Jump to content

Trump Just Cited This Crazypants “News” Report Narrated by a Russian-Accented Computer


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

So because you watch a video, it has to "look" bad?  That completely misses the colloquial use of the term, which leaves open for interpretation.  I don't know why it's so hard for folks to say "Damn, that's just bad.  What the hell were they thinking?!" Especially when the video leaves no doubt here.

"Damn, I saw that video and it looked pretty bad to me! What the hell were they thinking?

If you think that this version downplays the actual event you are splitting hairs in my opinion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply
5 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Are you really that worried about the words someone used to describe what they see? As far as I am concerned when someone says they saw something and it "looked bad" I automatically assume they mean is is/was bad. 

Yeah, it matters.  Saying "Damn that looks bad" is a very different thing than directly calling out bad behavior as being unacceptable.

It's like when you're at a football game.  Guy gets hurt on a big, clean hit.  "Damn, that looks bad."  Now imagine saying the same on a cheap shot.  It's just not done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Yeah, it matters.  Saying "Damn that looks bad" is a very different thing than directly calling out bad behavior as being unacceptable.

It's like when you're at a football game.  Guy gets hurt on a big, clean hit.  "Damn, that looks bad."  Now imagine saying the same on a cheap shot.  It's just not done. 

If that's your opinion cool, I think it is splitting hairs over what someone said after watching the video. 

 

Your football player that got hit as an example......clean hit or dirty hit and ends up like Joe Theisman.......I see his leg....."I saw his leg and damn, it looked pretty bad!" I am saying it is bad in my opinion based on what I see.

 

If I tell one of my engineers that their calcs or reports "look good to me," I am telling them that it is good and they can move on to the next step (or whatever action needs to happen). I don't have to explicitly tell them they are good. 

Everything that happened in that video looked pretty bad to me. From when he went up that close to the officer and did that funny hand movement and all the resulting actions of all the officers involved. It was all bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

If that's your opinion cool, I think it is splitting hairs over what someone said after watching the video. 

 

Your football player that got hit as an example......clean hit or dirty hit and ends up like Joe Theisman.......I see his leg....."I saw his leg and damn, it looked pretty bad!" I am saying it is bad in my opinion based on what I see.

 

If I tell one of my engineers that their calcs or reports "look good to me," I am telling them that it is good and they can move on to the next step (or whatever action needs to happen). I don't have to explicitly tell them they are good. 

Everything that happened in that video looked pretty bad to me. From when he went up that close to the officer and did that funny hand movement and all the resulting actions of all the officers involved. It was all bad. 

Approaching officer with phone— bad. Got it. 🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Approaching officer with phone— bad. Got it. 🙄

Common sense would be that approaching an officer in this situation and how high tensions are right now that it is certainly not a good idea. The first time I saw the video and him approach I thought to myself ....."this isn't going to end well". Turns out, it wasn't a good idea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Common sense would be that approaching an officer in this situation and how high tensions are right now that it is certainly not a good idea. The first time I saw the video and him approach I thought to myself ....."this isn't going to end well". Turns out, it wasn't a good idea. 

It didn’t look like that volatile of a crowd situation. It wasn’t during an angry mob situation. There was nothing warranting the response. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

So because you watch a video, it has to "look" bad?  That completely misses the colloquial use of the term, which leaves open for interpretation.  I don't know why it's so hard for folks to say "Damn, that's just bad.  What the hell were they thinking?!" Especially when the video leaves no doubt here.

Well, one reason I don’t jump right in and say it was *bad* is because I have seen several videos that seem bad, but on further review turned out to be something different.  No video leaves no doubt because you can not tell the intent of the participants. You can assume what their intent was, but you don’t know.

I do not subscribe to the *if you don’t say it was bad, you’re a horrible person* routine that is so prevalent in today’s world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

It didn’t look like that volatile of a crowd situation. It wasn’t during an angry mob situation. There was nothing warranting the response. 

Still wasn't an advisable action, hence my initial thought "that this isn't going to end well."  

 

Doesn't have to be an angry crowd or mob situation, based on current events tensions are high and both sides are on edge. Won't take much for things to go bad. Most cops don't like people getting that close to them in "normal" times. That is why I say I would be avoiding getting close to them as opposed to going up to 50 (or whatever number) officers coming down the street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Common sense would be that approaching an officer in this situation and how high tensions are right now that it is certainly not a good idea. The first time I saw the video and him approach I thought to myself ....."this isn't going to end well". Turns out, it wasn't a good idea. 

“Sir, please leave this area”. If he refuses, apprehend him. Seems like a pretty simple solution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ShocksMyBrain said:

“Sir, please leave this area”. If he refuses, apprehend him. Seems like a pretty simple solution. 

If things were simple we could have avoided a lot of the mess we see today. This would have been the logical solution, all I am saying is I would have been getting out of the way of the officers and not approaching them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Still wasn't an advisable action, hence my initial thought "that this isn't going to end well."  

 

Doesn't have to be an angry crowd or mob situation, based on current events tensions are high and both sides are on edge. Won't take much for things to go bad. Most cops don't like people getting that close to them in "normal" times. That is why I say I would be avoiding getting close to them as opposed to going up to 50 (or whatever number) officers coming down the street.

You paired the actions of both together— the implication of doing that is that there is something approaching equivalency. It’s not even in the same ball park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You paired the actions of both together— the implication of doing that is that there is something approaching equivalency. It’s not even in the same ball park.

Actually no, pairing those actions together in a statement doesn't imply that I think they are equivalent. I simply stated the order of events that happened and that they were bad, I never placed emphasis on which action was worse. I didn't think that needed any explanation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

 

Everything that happened in that video looked pretty bad to me. From when he went up that close to the officer and did that funny hand movement and all the resulting actions of all the officers involved. It was all bad. 

Yeah, seems like you’re not drawing much distinction there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Yeah, seems like you’re not drawing much distinction there. 

What's your point? The level of severity of all the actions that occurred is self-explanatory.  Truth be told I actually worded it vague without much distinction to show how people will try to turn anything into something it is not, especially when it comes from someone that has a different viewpoint. Similar to how nick picking "looked bad" was done. 

 

You focused on that one little part and assumed that I thought the protestor was in the wrong. (Assumption on my part, but I am willing to guess that this is what you thought, because how can someone with a differing view be a "decent" human right?) I never said he was in the wrong and actually previously stated that while what he did was weird, the shoving wasn't warranted. I think it is pretty obvious that what the guy did was bad, as in there is probably nothing good coming to come out of this situation. I think most logical people would agree that his actions were probably not advisable. Certainly didn't warrant the severity of the shove. Also, I would bet that the shove was an impulse reaction more than anything by the officer. The worst part of the situation was that they just kept walking by.  

 

Took less than 15 minutes for the response I expected.🤦‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

What's your point? The level of severity of all the actions that occurred is self-explanatory.  Truth be told I actually worded it vague without much distinction to show how people will try to turn anything into something it is not, especially when it comes from someone that has a different viewpoint. Similar to how nick picking "looked bad" was done. 

 

You focused on that one little part and assumed that I thought the protestor was in the wrong. (Assumption on my part, but I am willing to guess that this is what you thought, because how can someone with a differing view be a "decent" human right?) I never said he was in the wrong and actually previously stated that while what he did was weird, the shoving wasn't warranted. I think it is pretty obvious that what the guy did was bad, as in there is probably nothing good coming to come out of this situation. I think most logical people would agree that his actions were probably not advisable. Certainly didn't warrant the severity of the shove. Also, I would bet that the shove was an impulse reaction more than anything by the officer. The worst part of the situation was that they just kept walking by.  

 

Took less than 15 minutes for the response I expected.🤦‍♂️

You’re a victim now. Ok. 🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You’re a victim now. Ok. 🙄

That’s what you got out of all that? Lmao 

Me a victim, no.

Perhaps you are a victim of your own arrogance or narrow mindedness? 🤷‍♂️

But thanks for proving my point. 😂😂😂😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

That’s what you got out of all that? Lmao 

Me a victim, no.

Perhaps you are a victim of your own arrogance or narrow mindedness? 🤷‍♂️

But thanks for proving my point. 😂😂😂😂

You repeatedly proved mine. Have a great weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Of course it was an option. Put phone in pocket and get the hell out of the way.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

They don’t count that one for non-MAGAs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, homersapien said:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Have no problem with "peaceably to assemble". Made a comment about using a bit of common sense. Would not expect you to understand  so that is ok Brother Homer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SaltyTiger said:

Have no problem with "peaceably to assemble". Made a comment about using a bit of common sense. Would not expect you to understand  so that is ok Brother Homer. 

I understand you are blaming the victim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

No. Just saying I would have gotten out of the way. 

Me too, but had I been shoved unexpectedly, I might have fallen also.  Not as steady on my feet as I used to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...