World markets are tanking

[homersapien 11,367]

13 minutes ago, japantiger said:

ANDERSON  COOPER: Which enemy that you made during your political career are you most proud of?

CLINTON: Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians; probably the Republicans.

The context is, half the nation are republicans ... and she lumped them with the Iranians...so, yeah, I think she said exactly that.   

No, she didn't "say that exactly" by definition.  

Like I said, that's a disingenuous construction - or logical extrapolation - that can be rationalized, but it nevertheless does not reflect the actual intent of her statement, which is what makes it disingenuous. 

[cptau 169]

20 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Trump won because 1) he obviously represents a radical change (from the ordinary politician) and 2) his strategy of cynically playing to his voter's prejudices (fears)  and sense of victimhood while making empty promises about bringing back lost industries and the return to a different era.

 

Sounds a lot like Obama in 08.         

And didn't obama play to fears and prejudices while campaigning for Clinton last week?

 

[bigbird 60,509]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

Well, at least I can take satisfaction you don't seem to think I really am "elitist and a racist".

(Not real sure how you derived racist out of that.)

 

I don't think you are...an a$s at times but we all are.  I don't agree with a lot of the things you post, but you defend your opinion and stand by your convictions. I respect that greatly.

As far as the "racist" part.

18 hours ago, homersapien said:

Also people who depend on the advantages of simply being white and privileged and resent the fact they are losing their majority. People who resent the competition presented by the 'coloreds' and immigrants to white people.

Reverse racism is still racism. Imagine the response if someone had posted,

...Also people who depend on the advantages of simply being black and underprivileged...

[bigbird 60,509]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

Trump won because 1) he obviously represents a radical change (from the ordinary politician) and 2) his strategy of cynically playing to his voter's prejudices (fears)  and sense of victimhood while making empty promises about bringing back lost industries and the return to a different era.

Everything else was window dressing.

 

This is exact formula Obama ran with in '08

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

Oh I don't know if he's actually personally racist or not.  I just don't make a distinction between that and playing to, or accepting other's racism for political advantage.  I call it the "George Wallace standard".

 

 I'm not trying to make this an Obama issue. However, just like Trump and the Klan, Obama was endorsed by an equally racist group. And just like Trump, Obama was railed upon by their support. In politics,  one might not agree with a group, but you certainly won't turn down their vote. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

4 minutes ago, bigbird said:

This is exact formula Obama ran with in '08

 

 I'm not trying to make this an Obama issue. However, just like Trump and the Klan, Obama was endorsed by an equally racist group. And just like Trump, Obama was railed upon by their support. In politics,  one might not agree with a group, but you certainly won't turn down their vote. 

Obama's campaign wasn't even close to being comparable to your orange skinned toupee hero's.

[bigbird 60,509]

Good one, Jefferey. Way to contribute nothing that is relative to my post.  Btw, I didn't vote for Trump. Nice try though...and although I didn't vote for him, it doesn't mean I'm blind to many of the reasons why he was elected. And I'm certainly not going to act butt hurt about it. People had their chance to vote him down, many did...but many did not. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

5 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Good one, Jefferey. Way to contribute.  Btw, I didn't vote for Trump. Nice try though

Well Trump's campaign is not comparable to Obama's at all. Sorry you didn't get the memo but your "contributions" are as invalid as the rest of em.

[bigbird 60,509]

2 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Well Trump's campaign is not comparable to Obama's at all. Sorry you didn't get the memo but your "contributions" are as invalid as the rest of em.

I'm glad you agree that your contribution was invalid. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

Just now, bigbird said:

I'm glad you agree that your contribution was invalid. 

There is the reading comprehensionless Bird I've come to know.

[aujeff11 6,243]

At least Angela Merkal can spot a divisive campaign built on hate and inequality. Two values that contradicted Obama's campaign. 

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_582313c5e4b020461a1e8713?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004

[bigbird 60,509]

12 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Well Trump's campaign is not comparable to Obama's at all. Sorry you didn't get the memo but your "contributions" are as invalid as the rest of em.

You're "contribution" is obviously part of the "rest of them"...therefore

9 minutes ago, bigbird said:

I'm glad you agree that your contribution was invalid. 

Its sad when people have to dumb down simple statements for others to follow along.

Nice try, Jeffery.

And speaking of reading comprehension, go back and read the 1st sentence of the last paragraph.  I specifically state, " I'm not trying to make this an Obama issue."  so why are you?

[aujeff11 6,243]

1 minute ago, bigbird said:

You're "contribution" is obviously part of the "rest of them"...therefore

 

This wasn't implied. And it's *your* .Sigh

[bigbird 60,509]

7 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

This wasn't implied. And it's *your* .Sigh

Grammar police correcting my Auto correct...nice!

argumentum ad hominem much? 

[aujeff11 6,243]

1 minute ago, bigbird said:

Grammar police correcting my Auto correct...nice!

argumentum ad hominem much? 

How in the heck is that an ad hominem?

[kd4au 1,145]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

If by "straw" you mean the well-publicized fact that Trump accepted the support of a large following of organized racists and by "smear" you mean simply pointing that out, then yeah, you're right.

You mean like obama accepting the support of the black panthers standing outside voting places.Racist like that.

[Mims44 1,867]

21 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Well Trump's campaign is not comparable to Obama's at all. Sorry you didn't get the memo but your "contributions" are as invalid as the rest of em.

Actually the mantra style rallies were very comparable. Obama and Trump both did a great job of getting people rallied with meaningless catch phrases.

See "Change", where millions would chant it, but most had no real clue what "change" they were talking about.

See "Make America great again" millions shout it, but have their own idea of what it means and no clue what Trump may mean by it.

[bigbird 60,509]

2 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

How in the heck is that an ad hominem?

From Goolgle:

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the ...

You couldn't argue anything I said, so you sadly posted the juvenile, "its *your*" reply

2 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

Actually the mantra style rallies were very comparable. Obama and Trump both did a great job of getting people rallied with meaningless catch phrases.

See "Change", where millions would chant it, but most had no real clue what "change" they were talking about.

See "Make America great again" millions shout it, but have their own idea of what it means and no clue what Trump may mean by it.

Thank you

[aujeff11 6,243]

11 minutes ago, bigbird said:

You're "contribution" is obviously part of the "rest of them"...therefore

Its sad when people have to dumb down simple statements for others to follow along.

Nice try, Jeffery.

And speaking of reading comprehension, go back and read the 1st sentence of the last paragraph.  I specifically state, " I'm not trying to make this an Obama issue."  so why are you?

I'm getting tired of mods editing their reply after my reply. This is the second time you have done it just this morning. It's not like the proper notification of a post has been edited is rendered when y'all do it, making it appear that I chose to only address the first statement. It's quite dishonest.

[aujeff11 6,243]

2 minutes ago, bigbird said:

From Goolgle:

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the ...

 

Thank you

Did I attack you, Bird?  Don't think so.

[bigbird 60,509]

2 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Did I attack you, Bird?  Don't think so.

No, you attacked the spelling of my post. When you couldn't reply to the substance.

 

As for the editing, I edited it immediately after I posted it.  It had to have reposted at the same time as yours.  I guess I should stop editing and just post the continuation of my thoughts on a separate post. My apologies.

[aujeff11 6,243]

12 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

Actually the mantra style rallies were very comparable. Obama and Trump both did a great job of getting people rallied with meaningless catch phrases.

See "Change", where millions would chant it, but most had no real clue what "change" they were talking about.

See "Make America great again" millions shout it, but have their own idea of what it means and no clue what Trump may mean by it.

Well then just about every presidential campaign is linked together. I'm sure that was what Bird was going after. 

"A safer world and a more hopeful America"-Bush. 

 

 

[aujeff11 6,243]

11 minutes ago, bigbird said:

No, you attacked the spelling of my post. When you couldn't reply to the substance.

 

As for the editing, I edited it immediately after I posted it.  It had to have reposted at the same time as yours.  I guess I should stop editing and just post the continuation of my thoughts on a separate post. My apologies.

The spelling affects the substance. Thus pointing it out isn't an ad hominem.  Incorrect spelling and grammar can and will take away from the argument. Sorry you have failed to understand that.

As far as the editing, you edited it after my post was already on the board. Maybe your posts should indicate that they were edited. Alternatively, you could also create a new post. In both cases, the added material were independent enough to command its own post.

[Mikey 16,578]

Back to the stock market OP: One small group of stocks did suffer a big drop yesterday. Firearms manufacturers took a big hit. Investors had run the stocks way up in anticipation of a Clinton victory. They had guessed (probably accurately) that throngs of people would surge forth to buy that one last gun before the Obama/Clinton/Bloomberg cartel slammed the door on gun ownership. With that threat gone now for at least four years, the rush to the local gun stores became unnecessary.

[bigbird 60,509]

19 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

The spelling affects the substance. Thus pointing it out isn't an ad hominem.  Incorrect spelling and grammar can and will take away from the argument. Sorry you have failed to understand that.

 

If your telling me the difference between "you're" and "your" changed the substance of my post than you're an idiot. You obviously knew what was being said and instead of replying to the substance of the post you childishly pointed out the misspelling. You attacked an aspect of the person, in this instance my misspelling of a word as opposed to the content of the argument. That is, by definition, ad hominem. Again, sorry I didn't spell it out for you line by line.

[aujeff11 6,243]

8 minutes ago, bigbird said:

If your telling me the difference between "you're" and "your" changed the substance of my post than you're an idiot.

No, I'm telling you why pointing out an error isn't an ad hominem. Duh. 

And it's not than.  It's *then.*

And you just called me an "idiot" for not agreeing that I attacked the person not the argument. That's rich.