Big Girl, NewTobie, BearEssentials and associates

[stevenash]

How about giving us some more of that "insight" that suggests/implies that the practice of racism lies exclusively with white republicans?  got the intestinal fortitude to respond? ( doubtful)   This same info lies in another thread but I wanted to make sure you folks didn't miss it.

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[baddog]

21 minutes ago, stevenash said:

How about giving us some more of that "insight" that suggests/implies that the practice of racism lies exclusively with white republicans?  got the intestinal fortitude to respond? ( doubtful)   This same info lies in another thread but I wanted to make sure you folks didn't miss it.

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

.....and associates....LMAO

[Kountzer]

I don't remember saying anything like that.  My thing is this: everyone is evil.  We all have evil, sinful tendencies. So, beware of everyone.  

[stevenash]

Since you were not addressed by name in the thread, I must conclude that you consider yourself an "associate"?

[Kountzer]

You all lump every one who doesn't think exactly like you into one  big bag anyway.

[BS Wildcats]

15 minutes ago, Kountzer said:

You all lump every one who doesn't think exactly like you into one  big bag anyway.

And you all don't?  You're kidding yourself if you say otherwise.

[Kountzer]

Read the topics posted here.  Lib mentally, lib this lib that, snowflake blah blah blah, that's all you talk about, like a broken record.  But to each his own.  Whatever makes you feel good.

[Englebert]

10 hours ago, Kountzer said:

Read the topics posted here.  Lib mentally, lib this lib that, snowflake blah blah blah, that's all you talk about, like a broken record.  But to each his own.  Whatever makes you feel good.

And you can't argue a single point about lib this and lib that. The articles on here illustrate the mentally of the Liberals in the age of Trump. If you disagree, then argue the point.

And if you want to illustrate the mentally of the non-Liberals, feel free to post the articles and we can discuss. It seems to me the reason that the majority of articles on here show the Liberals in a bad light is a direct and corresponding indication of the current news, and the fact that the Liberals can't defend their own's actions. So if you are tired of Liberals getting called out, defend them. I bet even you know their actions are indefensible. But to come on here and try to place blame on people posting links is weak and childish. Your inaction is the problem, and misplacing blame is pathetic.

[Tigers2010]

Too many articles get posted on there anyway. We should post about what we think and what we see, rather than idiotic article after non credible source after party baiting news after another. This forum has become to hard to follow. Everyday its 10 new articles being posted with the sole intent to get people going. Quit playing into it.

[Englebert]

21 minutes ago, Tigers2010 said:

Too many articles get posted on there anyway. We should post about what we think and what we see, rather than idiotic article after non credible source after party baiting news after another. This forum has become to hard to follow. Everyday its 10 new articles being posted with the sole intent to get people going. Quit playing into it.

Playing into what? Are you suggesting that someone shouldn't post an article because they think somebody else might not want to see something that person can just ignore anyway?

[Tigers2010]

6 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Playing into what? Are you suggesting that someone shouldn't post an article because they think somebody else might not want to see something that person can just ignore anyway?

I'm suggesting that this section of SETX has turned into a joke, partly because people post ridiculous articles just to stir the pot.

[Englebert]

57 minutes ago, Tigers2010 said:

I'm suggesting that this section of SETX has turned into a joke, partly because people post ridiculous articles just to stir the pot.

I would suggest then to challenge the "ridiculous" article by stating why the article is ridiculous. Maybe after a discussion on the veracity of the article, if it is indeed ridiculous, then the poster might scrutinize his links more carefully. Just sitting back and fuming about a poster offering ridiculous links is childish. Join the discussion or ignore the posts. Complaining without offering a counter argument is misplacing blame.

And I'm curious as to what you mean by "stirring the pot". Is posting Liberal propaganda on a Conservative website "stirring the pot"? What about the opposite? Does it matter if the material is accurate? Do you think people are posting links on here to provide information, or just trying to piss off other posters? That could be an interesting discussion the next time someone "stirs the pot". Just call them out on it and see what the response is.

[Tigers2010]

38 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I would suggest then to challenge the "ridiculous" article by stating why the article is ridiculous. Maybe after a discussion on the veracity of the article, if it is indeed ridiculous, then the poster might scrutinize his links more carefully. Just sitting back and fuming about a poster offering ridiculous links is childish. Join the discussion or ignore the posts. Complaining without offering a counter argument is misplacing blame.

And I'm curious as to what you mean by "stirring the pot". Is posting Liberal propaganda on a Conservative website "stirring the pot"? What about the opposite? Does it matter if the material is accurate? Do you think people are posting links on here to provide information, or just trying to piss off other posters? That could be an interesting discussion the next time someone "stirs the pot". Just call them out on it and see what the response is.

I'm not fuming, I am laughing. What is your goal on this site? What do you spend hours a day on this site for? Honest question.

[Englebert]

13 minutes ago, Tigers2010 said:

I'm not fuming, I am laughing. What is your goal on this site? What do you spend hours a day on this site for? Honest question.

That line was for Kountzer. What makes you think I spend hours a day on this site? And so what if I do? Do my posts get any more or any less credible based on the time I spend on here? Do you have a point for asking the question?

Now about you. Do you feel so helpless that you are subjected to "ridiculous" articles that somehow you can't ignore them. Shouldn't you call out the ridiculousness of the articles instead of just complaining about their presence? So why do you attempt to deflect the conversation to a personal one about me? I could choose to ignore your post and complain about it, or I can call on you to explain your rationale. You can do the same for the ridiculous articles. It's not a hard concept. Blaming someone for posting ridiculous articles without challenging them is just ridiculous. I responded to these accusations to call out the ridiculousness of them. I fully expected the response to take a personal direction. I gleaned that tidbit of knowledge from hours on this site. Humorous isn't it. 

 

[Tigers2010]

13 minutes ago, Englebert said:

That line was for Kountzer. What makes you think I spend hours a day on this site? And so what if I do? Do my posts get any more or any less credible based on the time I spend on here? Do you have a point for asking the question?

Now about you. Do you feel so helpless that you are subjected to "ridiculous" articles that somehow you can't ignore them. Shouldn't you call out the ridiculousness of the articles instead of just complaining about their presence? So why do you attempt to deflect the conversation to a personal one about me? I could choose to ignore your post and complain about it, or I can call on you to explain your rationale. You can do the same for the ridiculous articles. It's not a hard concept. Blaming someone for posting ridiculous articles without challenging them is just ridiculous. I responded to these accusations to call out the ridiculousness of them. I fully expected the response to take a personal direction. I gleaned that tidbit of knowledge from hours on this site. Humorous isn't it. 

 

Ok. Like the Pluralist article on the millennial biking. Seems a little ridiculous. I don't know how much truth it is being a pretty biased site and what not. Even if it is believable, the sole purpose of posting it is to make fun of liberal. Not to educate or persuade. Read the comments on it. It's all about making fun of people, and the story line is probably not even true. What is the purpose?

And I am not getting personal with you? I asked you a serious question about your intent on the site. Are you looking to persuade or educate liberals on issues? Are you wanting to chat with like-minded conservatives? You don't have to answer, it just genuine curiosity. 

 

[LumRaiderFan]

8 minutes ago, Tigers2010 said:

Ok. Like the Pluralist article on the millennial biking. Seems a little ridiculous. I don't know how much truth it is being a pretty biased site and what not. Even if it is believable, the sole purpose of posting it is to make fun of liberal. Not to educate or persuade. Read the comments on it. It's all about making fun of people, and the story line is probably not even true. What is the purpose?

And I am not getting personal with you? I asked you a serious question about your intent on the site. Are you looking to persuade or educate liberals on issues? Are you wanting to chat with like-minded conservatives? You don't have to answer, it just genuine curiosity. 

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

It’s true...what’s the next ridiculous article?

[Tigers2010]

14 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

It’s true...what’s the next ridiculous article?

14 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

It’s true...what’s the next ridiculous article?

Scott Stewart, a vice president for tactical analysis with Stratfor, a geopolitical intelligence firm, said that before the attack, his company had ranked Tajikistan as medium for a terrorism threat, “and, quite frankly, the attack hasn’t changed that.”

“I would have no problem telling close friends to go to Central Asia,” Stronski said.

The U.S. travel advisory for Tajikistan on July 29, according to a State Department official, was at Level 1, the lowest, which means Americans traveling in the country should “exercise normal precautions.”

 

The article you posted says nothings about Americans going to "prove people are kind". 

This isn't ridiculous. 

[Englebert]

27 minutes ago, Tigers2010 said:

Ok. Like the Pluralist article on the millennial biking. Seems a little ridiculous. I don't know how much truth it is being a pretty biased site and what not. Even if it is believable, the sole purpose of posting it is to make fun of liberal. Not to educate or persuade. Read the comments on it. It's all about making fun of people, and the story line is probably not even true. What is the purpose?

And I am not getting personal with you? I asked you a serious question about your intent on the site. Are you looking to persuade or educate liberals on issues? Are you wanting to chat with like-minded conservatives? You don't have to answer, it just genuine curiosity. 

 

I doubt if I would have even known about the article if it wasn't posted on here, considering I spend all of my waking hours on this site alone. Given that fact, it is highly credible that link was posted for general knowledge, instead of making fun of Liberals. I'm guessing both. Does it have to have a purpose if it doesn't adhere to the Liberal talking points? What is your purpose for complaining about it? Are you actually trying to stifle 1st amendments rights? Maybe this site wouldn't be so one-sided if more people would start a discussion on an topic instead of complaining about the content of the links. I guess it's just too hard to defend the Liberal agenda.

If someone wrote an individual article about each of the persons/groups/organizations that were targeted by the IRS, should we complain about the articles being too one-sided and we need more balance?

Asking me my intent for this site cannot be construed any other way than personal. And I have noticed that 99% of the time questions like these are asked just as a deflection from the topic. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

[Tigers2010]

5 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I doubt if I would have even known about the article if it wasn't posted on here, considering I spend all of my waking hours on this site alone. Given that fact, it is highly credible that link was posted for general knowledge, instead of making fun of Liberals. I'm guessing both. Does it have to have a purpose if it doesn't adhere to the Liberal talking points? What is your purpose for complaining about it? Are you actually trying to stifle 1st amendments rights. Maybe this site wouldn't be so one-sided if more people would start a discussion on an topic instead of complaining about the content of the links. I guess it's just too hard to defend the Liberal agenda.

If someone wrote an individual article about each of the persons/groups/organizations that were targeted by the IRS, should we complain that the articles being too onesided and we need more balance?

Asking me my intent for this site cannot be construed any other way than personal. And I have noticed that 99% of the time questions like these are asked just as a deflection from the topic. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Right on. We have ran our course. I do not intent to "stifle 1st amendment rights". Just think some of the speech is useless and childish. That's just me. Keep fighting the good fight.

[Tigers2010]

 

One biased article after another. I am a Conservative by the way. Full on Trump supporter. Democrats are just barely harder to speak with than some of you.

[Englebert]

4 minutes ago, Tigers2010 said:

Right on. We have ran our course. I do not intent to "stifle 1st amendment rights". Just think some of the speech is useless and childish. That's just me. Keep fighting the good fight.

If you stick to responses like your last one instead of just complaining, this could be a very good site.

[LumRaiderFan]

7 minutes ago, Tigers2010 said:

Scott Stewart, a vice president for tactical analysis with Stratfor, a geopolitical intelligence firm, said that before the attack, his company had ranked Tajikistan as medium for a terrorism threat, “and, quite frankly, the attack hasn’t changed that.”

“I would have no problem telling close friends to go to Central Asia,” Stronski said.

The U.S. travel advisory for Tajikistan on July 29, according to a State Department official, was at Level 1, the lowest, which means Americans traveling in the country should “exercise normal precautions.”

 

The article you posted says nothings about Americans going to "prove people are kind". 

This isn't ridiculous. 

There you go, it’s called debating.

Apparently, you don’t think its too ridiculous to join in on.

As far as why I do this, it’s pure entertainment, just like you arguing over who, amongst a bunch of kneeling overpaid whiners, can throw the football better.

 

[Tigers2010]

5 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

There you go, it’s called debating.

Apparently, you don’t think its too ridiculous to join in on.

As far as why I do this, it’s pure entertainment, just like you arguing over who, amongst a bunch of kneeling overpaid whiners, can throw the football better.

 

I wasn't trying to debate really. I am one of ya'll. I was merely trying to see the reasoning for posting a million biased articles a week. Who are we trying to reach? We all agree with those articles, and the few dems on here don't. Nothing productive comes from it. That's all. Not trying to fight lol. 

Oh and I couldn't care less about who throws a football better. As you like to stir up the dems, I can't get enough of pissing off a Cowboy fan.

[Englebert]

4 minutes ago, Tigers2010 said:

 

One biased article after another. I am a Conservative by the way. Full on Trump supporter. Democrats are just barely harder to speak with than some of you.

Can you elaborate on the bias or ridiculousness in the article? I haven't read it yet, and might not. But since you think it is, I would love to know why you think this article should be banned from inclusion on this site.

[Tigers2010]

9 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Can you elaborate on the bias or ridiculousness in the article? I haven't read it yet, and might not. But since you think it is, I would love to know why you think this article should be banned from inclusion on this site.

The Headline and Source is all I need to know it's another one of the funny posts on here. I played the game on the last article and turned out I was right. Read it or take my word on this one. Either way, I am out. Keep fighting the good fight my man.