’s NPC put downs really proves you’re a mighty intellect and not a mentally deficient stoner. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Care to explain that?  You may not like my positions but where are my posts dishonest?  Please, point some out so perhaps I can see where to improve my posting skills

 

And ignoring the substance of my post may be called dishonest.  You participated in the 'shout over'.

 

No, Bob.

 

That’s not accurate.  What’s happening here is individuals are choosing not to engage with content they find poorly reasoned and nonsensical.

 

The content is permitted to exist, and anyone who wants to engage with it is free to.

 

It’s nothing like cancel culture, or the deplatforming that happens on campuses.  This would be like people who don’t care for a particular speaker choosing to not go to their events.

 

You have an absolute right to your dopey opinions, and to express them as you see fit.  You don’t have a right to make me care about them, treat them with respect or dignity, or to engage with them in any meaningful way.

[thebug]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No, Bob.

 

That’s not accurate.  What’s happening here is individuals are choosing not to engage with content they find poorly reasoned and nonsensical.

 

The content is permitted to exist, and anyone who wants to engage with it is free to.

 

It’s nothing like cancel culture, or the deplatforming that happens on campuses.  This would be like people who don’t care for a particular speaker choosing to not go to their events.

 

You have an absolute right to your dopey opinions, and to express them as you see fit.  You don’t have a right to make me care about them, treat them with respect or dignity, or to engage with them in any meaningful way.

Nope. It would be like them showing up to the show to heckle the speaker. 

[RochesterRob]

2 minutes ago, thebug said:

Nope. It would be like them showing up to the show to heckle the speaker. 

  WTF!  Looks like I gave that award out too soon.

[Bob in Mich]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No, Bob.

 

That’s not accurate.  What’s happening here is individuals are choosing not to engage with content they find poorly reasoned and nonsensical.

 

The content is permitted to exist, and anyone who wants to engage with it is free to.

 

It’s nothing like cancel culture, or the deplatforming that happens on campuses.  This would be like people who don’t care for a particular speaker choosing to not go to their events.

 

You have an absolute right to your dopey opinions, and to express them as you see fit.  You don’t have a right to make me care about them, treat them with respect or dignity, or to engage with them in any meaningful way.

 

I disagree.  This on-line 'shout over' tactic is doing the same thing as physically shouting over speakers.  After all, those speakers are being allowed to speak....just not being allowed to be heard. 

 

If you don't like a poster or don't wish to engage, simply don't post, as is the way a discussion board has typically functioned.  You know full well that this tactic is far more than not engaging.

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, thebug said:

Nope. It would be like them showing up to the show to heckle the speaker. 

Incorrect.

 

The written medium cannot be interrupted or cancelled in such a manner.

[thebug]

2 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  WTF!  Looks like I gave that award out too soon.

So you should have given it to yourself? Congrats! 

[RochesterRob]

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I disagree.  This on-line 'shout over' tactic is doing the same thing as physically shouting over speakers.  After all, those speakers are being allowed to speak....just not being allowed to be heard. 

 

If you don't like a poster or don't wish to engage, simply don't post, as is the way a discussion board has typically functioned.  You know full well that this tactic is far more than not engaging.

  Bob, your statement is complete nonsense.

[thebug]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

Incorrect.

 

The written medium cannot be interrupted or cancelled in such a manner.

Apparently it can. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I disagree.  This on-line 'shout over' tactic is doing the same thing as physically shouting over speakers.  After all, those speakers are being allowed to speak....just not being allowed to be heard. 

 

If you don't like a poster or don't wish to engage, simply don't post, as is the way a discussion board has typically functioned.  You know full well that this tactic is far more than not engaging.

The speakers words are allowed to stand.  They are not interrupted, and are always present in static form.

 

Sorry, Bob, but you’re wrong.

[RochesterRob]

1 minute ago, thebug said:

Apparently it can. 

  Apparently, you are clueless among other things.  You are completely free to respond to the notion of Lindsey Graham being a Trump Cultist and 99 percent of the time barring threats and vulgarity it is allowed to stand unedited.  You, Bob, and the other lefties are having a temper tantrum because we are not being forcibly kneeled down to kiss your collective behinds.

[3rdnlng]

28 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Rob, I don't know your past position on this but I wanted to reply to the tactic being used here and your post gave me an opening.

 

It seems ironic that the crowd that complained about college campus liberals preventing free speech (conservative speakers), calling them snowflakes, is doing the on-line equivalent now on PPP.  If not calling for opposition posters to be outright banned, these posters are essentially now shouting over their posts. 

 

Intellectual challenges are not only not welcomed, not just ignored, but are now not to be tolerated on PPP? 

 

So is this 'shout over' tactic now OK against conservative speech on campuses too?   Those campus libs will be glad to hear they were right all along.

Garey's posts may be considered "intellectual" to you but his stupid schtick is more than ancient here and his message-less posts are at most only worthy of a good mocking. That's what happens when one posts as an idiot.

[Rob's House]

22 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Rob, I don't know your past position on this but I wanted to reply to the tactic being used here and your post gave me an opening.

 

It seems ironic that the crowd that complained about college campus liberals preventing free speech (conservative speakers), calling them snowflakes, is doing the on-line equivalent now on PPP.  If not calling for opposition posters to be outright banned, these posters are essentially now shouting over their posts. 

 

Intellectual challenges are not only not welcomed, not just ignored, but are now not to be tolerated on PPP? 

 

So is this 'shout over' tactic now OK against conservative speech on campuses too?   Those campus libs will be glad to hear they were right all along.

 

The questions already been answered, but no one's de-platforming Gary nor is anyone shouting over him. He's still in here chirping along just like everyone else. It's just that no one wants to engage in a legitimate discussion with him because he's not a legitimate poster.

 

Gary is a troll. The first rule of trolling is you have to be interesting. He is not. He pollutes the board with bull ***** posts that even he does not believe add anything meaningful to the conversation. He just gets a kick out of being a pest.

 

The other part here is no one wants to have a real conversation in a thread started by him or Tibs because they are prone to deleting them once time proves them wrong.

[Bob in Mich]

Just now, RochesterRob said:

  Bob, your statement is complete nonsense.

 

You would need to point out how.   By burying a poster's question or comment with nonsense posts, the nonsense posters are essentially keeping others from 'hearing' the opinion or question of the poster.  If the true intent was to ignore the poster or post, simply not posting, doing absolutely nothing, would be the way to do that.  This effort is beyond ignoring.

[thebug]

2 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Apparently, you are clueless among other things.  You are completely free to respond to the notion of Lindsey Graham being a Trump Cultist and 99 percent of the time barring threats and vulgarity it is allowed to stand unedited.  You, Bob, and the other lefties are having a temper tantrum because we are not being forcibly kneeled down to kiss your collective behinds.

?

[Westside]

8 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I disagree.  This on-line 'shout over' tactic is doing the same thing as physically shouting over speakers.  After all, those speakers are being allowed to speak....just not being allowed to be heard. 

 

If you don't like a poster or don't wish to engage, simply don't post, as is the way a discussion board has typically functioned.  You know full well that this tactic is far more than not engaging.

That's funny, I've never seen you call out the liberals on campuses for shutting down Republicans just because they don't want to hear what they have to say. Your crying is pretty disingenuous. 

[Deranged Rhino]

11 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I disagree.  This on-line 'shout over' tactic is doing the same thing as physically shouting over speakers.  After all, those speakers are being allowed to speak....just not being allowed to be heard. 

 

If you don't like a poster or don't wish to engage, simply don't post, as is the way a discussion board has typically functioned.  You know full well that this tactic is far more than not engaging.

 

Bob again is trying to control others' speech. 

 

Like a good fascist that he is.