@jbluhm86 said:

Well, seeing as how in just the past two weeks:

• both of my parents have been hospitalized
• i've been ill with the flu
• have been working 12hr shifts at my job while sick in order to keep the lights on at home.

...perusing the Pol board in any greater detail than casual glances hasn't exactly been high on my priority list, so sorry I haven't been johnny-on-the-spot with my commentary. 

As for being on ignore, the only person that I have on ignore is Cal, and even then, I still tend to respond to him, for what its worth.

As for being on Cleve's "side", the only person's side that i'm on is myself, because that is who i'm ultimately responsible for. Cleve does many things which I do not agree with. Cal sometimes says things I agree with. There's no "side" for me to be on.

I still stand behind my original comment towards you, but it could be applied to most commentators on this board, including myself, on occasion. Sometimes I have the feeling that most of us on here value being able to burn other posters on here instead of focusing on where we all agree on things and building from there.

That's tough, Jblu.  12 hr shifts are really tough on anybody, especially with the flu and all. Seriously.

@gorka said:

I'm positive you could have made your concerns known much earlier ....or do you have Cleve on ignore too?

Or is it because Cleve is on your side? Which one?

Well, seeing as how in just the past two weeks:

• both of my parents have been hospitalized
• i've been ill with the flu
• have been working 12hr shifts at my job while sick in order to keep the lights on at home.

...perusing the Pol board in any greater detail than casual glances hasn't exactly been high on my priority list, so sorry I haven't been johnny-on-the-spot with my commentary. 

As for being on ignore, the only person that I have on ignore is Cal, and even then, I still tend to respond to him, for what its worth.

As for being on Cleve's "side", the only person's side that i'm on is myself, because that is who i'm ultimately responsible for. Cleve does many things which I do not agree with. Cal sometimes says things I agree with. There's no "side" for me to be on.

I still stand behind my original comment towards you, but it could be applied to most commentators on this board, including myself, on occasion. Sometimes I have the feeling that most of us on here value being able to burn other posters on here instead of focusing on where we all agree on things and building from there.

@jbluhm86 said:

This is why we probably never seem to have meaningful discussions on this board. Once you "other someone", it's easy to disregard them and kill any chance of meeting in common ground.

I consider myself a "small L" liberal, but I also own firearms/believe in the 2nd Amendment, prefer to have a limited government, and personally believe that AOC is an unhinged Retard.

  baloney. On the 2nd Amendment you're good, I think, but other times you argue points incorrectly - you don't get them right in the beginning. THAT makes it tough to discuss anything meaningfully with you.

@jbluhm86 said:

This is why we probably never seem to have meaningful discussions on this board. Once you "other someone", it's easy to disregard them and kill any chance of meeting in common ground.

I'm positive you could have made your concerns known much earlier ....or do you have Cleve on ignore too?

Or is it because Cleve is on your side? Which one?

@jbluhm86 said:

and personally believe that AOC is an unhinged Retard.

????

yeah, this..

@gorka said:

Why would he?

Most on your side don't even know who Devin Nunes is.

I suspect you're just irked because AOC got ridiculed again.

This is why we probably never seem to have meaningful discussions on this board. Once you "other someone", it's easy to disregard them and kill any chance of meeting in common ground.

I consider myself a "small L" liberal, but I also own firearms/believe in the 2nd Amendment, prefer to have a limited government, and personally believe that AOC is an unhinged Retard.

@vambo said:

Denver mayoral candidate flubs when asked what ‘NAACP’ stands for; blames 'momentary lapse'

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/denver-mayoral-candidate-flubs-when-asked-what-naacp-stands-for

Denver mayoral candidate Jamie Giellis stumbled this week when asked on a live Facebook program what “NAACP” stands for.

Giellis was being interviewed Tuesday on “The Brother Jeff Show,” which focuses on African-American issues. Off camera, a man asked her what the acronym means.

“National African-American ... ,” Giellis began, before the man told her she was wrong.

“You gonna test me on this?” Giellis asked, looking uncomfortable.

NAACP stands for “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.” The civil rights organization was founded more than a century ago and has chapters across the U.S.

Shay J., host of the program, asked Giellis if she knew what the NAACP did. Again, Giellis appeared caught off guard.

“Well, they do advocacy for the African-American community," she responded. "They talk about policy. They talk about issues. They stand up for some rights.”

Then social media pounced.

“If you’re running for mayor of Denver… you might wanna know what NAACP stands for, Jamimie Gillis. Also might wanna know what they do,” wrote one Twitter user.

Giellis’ rival, incumbent Mayor Michael Hancock, called the clip, “alarming.”

Shay J. told Denver's KCNC-TV that she gives Giellis credit for agreeing to the interview, but said Giellis should’ve been better prepared.

Giellis apologized Wednesday, explaining that she “momentarily struggled to recall” when she was asked what the NAACP was, Denver’s FOX 31 reported.

“Moments after the show, while collecting my thoughts, it came to me – the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. I told the hosts what it stood for and apologized for my momentary lapse,” she said.

Ugh when she starts to give the smile of a kid who is about to lie about a book report. "Well you can see by the cover there is a dog and a boy..."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/denver-mayoral-candidate-flubs-when-asked-what-naacp-stands-for

Denver mayoral candidate Jamie Giellis stumbled this week when asked on a live Facebook program what “NAACP” stands for.

Giellis was being interviewed Tuesday on “The Brother Jeff Show,” which focuses on African-American issues. Off camera, a man asked her what the acronym means.

“National African-American ... ,” Giellis began, before the man told her she was wrong.

“You gonna test me on this?” Giellis asked, looking uncomfortable.

NAACP stands for “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.” The civil rights organization was founded more than a century ago and has chapters across the U.S.

Shay J., host of the program, asked Giellis if she knew what the NAACP did. Again, Giellis appeared caught off guard.

“Well, they do advocacy for the African-American community," she responded. "They talk about policy. They talk about issues. They stand up for some rights.”

Then social media pounced.

“If you’re running for mayor of Denver… you might wanna know what NAACP stands for, Jamimie Gillis. Also might wanna know what they do,” wrote one Twitter user.

Giellis’ rival, incumbent Mayor Michael Hancock, called the clip, “alarming.”

Shay J. told Denver's KCNC-TV that she gives Giellis credit for agreeing to the interview, but said Giellis should’ve been better prepared.

Giellis apologized Wednesday, explaining that she “momentarily struggled to recall” when she was asked what the NAACP was, Denver’s FOX 31 reported.

“Moments after the show, while collecting my thoughts, it came to me – the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. I told the hosts what it stood for and apologized for my momentary lapse,” she said.

@logicisforsquares said:

Nunes is also suing newspapers for writing articles about him that he didn't like. So it isn't just Twitter. 

we literslly just had this discussion in the tech thread....these guys change their positions on issues with the same frequency they change tampons.

@logicisforsquares said:

If my position isn't clarified enough for you guys

are u prepared to "reclarify" this ppsition on a bi weekly basis for the duration of this universe? till all are one? cause ur going to regardless fyi...

@oldbrownsfan said:

I wasn't a huge fan of Trump's before but  I am now. Not because of his "charisma" but on policy he has been the best president since Reagan.

Actually Trump does have some charisma and when it shows is when he is out among the people. He is at his best at a factory speaking with workers. For a billionaire born into wealth he has a way of relating to ordinary Americans. He is not as polished as Reagan but Reagan had years as an actor behind a camera in Hollywood as well as years experience as governor of California before becoming president. Trump may be more of a populist than a true conservative but I have seen many former never Trumpers now supporting him because he has done well as governing as a conservative.

The democrat party has been taken over by the far left and I pray Trump wins re-election in 2020.

From a liberal I respect for his intellectual honesty :

Dershowitz: Nunes 'has no case at all' against Twitter

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/434932-dershowitz-nunes-has-no-case-at-all-against-twitter

Nunes should drop the suit. 

My gripe is 2A issues but we have talked that one to death. 

Dershowitz is on the money. I don't think it is going to go anywhere and if anything it will make internet trolls go at Nunes even harder.

@logicisforsquares said:

I am not a huge fan of Trump but if Nunes had a leg to stand on, Trump could sue a significant amount of social media users and newspaper outlets. Trump has a history of being litigious so I have my doubts Nunes has any leg to stand on if Trump is just choosing to ignore what is written/said about him.

I wasn't a huge fan of Trump's before but  I am now. Not because of his "charisma" but on policy he has been the best president since Reagan.

Actually Trump does have some charisma and when it shows is when he is out among the people. He is at his best at a factory speaking with workers. For a billionaire born into wealth he has a way of relating to ordinary Americans. He is not as polished as Reagan but Reagan had years as an actor behind a camera in Hollywood as well as years experience as governor of California before becoming president. Trump may be more of a populist than a true conservative but I have seen many former never Trumpers now supporting him because he has done well as governing as a conservative.

The democrat party has been taken over by the far left and I pray Trump wins re-election in 2020.

From a liberal I respect for his intellectual honesty :

Dershowitz: Nunes 'has no case at all' against Twitter

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/434932-dershowitz-nunes-has-no-case-at-all-against-twitter

Nunes should drop the suit. 

@oldbrownsfan said:

Maybe I will take the time to look into it or maybe not..got some projects going on today but Nunes is a lawyer and there has to be more to that suit than he was suing because people on twitter were saying mean things...that was settled law long ago when Jerry Falwell sued over being ridiculed and lost in court and Nunes had to have known that. Also even if Nunes was shadow banned which is possible that still would not be illegal. I don't know his motives but he is no fool, but I agree just after a superficial look into it he does not seem to have any kind of a case. As for discrimination against conservatives in general I would not object to at least looking into whether big tech has a stranglehold monopoly because they will not properly self regulate but the best idea I have heard yet is a watchdog group with ombudsman set up to handle consumer complaints and big tech to be answerable to...

Nunes is also suing newspapers for writing articles about him that he didn't like. So it isn't just Twitter. 

@logicisforsquares said:

My side? I could give a hot shit about AOC. My comment was a call back to the Tech thread where Nunes was suing anyone who ridiculed him.

Maybe I will take the time to look into it or maybe not..got some projects going on today but Nunes is a lawyer and there has to be more to that suit than he was suing because people on twitter were saying mean things...that was settled law long ago when Jerry Falwell sued over being ridiculed and lost in court and Nunes had to have known that. Also even if Nunes was shadow banned which is possible that still would not be illegal. I don't know his motives but he is no fool, but I agree just after a superficial look into it he does not seem to have any kind of a case. As for discrimination against conservatives in general I would not object to at least looking into whether big tech has a stranglehold monopoly because they will not properly self regulate but the best idea I have heard yet is a watchdog group with ombudsman set up to handle consumer complaints and big tech to be answerable to...

@gorka said:

Why would he?

Most on your side don't even know who Devin Nunes is.

I suspect you're just irked because AOC got ridiculed again.

My side? I could give a hot shit about AOC. My comment was a call back to the Tech thread where Nunes was suing anyone who ridiculed him. 

@gorka said:

Why would he?

Most on your side don't even know who Devin Nunes is.

I suspect you're just irked because AOC got ridiculed again.

Logic is cool. Not one of the loons.

WSS

@logicisforsquares said:

If a kid did this about Devin Nunes, he would be suing and menstruating on TV about it.

Why would he?

Most on your side don't even know who Devin Nunes is.

I suspect you're just irked because AOC got ridiculed again.