quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on May 3, 2019 11:33:08 GMT -5
My point is the last two years has been nothing BUT conspiracy talk. Except one side seems to think their now-disproved conspiracy theory is still legitimate, to the point of mocking people who don't follow lockstep with what their media echo chamber tells them. No, your point was to directly attack YaBoy given it was about 4/5 of your post. What exactly has been disproven *specifically*? You're touting the report - what *specifically* does it disprove? We've got a heavily redacted document, an AG who wouldn't release parts of it over the objection of the SC, same AG won't answer questions, 14 investigations we know nothing about, a President who fired an Attorney General and an FBI Director to bury this report and to get them to stop investigating, and the President's transition staff all facing jail time because of this investigation. Two years and the SC clears him of the Russian conspiracy nonsense and it drips off your conspiracy-laden desperation like water. Delusional. Like I said, see you later in the summer.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on May 3, 2019 11:12:35 GMT -5
Yes, after a two-year investigation into whether or not the President is secretly some type of Russian asset, after a special counsel clears him, the people who are interested in investigating how such a thing could happen are the conspiracy theorists. A+ projecting there, as always. When it turns out that there was abuse of government power and improper surveillance (to a criminal level) of political opponents, will you be willing to eat crow or are you going to just flood the board with semi-related tweets by other people and insult anyone attempting to drag you kicking and screaming into reality? Russia hacked the Democratic Party and there was forensic proof of it which you dismissed in favor of outright phony lies about Seth Rich. So maybe you should pump the brakes on accusing others of conspiracy talk. My point is the last two years has been nothing BUT conspiracy talk. Except one side seems to think their now-disproved conspiracy theory is still legitimate, to the point of mocking people who don't follow lockstep with what their media echo chamber tells them. The IG report will lead to investigations that will lead to prosecutions. Not sticking around to chat. Just wanted to put my stake in the ground on this topic - I'm looking forward to seeing YaBoy's reaction when all of the claims of illegal activity against the Trump campaign that he's spent two years dismissing and mocking turn out to be true. I understand that it's easy to dislike Trump, but reality is still reality. See you later in the summer.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on May 3, 2019 10:30:05 GMT -5
^ At least we finally get to the conspiracy theories.... Nobody who read the report in full has any questions about why the FBI started looking into the Trump campaign. It is also explained in detail in the report. If Loretta Lynch acted like William Barr you guys would have stormed the White House... Yes, after a two-year investigation into whether or not the President is secretly some type of Russian asset, after a special counsel clears him, the people who are interested in investigating how such a thing could happen are the conspiracy theorists. A+ projecting there, as always. When it turns out that there was abuse of government power and improper surveillance (to a criminal level) of political opponents, will you be willing to eat crow or are you going to just flood the board with semi-related tweets by other people and insult anyone attempting to drag you kicking and screaming into reality? Because that's what's going to come out. Scream and cry all you want about it. Your unbearable, ubiquitous presence on this board has made it unreadable. But I'm excited to keep an eye on it the next few weeks/months when all the arrogant bluster you've covered the board with for three years turns out to be a 180 from the reality that was happening. Just really looking forward to how you handle it. Fire away buddy, while you still can.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Apr 27, 2019 12:07:46 GMT -5
What a beautiful race that was
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Mar 12, 2018 19:51:46 GMT -5
"She said she went from 50 miles per week at GU to 10-15 mpw at Oregon, working out with the sprinters." That sounds like the Georgetown I remember Thanks for all the updates, as always. A tough meet for the team, but they look great going into outdoor.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Feb 18, 2018 19:31:28 GMT -5
Well, Rachel gave it a shot as she was 1st through all the splits until after 1100m: 7 Rachel Schneider Under Armour 4:16.71 PB 50.54 - Pl: 1 1:25.94 35.41 Pl: 1 2:01.58 35.65 Pl: 1 2:36.73 35.16 Pl: 1 3:10.71 33.98 Pl: 1 3:42.38 31.67 Pl: 4 -3 4:16.71 34.33 Pl: 6 -2 Front-running with a PR in the finals of the national championships - that's a gutsy race!
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jan 30, 2017 13:36:34 GMT -5
A bold stance and a brave move. Hopefully this encourages a more realistic discussion and takes it further out of campaign season mode.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jan 28, 2017 13:11:25 GMT -5
So basically this is another thing where both sides mock the other for its anonymous sources while going to battle for their own anonymous sources?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jan 13, 2017 0:09:13 GMT -5
Can we please do less embedded tweets taking up the message board? Not being snarky at all but It's really only me doing it so you could always block so you don't have to see.. I used to copy the text and some posters had a problem with that 2 so not going to worry about it too much tbh... I'll just deal. I don't want to block, I like reading what you have to say. Just don't really enjoy the newsfeed.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jan 12, 2017 18:42:36 GMT -5
Can we please do less embedded tweets taking up the message board?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jan 4, 2017 16:22:29 GMT -5
Isn't that already pretty much what's being said, with the one change that the separate intrusion was also a Russian state-sponsored hacking group? Two separate Russian groups hacked the DNC. It doesn't mean anything. The issue here is much more fundamental. The President-Elect has -- without any rational basis -- completely discounted the findings of the intelligence community without even really hearing the evidence. I don't mind if he is somewhat skeptical or keeps an open mind or disagrees with the existence or scope of the sanctions imposed by Obama. All that would be fine (even if I might disagree). But he's stated directly that he simply doesn't believe it. That's irresponsible. Even if it turns out the intelligence community was wrong, it's irresponsible! I don't really think there's an argument to be made against that. I find it strange that what the actual "issue" is keeps shifting as it becomes clear that the 'hack the election' claim isn't as clear as the Democrats originally wanted.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jan 4, 2017 11:45:36 GMT -5
Huh? I'm asking where the Democrats will take this discussion if it's proved that Russia was not the source for Wikileaks. A separate issue than the hacking of the DNC, RNC, etc.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jan 4, 2017 11:21:54 GMT -5
If it turns out that the Russians breached DNC security, but the Wikileaks information was provided by a leaker in a separate intrusion, what does that mean for Dems?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jan 3, 2017 11:56:28 GMT -5
That's an interesting offer, but instead I'll continue to use this board however I like.
I think you'll find your experience improved if you keep in mind that this is a discussion board and not a publishing outlet for your viewpoints where you then control all aspects of the conversation.
Remember when you lied about never saying the settlements were legal, then when I pasted multiple quotes from you disputing that claim, you again ignored it and shifted to how you're being treated unfairly (again!!!!) and changed the topic?
Rinse, repeat. I await your next thread on an extremely complex issue where you condescend to everyone who dares have a different perspective than your biased, overly simplistic one.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jan 2, 2017 17:56:50 GMT -5
Jerry -
Your Question: "Where in any of my posts have I said that the settlements are legal?"
The answer:
"Illegal actions--nonsense. Israel took the West Bank after they were attacked by a group of people who wanted to drive them all into the sea. We stole tens of millions of acres from the Indians, and states from Mexico. Of course that is fine. No one cares about China's current occupation of Tibet, or Turkey's current occupation of Cyprus, or that the Palestinians of Yarmouk are being exterminated (that is fine because it is other Arabs who are doing it). Arabs and Palestinians can and do own land in Israel, but of course Israelis cannot own land on the West Bank."
"Basically the settlements are expanding due to natural population growth. the population of the Settlers have children, they have to expand. The Settlements are not an obstacle to peace. Olmert offered Arafat 95% offered of the West Bank, and was turned down. Also, the Oslo Accords didn't even mention the Settlements. The problem of the settlements are recent."
"4. The stance of the US government is "no more settlements." So that makes it right??"
"Quick-We can argue about the legality of those settlements forever. My concern is that the US is not demanding the Palestinians recognize Israel..."
"Everyone else does not believe the settlements are illegal. Please explain how they are illegal in the context of history."
"2. Why are the settlements any more illegal than San Antonio, Los Angeles, or San Francisco. And remember, Mexico has never threatened to wipe out the US and drive the inhabitants into the sea."
"The reason I bring this up is this overwhelming obsession with settlements. Why can't Jews live in the West Bank?? Arabs live in Israel."
"I have given legal arguments in that Israel was attacked and invaded in 1967 with the aim of taking over Israel and pushing the Israeli population into the sea. Why is this any different from the US' grab of California, Texas et al. Why can't Israeli's live on the West Bank. Palestinians are can and do own property in Israel. The Settlements are not built on private land. Please explain: 1. Why the settlements are illegal, but San Antonio is not??"
"I have brought these points up before. On the contrary, you have provided no analysis except to attack me rather than discussing the issues. I explained why Israel doesn't want to give back East Jerusalem and used several examples one of which was using the wailing Wall as a urinal. Go tell an Israeli that he is whining about that. Tell him not to whine that all of the Jewish sites in East Jersulem were destroyed. It is YOU who has not provided any analysis."
Literally all of those are copied and pasted quotes from you on this very discussion thread that you created yourself. I was going to respond to your entire post, but I think this sums up why you always seem to end up in a position whining about people treating you unfairly. You start threads and then lecture people and constantly shift goalposts instead of engaging in discussion. Even your follow up sentence to the one I quoted is then equivocating. You jump on third rail topics with admirable certainty, but your abject lack of respect for other perspectives combined with a victim complex is really tiresome.
I don't mean this to be personal, it's not. I don't know anything about you as a person - I'm sure you are a good man and I completely sincerely hope you have an incredible and blessed 2017. This is about a manner of discussion that is intellectually dishonest. In fact, the last few sentences I quoted from you here are you bragging about how consistent you've been with your perspective on the settlements and how you've backed up that perspective with facts and analysis, unlike other people. How on earth do you then turn around and think some pedantic "Technically I never said the settlements are legal" slide isn't going to make people roll their eyes?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jan 2, 2017 10:53:08 GMT -5
Yes that's sort of the point. You've consistently dismissed anything that doesn't support your point (you haven't even been able to acknowledge that Israel is the only country on earth that believes the settlements to be legal) and then jumped into this weird form of whataboutism, expecting people to change their minds because...other bad things have happened in history.
But then we're supposed to get outraged again at each of the painfully biased examples you bring up to show how bad the Palestinians act (and conveniently dismissing any criticisms of Israel). Even though many other people have just been trying to say that it's much more complicated than the brutally propagandistic world you're presenting.
I'm still not sure why I'm supposed to be upset at the violence you've been pointing out in this thread - I mean, people have been violent many other times around the world without the UN being critical of it!
I think sometimes you confuse this DISCUSSION board with your personal blog. You don't get to set the terms of the discussion at every level, and you are not in a position to lecture people about proper debate protocols. If you are unwilling to consider other perspectives, or to admit problems with the side you support, you are the problem.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jan 1, 2017 15:14:07 GMT -5
Quick First of all you have made multiple incorrect statements and attributing positions to me that are not mine. I have been critical of Israel in this thread. i have never said that Israel good, Palestinian bad. However, I continue to ask why you focus only on settlements, but absolutely refuseto criticise the Palestinian Authority for not agreeing to negotiate with Israel, for not recognizing it. May I repeat again that Israel twice has agreed to give back 95% of the West Bank, but the Pal Authority refused because they demanded the full right of return. Even in the recent conflicts the Israeli's have adhered to the Geneva Convention whereas the Palestinian (I include Gaza) have not. After the 1967 War, no one in or out of the UN demanded that Israel totally get out of Gaza, the West Bank, and Egypt. As a matter of fact, Israel exitedd the Sinai for the promise of peace. In addition, Israel asked the Egyptians to take over the Gaza strip, but were rebuffed. Lastly, If you think that Israel's reaction, with it's very existence at risk in 1967 after being attacked, was a "land grab" then we truly have nothing to talk about. You started a thread about the US abstaining from the expected veto in a resolution about the SETTLEMENTS. Then you keep trying to change the topic to other things instead of acknowledging the reality about the settlements, which is that they are illegal. Like I've said many times, I'm not interested at all in a back and forth about whose worse, which is all you've been trying to do. Every country on earth besides Israel agrees the settlements are illegal. You've conveniently avoided addressing that. In this thread you created because you were outraged at the US approach to the settlements. If you just wanted to start a thread about how bad the Palestinians were, you shouldn't have made it about the settlements. Until you acknowledge your own topic, why do you expect everyone to address every random fact you throw out when you want to shift the focus?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 31, 2016 18:14:26 GMT -5
"The entire world does not feel the settlements are illegal."
This is why I think your arguments are ridiculous and disingenuous. What country besides Israel believes the settlements are legal? None.
You demand such blatant double standards for your viewpoint that it's hard to take seriously, and you whine about being unfairly victimized while pedantically defending your other points (e.g. you saying 'I never called Palestinians wild animals!).
If you think that dismissing Israel's land grab (which every country on earth besides Israel deems to be illegal) is acceptable because countries have been doing bad things to each other forever, then why am I supposed to get so upset at streets being named for terrorists? If you're going to use the general human condition of violence as an excuse, you can't then demand people get outraged over the instances YOU want them to be outraged over.
Multiple people in this thread have been arguing that the issue is a lot more complicated than "Israel good, Palestine bad" but you double down each time and when people get tired of your disingenuous, circular arguments, you act as if you've been attacked.
I understand that might has made right in history before. Nobody is disputing that - it's just not any sort of dispositive or even strong point. You can't demand people apply 'whataboutism' only where you want them to.
Today, Israel stands alone on the entire planet in their view on settlement expansion. No amount of 'but bad things also happened over here!' change that fact, and if you're not willing to even consider the idea that you need more nuance in your perspective here, then you absolutely shouldn't continue this debate. Just don't cry victim.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 31, 2016 13:54:11 GMT -5
"Please explain: 1. Why the settlements are illegal, but San Antonio is not?? 2. When a country is invaded without reason and loses land, why are they obligated to give land back. Look at the history of Europe with lands taken, and given bacck and then taken."
I think the reason people are getting frustrated with you is because you're ignoring the reality of our current world and demanding people value your references to events hundreds of years ago as controlling precedent. While at the same time basically referring to the Palestinians as dangerous wild animals. Seriously, I imagine that if someone wrote about the Israelis the way you're writing about the Palestinians you'd have a serious problem with it. How many times can you write "BUT THE PALESTINIANS ARE SO BAD!!!!!" before you've made your point?
San Antonio has nothing at all to do with the current situation between Israel/Palestine. None. It's such a disingenuous, ridiculous point to make. The entire world besides Israel thinks that the settlements are illegal. This stupid game of ignoring that every single time and then pointing to whatever random reference you come up with is so transparent.
Israel's own explanation for why what they're doing is okay does not carry more value than the opinion of the entire rest of the planet. Until you can explain why we should value your San Antonio analogy over international consensus, I just can't take your arguments seriously.
As to your second question, AGAIN, your incredibly biased summation is not some sort of authority other people need to fall behind. Not only is the 'invaded without reason and loses land' completely begging the question, but then it's followed up with a history of Europe. It's like, other countries have committed genocide before, why am I supposed to get so worked up over the Holocaust??
Not really a serious point, is it?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 29, 2016 12:43:52 GMT -5
I am truly shocked. They stopped using white phosphorous because it was illegal. But Human Shields??? Where did that come from?? It's Hamas who specializes in human shields. Collective punishment. What are you talking about?? No country has tried to protect civilians more than Israel. They would warn civilians to leave certain areas or certain buildings before they bombed them. What country has ever done that? And when they warned civilians of impending bombings, Hamas told them to stay where they are. Hamas was firing rockets near hospitals, schools, etc. The current blockade of Gaza is directly the result of the behavior of Hamas. As I stated before, they kept the checkpoints open for 2 years after they withdrew from Gaza. After two years of rocket attacks, and terrorist attacks they had had enough. I am shocked that you can compare the behavior of a terrorist group with the behavior of Israel. I too am shocked. Utterly shocked! Now our shock balances out. White phosphorous was already illegal, they continued to use it. Hamas has certainly used human shields. So has the IDF. Also please spare me the 'no country has tried to protect civilians more...' That's just absolute nonsense. Repeating how moral you are over and over doesn't make it so. Look at the rates of civilian deaths for the Israelis vs. the Palestinians and tell me that they do everything they can to stop civilian deaths. Do you think Israel works harder to avoid civilian deaths than the United States does? Collective punishment is practiced often. The homes of terrorists are destroyed, even if the family lives there. Entire populations are punished due to the actions of a few (including the turning off of essential services). Seriously, I'm not even anti-Israel, I just think it's important to acknowledge reality now and then. I want Israel to be strong and secure, but that doesn't mean 'provide us with protection and billions and billions of dollars but keep your mouths shut about what we do with it.' If you can't acknowledge the serious problems coming from both sides that's fine, but don't pretend that your view is some unbiased perspective - it's ludicrous. Same question: Who else besides Israel believes the settlements to be legal?
|
|